by Jim Stackpool | Dec 1, 2025

Wayne is a client of mine.

He has a problem with two of his clients, Tom and Jerry.

Tom is paying Wayne $22,800 a year and rarely makes contact.

Jerry is paying $10,780 and is constantly in contact.

They have opposite problems.

But they are paying for similar value.

They don’t want to lose control of their financial lives.

Take Tom…

He and his wife, Tina, travel a lot.

They spend as much time as they can visiting a growing number of their grandkids on the other side of Australia, as well as in Canada and the UK.

The prosperous construction supplies company that they both founded from their kitchen table when Tawrrific won the Cup is now being run by their eldest son.

They rarely make contact with Wayne.

They are too busy.

Jerry, however, is struggling big time.

He started a fitness equipment hire business.

Then Covid hit.

Boom.

By the end of COVID, he had ten franchisees.

By late 2024, he had a business partner in Melbourne, establishing new franchisees in the south-eastern Bay suburbs.

Then his marriage fell apart.

Then his Victorian business fell over.

Now he is falling over.

Like most advisers, Wayne wants to help both Tom and Jerry.

But it is difficult.

You see, Wayne’s team wants to drop Jerry.

He needs too much support.

Wayne understands but believes Jerry is highlighting a larger problem with his fees that needs to be addressed.

That’s why he reached out to me.

But first.

What is the problem?

THE PROBLEM

Is it an over-charging and under-charging problem?

Is Tom possibly paying too much while Jerry is paying too little?

Is it a client selection issue?

Should Wayne heed his team’s concerns that clients like Jerry are not only unprofitable but potentially can become a distraction that might affect relationships with clients like Tom?

No one ever wants to give their ideal clients any reason to leave.

Is something wrong with Wayne’s proposition?

He has engaged both Tom and Jerry as a principal adviser.

While it is the right proposition for Tom, is it the right one for Jerry?

Should Jerry have a narrower, more limited proposition focusing on managing his personal assets, insurance, and cash flows, and should Wayne stop trying to be his personal CFO for maybe later?

The problem is that Wayne is trying to help both Tom and Jerry using conventional pricing.

WHY CONVENTIONAL PRICING FAILS

Conventional pricing makes three assumptions:

First, Wayne may be overcharging Tom and undercharging Jerry.

Second, the more inactive a client is, the more ideal they are.

Third, that fees are justified based upon effort or financial products under management.

The conventional approach doesn’t price what is of value for both Tom and Jerry – the responsibility he takes for their financial lives and the consequences he ensures they avoid.

The conventional approach also does not assume that clients can determine the value of transparent advice presented in dollar amounts.

Conventional pricing is failing advisers like Wayne.

Wayne cares for clients like Tom and Jerry.

He needs a pricing model that actually reflects that – not one that punishes him for it.

THE MODEL

So what did we do?

Wayne needed a model to price for the responsibility he and his team take with his clients.

Tom and other clients like him are paying transparent, dollar-based fees (i.e. not percentages) so they can maintain control of their financial lives.

When we priced Jerry’s situation against similar clients, the gap was clear – Jerry’s fees needed to at least double.

Uncomfortable conversation?

Of course.

Necessary?

Absolutely.

Jerry agreed to proceed.

Wayne’s path to his new model has been nearly a year, with several uncomfortable but productive fee conversations.

He is more confident in explaining, in one sentence, why his highest- and lowest-paying clients pay what they do.

If you can’t do that, without resorting to asset, product or effort-based pricing, you may have Wayne’s old problem.

Wayne’s nearly year-long process to reset this pricing model meant 2025 was his transition year.

If you’re still working with Wayne’s old problem, 2026 could be yours, or you could keep pushing it to 2027.

That is an important reflection before making your 2026 plans.

Jim

PS – I ran a session last week on the process I took Wayne through. If you want a copy, reply here with “Wayne”, and I’ll ensure you get it.

Photo Credit: iStock_Opportunity