Why Your Prospects Negotiate Price

What "It's Too Expensive" Really Means

When a prospect says "it's too expensive," they're not talking about your pricing. They're saying one of these three things:

1. "I Don't Understand the Value"

Your Solution section is weak. Your benefits are vague. The prospect doesn't see what they're getting concretely. So they only compare cost, without clear return.

2. "I'm Not Convinced I Have This Problem"

Your Context & Challenges section didn't create urgency. The prospect doesn't feel the pain strongly enough to justify an investment. You didn't quantify the cost of inaction.

3. "I Don't Believe You"

Your Proof is insufficient. The prospect doubts you can deliver what you promise. Paying a lot for something uncertain is too risky.

The common mistake: Treating price objections as a pricing presentation problem. It's like repainting a collapsing house.

Same Price, Different Process, Opposite Result

Two consulting agencies propose the same service at $50,000.

Agency A:

• Generic proposal
• Sloppy context: "You want to digitize your processes"
• Solution = list of 15 deliverables with no connection to specific problems
• No ROI calculated

Result: "$50,000 is too expensive, can you do $35,000?"

Agency B:

• In-depth 45-minute discovery
• Precise context: "Your teams waste 12 hours/week on manual data entry, costing $180k/year in lost productivity"
• Solution showing how each element solves an identified problem
• Calculated ROI: $180k saved - $50k invested = $130k net benefit year 1

Result: "$50,000 makes sense given the impact."

Same price. Different process. Opposite result.

Agency B did real discovery. They understood business challenges. They quantified the problem. They demonstrated value. Price became a logical conclusion, not a shock.

If your prospects systematically challenge your pricing, it's not a pricing problem—it's a discovery and argumentation problem.

The 3 Mistakes That Kill Your Deals

Mistake #1: Itemizing Every Hour Like a Plumber's Quote

Here's what we see in B2B proposals:

INVESTMENT - Breakdown:

• 2d Senior UX Designer @ $900/d = $1,800

• 2d UI Designer @ $750/d = $1,500

• 1d Project Manager scoping @ $850/d = $850

• 3d React Front-End Dev @ $700/d = $2,100

• 2d Front-End integration @ $650/d = $1,300

• 1d Back-End API Dev @ $800/d = $800

• 0.5d DevOps deployment @ $950/d = $475

• 1d QA testing @ $600/d = $600

• 1d User training @ $700/d = $700

• 0.5d Documentation @ $600/d = $300

[...+ 30 more lines]

TOTAL: $47,825

Why this is a massacre:

You give the prospect 40 negotiation points instead of one. The discussion shifts from "the value of the solution" to "the cost of each resource." The prospect becomes an accountant: "Why 2 days of Senior UX Designer? Wouldn't 1.5 days work? Why does DevOps cost more?"

You atomize the value. The prospect no longer sees a solution solving their problem. They see 40 cost lines to optimize.

What to do instead: package by value and outcome

INVESTMENT: $47,825

✅ Diagnostic & Strategy Phase: $12,000

You get:

→ Complete audit of your journey with identified and quantified friction points

→ Strategic recommendations prioritized by business impact

→ Deployment roadmap with quick wins + structural transformations

→ Executive committee presentation with complete decision support

Outcome: Clear vision of actions to take and validated expected ROI

✅ Design & Development Phase: $28,000

You get:

→ Complete UX/UI design validated by user testing

→ Platform developed, tested, and deployed to production

→ Integration with your existing tools operational

→ Technical and user documentation delivered

Outcome: Operational solution adoptable by your teams

✅ Support Phase: $7,825

You get:

→ Training for your teams on use and administration

→ Priority support for 3 months post-launch

→ Weekly adjustment meetings first 6 weeks

Outcome: Guaranteed team autonomy

The difference:

• ❌ "2d Senior UX Designer" = internal resource (means of production)
• ✅ "UX design validated by user testing" = concrete deliverable (outcome obtained)

The prospect evaluates price based on the outcome they get, not production cost. They project into the benefit, not your process.

Exception: If the client REQUESTS day/hour breakdown (public tender, strict process), provide it AS AN APPENDIX. Never in the proposal body.

Mistake #2: Putting Price Before Creating Value

Investment section on page 3 of 10 = you lose the deal.

The brain anchors its perception on the first information. If you present "$50k" before demonstrating the problem's depth, your solution's effectiveness, your credibility, and ROI, price is evaluated in a vacuum. It automatically appears high.

Correct order:

1. Context & Challenges (what's the problem worth?)
2. Solution (how do you solve it?)
3. Proof (why believe you?)
4. ROI if applicable (what's the return?)
5. Investment (logical conclusion)

This progression respects decision logic. Each section prepares acceptance of the next.

Mistake #3: Leaving Price Alone + Bad Vocabulary

What NOT to do:

❌ Page 8: COSTS

The total cost for this project is $50,000.

[end of section]

[3 pages later]

Page 11: ROI & IMPACT

This project will help you reduce costs by $120k/year...

The brain processes information sequentially. "$50k" followed 3 pages later by "generates $250k in value" = "too expensive" judgment already formed.

Plus, the word "cost" = immediate pain. Not future return.

What to do instead:

✅ INVESTMENT & RETURN

Investment: $50,000

This investment generates:

• Operational cost reduction: -$120k/year

• Revenue increase via optimization: +$180k/year

• Return on investment: 6 months

• Net benefit first year: +$250k

→ Your $50k investment transforms into $250k in value created the first year.

Terms:

30% on order | 40% mid-project | 30% on delivery

Vocabulary to use:

• ✅ Investment
• ✅ Financial commitment

Vocabulary to ban:

• ❌ Price / Rates / Costs

ALWAYS link price to value in the same section. Never leave your price alone.

How to Present Your Pricing Intelligently

Principle #1: Anchor High and Offer 3 Options (Not 1, Not 5)

The brain uses the first information as a reference for evaluating everything afterward.

Bad presentation:

Investment:

• Essential Offering: $15,000

• Advanced Offering: $28,000

• Premium Offering: $45,000

→ Brain anchors on $15k. The $45k appears "3x too expensive."

Good presentation:

Investment:

In your industry, comparable solutions range from $60k to $150k.

Our approach:

• Premium Offering: $45,000

• Advanced Offering (recommended): $28,000

• Essential Offering: $15,000

→ Brain anchors on $60-150k. Your $45k appears reasonable. The reverse order (Premium first) changes perception.

Why 3 options:

• 1 option = yes/no → low acceptance
• 2 options = expensive vs cheap → binary comparison
• 3 options = which one? → favorable comparison
• 4+ options = too much choice → paralysis

Essential / Advanced / Premium structure:

Essential ($15k) - Anchors the minimum

• Version that partially solves
• Makes Advanced attractive by contrast

Advanced ($28k) [TAG: Recommended] - Your target

• Complete solution that fully solves
• The offer you want to sell

Premium ($45k) - Makes Advanced appear "reasonable"

• Enhanced version with additional services
• Makes Advanced accessible by comparison

Studies show 65-75% of prospects choose the middle option. It's extremes avoidance: neither the cheapest (perceived as incomplete) nor the most expensive (perceived as superfluous).

Consulting firm example:

• Essential ($15k): Audit + Written recommendations
• Advanced ($28k): Audit + Recommendations + Roadmap + 2 workshops [Recommended]
• Premium ($45k): All Advanced + 3-month support

Result: 71% choose Advanced | 18% Premium | 11% Essential

Prospects compare among your 3 options, not to competitors. You control the reference.

Principle #2: Find the Balance Between Transparency and Complexity

Too much detail = confusion. Too little = distrust.

Too simple ❌

Investment: $50,000

→ "What's included? Why this amount?"

Too complex ❌

• Senior consultant: $1200 x 8d = $9,600

• Junior consultant: $650 x 15d = $9,750

[...40 lines...]

TOTAL: $50,000

→ "I'll negotiate every line"

Optimal balance ✅

Investment: $50,000

This package includes:

✓ Complete diagnostic phase

  → Audit of your processes with inefficiency mapping

  → Comparative analysis vs best practices

  → Quantified recommendations by priority

  → Outcome: Clear vision of potential gains

✓ Strategy & scoping phase

  → 12-month roadmap with measurable milestones

  → Change management plan

  → Executive committee validation

  → Outcome: Budgeted action plan with identified sponsor

✓ Management phase

  → Deployment tracking with weekly check-ins

  → Adjustments based on field progress

  → Roadblock management

  → Outcome: Secured implementation

✓ Unlimited email support 6 months

Terms:

30% order | 40% mid-project | 30% delivery

→ "I understand what I'm getting. The price is justified."

Simple rule: Maximum 5-7 elements. Beyond that, the brain saturates.

Group into VALUE blocks, never atomic tasks. The prospect must see what they get (deliverable, outcome), not what you do (resources, time).

Pricing Reveals Your Sales Process

All the pricing techniques in the world won't compensate for sloppy discovery.

According to an analysis of over 1 million B2B sales calls by Gong.io, salespeople who ask 11-14 targeted questions during discovery achieve a 74% higher closing rate compared to those who ask fewer than 10. Salesforce confirms: salespeople who excel at discovery show 30% higher closing rates.

A proposal from thorough discovery (45 minutes or more of structured call, open questions, issue reframing, impact quantification) generates drastically fewer price objections than a proposal from a 15-minute "tell me what you need" call.

How it works:

Thorough discovery → Context that precisely reframes problem with numbers → Solution directly addressing challenges → Calculable ROI → Price becomes logical

How it fails:

Sloppy discovery → Generic context → Solution = catalog → No ROI → "Naked" price → Systematic objection

The rigor on your Investment section forces upstream process excellence. Impossible to present price well without justified value. Impossible to justify value without understanding the problem. Impossible to understand without thorough discovery.

FAQ

My prospect only compares prices and always chooses the cheapest. What should I do?

You haven't differentiated your offer on value. If the prospect only compares prices, it's because they perceive all offers as equivalent. The problem isn't price presentation—it's your positioning.

Solution: precisely reframe client context so they recognize themselves in YOUR words, demonstrate your unique methodology, quantify specific ROI with numbers from their situation.

A proposal that differentiates is no longer compared on price. It's compared on approach, methodology, expected results. If you're commoditized, it's your sales process problem.

Should I offer 3 options or just one "all-in" offer?

Always 3 options (Essential/Advanced/Premium).

Single offer = binary decision (yes/no), low acceptance. Three options = comparative decision (which one?), higher acceptance.

The 3-tier architecture transforms "do I buy?" into "which do I buy?" You guide toward Advanced (your target) by positioning it as recommended.

65-75% of prospects choose the middle option. This isn't manipulation—it's facilitating their decision.

How do I handle "your competitors are 30% cheaper"?

This objection confirms your differentiation is insufficient.

Incorrect response: justify your price.

Correct response: refocus on measurable value. "I understand. What matters to you beyond price? Timelines? Method? Measurable results? Support?"

Then demonstrate more value on these criteria. Quantified example: "Our rate is 30% higher, a $15k difference. In return, our clients see 40% faster implementation and ROI achievable 6 months earlier.

On a project generating $300k/year once deployed, 6 months delay = $150k in lost revenue. Our $15k difference saves you $150k in delays."