It competed on content, with a single price for very different programs.
The institution talked about content, professors, and facilities, and charged a similar price across programs with very different prospect profiles. It had no read on what each segment valued or who it was really competing against.
The symptom: every pricing and messaging decision was a bet, not a read of the market.
We measured value with evidence and translated it into decisions.
We measured which attributes drive the enrollment decision and how much weight each carries.
We estimated how much each segment is willing to pay and where its ceiling sits.
We mapped the brand's real position against the relevant competition.
We translated the evidence into a value proposition and sales messages.
Actionable evidence: what to charge and what to say, by segment.
Value hierarchy
What drives enrollment and how much each attribute weighs, by segment.
Price ceiling
How far each program's price can rise before demand drops.
Competitive map
The brand's real position against the competition that actually matters.
Proposition and messages
A value proposition and six messages ready for the sales team.
Institutions and programs that compete on content and price, and need to know what the market values before setting price or messaging.
Anonymized case. Figures expressed as an index (base 100 = current price) and normalized shares; they illustrate the type of decision the product enables, not any client's actual figures.
