Proposal: Fixed-Price / Lower-Tier Service Offerings (Draft for Team Sign-Off)

Purpose: Propose a pricing-structure shift inspired by the “Lisa’s law firm” operating model: keep some work on hourly/retainer, move other work to fixed price where it’s low maintenance and easy to stand up.
Status: Proposal only — does not change current pricing. Use for team alignment and for conversation with Lisa (John Temple’s wife) to compare notes on how she did it and how we preserve margins as we adapt pricing to the market.
Date: 2026-02-23

1. Reference: Lisa’s Law Firm (John Temple, Feb 19)

John described his wife Lisa’s firm (5–6 people, run from home) and the operating model shift they made:

Before: Hourly billing for everything.
After:
- Some work still billable hour for clients who want it.
- Most work moved to subscription + flat-fee services.

Why they did it (in John’s words):

“She’s all in on automation… partnered with a bunch of different companies, piloting AI tools.”
“She’s already shifted her whole model from hourly billing to… she still does some [hourly] for people who want it, but she’s actually more into subscription pricing and flat fee services.”
Core logic: “She’s got her stuff done really, really well, optimized with all these tools. She has her 20 years of legal knowledge built into this. Because something doesn’t take her five hours to review doesn’t mean… if she was doing it now, she can review it in a half hour. That doesn’t work for her because she can’t make a living that way. But it also doesn’t work for the client—billing them for five hours. So let’s do it as a flat fee. There’s no timer when we talk. She’s really efficient. And you get the benefit because the overall cost is lower.”

Takeaway for Brainforge:
We have work that is repeatable, well-scoped, and low maintenance. Doing it on a pure hourly or high minimum retainer can (1) price us out of deals, and (2) misalign incentives (we get faster; client still pays for “hours”). Moving that work to fixed price (and, where it makes sense, subscription-style) can get more deals through the door and align price with outcome.

2. Current State: Offer & Service Inventory

2.1 Named offers (GTM / campaigns)

Offer	Current pricing model	Price (anchor)	Duration	Notes
Edge-to-Activation	Fixed (phased)	Phase 0 $8 K + P ha se 1$ 10K = $18 K u p f r o n t; P ha se 2$ 15K/mo optional	2–4 weeks per phase	Low-cost wedge; Phase 2 optional for setup-only.
Digital Ads Visibility Audit	Fixed	Lite *$1, 500 ; S t an d a r d $ 5,000*	2–3 weeks	Lite is our lowest listed fixed price.
dbt Audit / Onboarding Accelerator	Fixed	$10,000	3–4 weeks	Audit + roadmap.

2.2 Service catalog (SERVICE_CATALOG.md)

Service	Price range	Duration	Model
Data Audit & Tracking Validation	$5,000	1–2 weeks	Fixed
Data Tool Implementation	$5,000+	2–3 weeks	Fixed (complexity bands)
AI Copilot Integration Sprint	$7,500+	1–2 weeks	Fixed
ETL Platform Assessment & Implementation	$15, 000-$ 30,000	3–4 weeks (assessment); 6–8 w/ impl)	Fixed / add-ons
Data Warehouse Setup & Modeling	$20, 000-$ 40,000	4–6 weeks	Fixed + add-ons
Product Analytics Platform Build	$25, 000-$ 50,000	6–8 weeks	Fixed + add-ons
Tech-Enabled Platform Build	$75, 000-$ 200,000+	8–16 weeks	Fixed (scope multipliers)
Full-Service Data Management	$10, 000-$ 30,000/month	Ongoing	Retainer (hour bands)
Dedicated Resource	$16, 000-$ 40,000/month	Ongoing	Retainer (hourly equivalent)

2.3 Gaps vs. “live” pricing

Digital Ads Visibility Audit has a Lite $1, 500 * * t i er; t h e main * * r a t ec a r d / c a t a l o g * * s t i l l l e a d s w i t h * *$ 5K Data Audit and $10K+ minimums for many engagements.
Edge-to-Activation has a $8K Phase 0 wedge, but that structure is not yet reflected as a standard “entry tier” across the rest of the pricing docs.
So: we have examples of lower, fixed-price entry points, but they are not yet fully reflected in a single, consistent “low tier” story across offers and catalog.

3. Categorization: Low Maintenance / Easy to Stand Up vs. High Touch

Use this to decide what to move toward fixed price vs. keep hourly or retainer.

3.1 Criteria (for team to refine)

Low maintenance / easy to stand up:
- Repeatable scope; known deliverables; limited back-and-forth; we’ve done it many times; tools/playbooks in place.
- Candidate for fixed price (and possibly lower price point to get deals through the door).
High touch / variable:
- Scope varies a lot by client; discovery-heavy; ongoing changes; multiple stakeholders; custom integrations.
- Keep as hourly, T&M, or retainer (or higher fixed fees with clear change-order process).

3.2 Draft mapping (to validate with delivery/sales)

Service / offer	Ease to stand up	Maintenance once live	Proposed pricing direction
Data Audit (general)	High	N/A (one-off)	Fixed — already $5 K; co n s i d er “ L i t e ” v a r ian tl ik eD i g i t a l A d s ($ 1.5K–$2.5K) for narrow scope.
Digital Ads Visibility Audit (Lite / Standard)	High	N/A	Fixed — already; use as template for other “audit lite” offerings.
Data Tool Implementation (single tool, standard stack)	Medium–High	Low if well-documented	Fixed — keep; consider 2–3 standard packages (e.g. “Segment + warehouse,” “GA4 + GTM”) at set prices.
AI Copilot Integration Sprint	Medium	Low	Fixed — keep; good candidate for “fixed and predictable.”
Edge-to-Activation Phase 0 (Signal Recovery Audit)	High (once playbook is set)	N/A	Fixed — already $8K; template for “audit + roadmap” wedge.
Edge-to-Activation Phase 1 (Pilot)	Medium	Low during pilot	Fixed — already $10K.
ETL Assessment only (no implementation)	High	N/A	Fixed — consider a “light” assessment at lower fixed price (e.g. $7.5 K -$ 10K) as entry.
ETL Implementation / Warehouse / Product Analytics	Medium–Low	Medium–High	Fixed with clear scope or T&M for overages; retainers for ongoing maintenance.
Platform Build / Custom	Low (variable)	High	Keep project-based + retainer; avoid under-pricing with a single “low” fixed number.
Full-Service Retainer / Dedicated Resource	N/A	High	Keep retainer / hourly; optional “subscription” packaging (e.g. fixed monthly fee for a defined scope) later.

3.3 Summary

Strong candidates for “low-tier” fixed price:
- Audits (general data, digital ads, signal recovery, ETL assessment-only).
- Single-tool implementation (standard stacks).
- Short, repeatable sprints (e.g. AI Copilot, Phase 0 / Phase 1 pilots).
Keep as higher-touch / retainer or hourly:
- Full platform builds, ongoing maintenance, dedicated embedded team, highly custom work.

4. Proposed Direction (for team sign-off)

Do a full audit of all service lines and offers (this doc is a start). Align on which are “productized” enough to name and price as fixed.
Formalize a “low tier” in our pricing story:
- Entry fixed-price band (e.g. $1, 500-$ 10,000) for audits, lite assessments, and narrow-scope implementations.
- Document these in rate card and service catalog so sales can quote them without custom scoping every time.
Use Lisa’s pattern explicitly:
- Fixed price for work that is repeatable and easy to stand up (we’re efficient; client pays for outcome, not hours).
- Hourly / retainer (or higher fixed with change orders) for variable, high-touch work.
No change to current pricing yet.
- This proposal is to align the team and to pressure-test the structure (e.g. with Lisa).
- After sign-off and any follow-up research, we can update RATE_CARD, SERVICE_CATALOG, and offer docs in a second step.

5. Offer categories and proposal workflow

Offer categories (low-maintenance vs higher-touch) map to fixed vs variable pricing. Named offers = GTM campaigns; Service Catalog = capabilities. Proposals: (1) reference catalog capabilities, (2) structure using a named offer when one fits, (3) use offer + catalog for duration and price. Deliverable: PRICING_AUDIT_OFFERS_AND_MATRIX_2026-02.md (full audit, Lisa’s pattern, pricing matrix).

6. At every proposal: what’s automated (low-cost-to-serve) vs. what we build

Rule for the team: At every proposal, it must be explicit what scope is in our base low-cost-to-serve (productized, automated, or fixed playbook) vs. what scope we build (variable, custom, higher touch). That clarity is how we preserve margins while adapting price to the market.

In the proposal we state	Why it matters
What’s in the fixed / low-cost-to-serve base	Templates, checklists, limited touchpoints, review-only deliverables, or automation — so we’re not burning hours. Client pays for outcome; we deliver efficiently.
What we build (variable)	Custom discovery, multiple workshops, implementation, ongoing support — priced at expected range (labor + complexity) or retainer. We don’t underprice this as fixed.
Where the line is	If the client adds scope, we know immediately whether it stays inside the fixed band (and we say “that’s included”) or it crosses into “we build” (and we add a change order or separate phase).

Where this is defined: PRICING_AUDIT_OFFERS_AND_MATRIX_2026-02.md §1.6 (low-tier limits by category: scope limits = what fits the fixed base; expected range = what we build).

Outcome: Everyone on the team knows exactly what is automated / in the base low-cost-to-serve and what is built by us — at every proposal — so we don’t accidentally give away variable work at fixed prices and compress margins.

7. Conversation with Lisa: discussion guide

Use this section to compare notes with Lisa (John Temple’s wife) on how she made the shift and what we can learn as we define our fixed low-cost-to-serve vs. variable pricing.

7.1 What we’ve done so far (to compare)

Formalized a low tier ( $1 K -$ 3K) as a “door opener”: scope must be productized (templates, checklists, limited back-and-forth) so we’re not doing heavy custom work. Not every category gets one (e.g. no $1 K -$ 3K for full platform implementation or retainers).
Defined scope limits by category (see pricing audit §1.6): e.g. Data Audit low tier = single function, review-only memo, no implementation. If scope exceeds that, we price at “expected range” (labor + complexity).
Ran a real example: A lead didn’t accept $5 K; t h ey w an t e d$ 1.5K– $2 K . W es t r i pp e d sco p e t o f i tt h e l o w - t i er l imi t s (r e v i e w - o n l y, 2 t o u c h p o in t s, o n e m e m o, n o im pl e m e n t a t i o n) an d co u l d o f f er$ 2K without giving away variable work. What stayed “in the base” vs. what we’d build in a follow-on follows the same pattern as §1.6.
Discovery → pricing: When we get discovery call output, we map scope to a catalog category, check if it fits low-tier limits; if yes, fixed price; if no, expected range from our dynamic pricing model.

7.2 Questions to ask Lisa (compare notes)

How did you decide what to move to flat fee? (e.g. by type of matter, by client, by “we can do this in half an hour now”?)
How do you price a new flat-fee service? Do you start from “what it used to take” or “what we want to charge” or something else?
How do you handle “we’re faster now”? (John’s line: “Because something doesn’t take her five hours to review doesn’t mean… she can review it in a half hour. That doesn’t work for her… or the client. So let’s do it as a flat fee.”) Do you ever worry about leaving money on the table, or is the volume + client satisfaction worth it?
What stays hourly or variable? What work did you explicitly not move to flat fee, and why?
How do you keep margins when you lower the price? (e.g. automation, playbooks, junior staff for the routine part, strict scope so scope creep is a change order?)
How do you communicate to the client what’s “in” the flat fee vs. what’s extra? So they don’t assume everything is included.

7.3 What else we want to learn (as we define fixed vs. variable)

Scoping discipline: How do you say “no” or “that’s a separate engagement” when the client asks for more without compressing your margin?
Team alignment: How did you get everyone (partners, staff) to agree on what’s “productized” vs. “we build” so proposals are consistent?
Subscription vs. one-off: You moved to subscription + flat fee. For us, retainers are still variable. What would “subscription-style” look like for us (e.g. fixed monthly fee for a defined scope of support)?
Iteration: How often do you revisit which services are flat fee and at what price? Do you raise flat fees when you get even more efficient?

8. Next Steps

Step	Owner	Note
Team review of this proposal	Robert / GTM	Sign-off on categorization and direction.
Conversation with Lisa	Robert	Use §7 discussion guide; compare notes on flat fee, margins, scoping; capture what we can apply.
At every proposal: automated vs. built	Delivery / Sales	State explicitly what’s in the base low-cost-to-serve vs. what we build; use pricing audit §1.6 as pattern.
Use audit + matrix for proposals	Delivery / Sales	Reference PRICING_AUDIT_OFFERS_AND_MATRIX when constructing proposals; map client need → catalog → offer.
Update rate card & catalog (after sign-off)	TBD	Add explicit “low tier” and align named offers to one consistent story.

9. Links

Audit + matrix (deliverable): PRICING_AUDIT_OFFERS_AND_MATRIX_2026-02.md
Current pricing: README.md, RATE_CARD.md, SERVICE_CATALOG.md
Offers: Edge-to-Activation, Digital Ads Visibility Audit
Services map: SERVICES_MAP.md

Brainforge Knowledge

Explorer

PROPOSAL_FIXED_PRICE_SERVICE_TIER_2026-02