Research
Pricing evidence for a service with no public benchmark
A founder believes the price sits a third too low, in a niche where nobody publishes a rate, and needs evidence rather than encouragement.
- Category
- Research
- Year
- 2026
- Type
- Pricing and positioning research
- Basis
- Client engagement
01
The situation
The business sells a specialist service to other businesses. Fees have not changed in two years, the diary is full, and the founder believes the price sits roughly a third below where it should.
The obstacle is not nerve. Nobody in this niche publishes a rate, so there is nothing to compare against and no way to judge whether a rise would be met with a shrug or a lost client.
The decision had been raised and dropped twice. What was needed was evidence, and an honest account of how much the evidence could settle.
02
What we looked at
- Eleven comparable providers, chosen against written criteria so the set can be defended rather than assembled by convenience.
- Every public signal of price: published rates, tender and framework documents, advertised salaries for equivalent roles, packaged offers, and the language used in place of a number.
- How each provider justifies its fee, and what is included at each level.
- Ten recent buying conversations from the founder's own records, read for the objections that surface before price is mentioned.
- What the evidence could not establish, listed as plainly as what it could.
03
What Toyzie did
- 01
Turned the question into a decision
The question moved from what should we charge to whether a stated day rate a third higher can hold, and what would have to be true for it to. The second version can be answered with evidence.
- 02
Defined and justified the competitor set
Eleven providers against written criteria: same buyer, comparable scope, active in the last twelve months. Three obvious names were excluded and the reason for each was recorded.
- 03
Built the price picture from public sources
Where no rate is published, other public documents still carry one. Figures were assembled from tender records, packaged offers and advertised salaries for equivalent roles, each attributed to its source.
- 04
Read how value is justified at the top of the range
The providers charging most describe scope, seniority and risk differently, not simply more expensively. That is a positioning finding rather than a pricing one, and it was reported separately.
- 05
Wrote the brief against the decision
A short decision brief: what the evidence supports, what it does not, two positioning options with their trade-offs stated, and the questions only a conversation with a client can settle.
04
The work
- A competitor matrix of eleven providers, comparing scope, structure, stated inclusions and every price signal found.
- A price picture expressed as a range rather than a single figure, with the confidence in each part of it stated.
- A positioning summary of how the upper end of the market describes what it sells.
- A six page decision brief, written to be read once and acted on.
- A full source list, so any figure can be checked without coming back to the studio.
| Provider | Price signal | Positioning |
|---|---|---|
| Provider A | Day rate advertised on a public tender document | Leads with scope and seniority |
| Provider B | Packaged pricing, no day rate published | Leads with turnaround speed |
| Provider C | Salary bands for the equivalent in-house role used as a proxy | Leads with sector specialism |
| Provider D | Framework agreement rate on a public register | Leads with accreditation and risk cover |
| Provider E | No public rate, price given only after a call | Leads with a named senior team |
| Provider F | Day rate implied by a published day-count package | Leads with breadth of service |
05
The result
The engagement turned an instinctive pricing question into a documented decision with a source trail.
- Eleven comparable providers were selected against written criteria rather than familiarity.
- Every price signal in the report could be traced back to a named public source.
- Pricing evidence and positioning evidence were separated, so each could support the right decision.
- The final brief stated what the evidence supported, what it could not settle and the available options.
06
Closing thought
Research earns its place when it changes something. This project shows the preference for a narrow question answered with sources over a broad one answered with confidence.
If the same problem is sitting in your business, start there.
Describe the situation in your own words. The first reply will set out how Toyzie Studio would approach it and what could realistically be established first.