Many years ago, I conducted a series of pricing workshops around the country for principals from advice firms aligned with Deutsche Bank.
The bank was ‘franchising’ their wealth advisers, helping them take steps from being representatives to becoming successful business owners.
One of my roles was to provide them with the frameworks and skills necessary for developing better pricing models.
The CEO overseeing the transition believed that the skills and frameworks that enabled a combination of value and asset pricing would assist these new business owners with their comprehensive advice offerings.
This was a challenge as the majority of these advisers were ‘investment advisers’ stuck on traditional pricing models determined by the quantity of client funds rather than my approach, the quality of advice.
So, in one session, I presented a ‘normal’ comprehensive advice case study, asking every principal to review the case to ‘price’ the first-year fee they would typically charge.
As they shared their first year ‘numbers’, I wrote them up on a board for all to see.
The numbers were something like the following $4,500, $5,500, $4,000, $6,000, $4,750, $3,750, $3,500, $11,500, $4,750 and $6,250.
Hang on.
One of the principals asked, “Hey Mark? How did you get $11,500, and what do you do for that?”
Mark explained.
Another principal responded, “Hey, Mark. I’m confused. That sounds similar to what I do for $4,500.”
“If you like, I’m happy to share our approach.”
I suggested that, rather than circulate his terms, it would be great if Mark and the group were OK with him leading the discussion in next month’s session, sharing his terms and how he approaches and positions the advice.
Everyone was OK with that as they wanted to know how he was charging his fees.
Fast forward a month to our next session.
Mark demonstrates how he presents and positions his four-page, $11,500 terms of engagement for the case study client.
“Any questions?”
I’ll never forget what followed.
The impact was amazing.
Basically, the session erupted.
Mark didn’t return to his seat for the entire morning session.
Some principals were stunned into silence, trying to rationalise Mark’s approach.
Others were indignant – “Are you OK charging these types of fees? You don’t believe you are over-charging or ripping clients off?”
The braver ones asked, “We’re doing the same work for lesser fees with similar clients. What am I missing?”
There are basically three types of responses I’ve seen hundreds of times since that day.
The “Comfort-Zoners” are the most common.
This group reasons that Mark and his clients are different to them and their clients.
Thus, Mark’s models would not work or be applicable even though the cases were similar.
Comfort-Zoners are great advisers. Busy advisers. They deliver real value.
However, they are pricing themselves onto a treadmill – having too many clients at fees that they consider “fair”, which forces them to work harder each year for margins that keep shrinking.
The “Indignant”, however, get annoyed.
They don’t like advisers who are “getting away with charging way more than they should be.”
They even blame advisers like Mark for the enquiries and bad press that continue to plague the industry.
Interesting view. Completely wrong, but interesting.
The “Theorists” ask all the right questions in these sessions.
They love exploring options, taking notes, attending more sessions, building and rebuilding better frameworks.
But they are theorists.
As they never get the model perfect enough to trust it, they would not consider risking everything they have achieved with an untested, imperfect approach.
Then there’s Mark.
The “Just-Do-It” type.
Here’s what separated Mark from everyone else in that room:
It wasn’t his client base. It wasn’t his qualifications. It wasn’t even his advice process.
It was simply that Mark had done the work to articulate and price his value through his clients’ eyes.
Mark’s four-page terms focused in detail on why his team is engaging with every client, with less emphasis on the transactional steps involved.
His fee was attached to the significance of his advice rather than the various elements of his advice.
The others?
They were all stuck in the same place for their own reasons – comfort, philosophy, righteousness – but shared the same inaction.
They feared success.
They are terrified their clients might leave if they make the changes Mark made.
But here’s what happens when good advisers position value properly.
The vast majority of clients stay.
The risk is manageable, but the treadmill is certain.
Ultimately, their fear of success challenges their success.
As they don’t believe in charging a fee on value, they are left with fewer options to manage profits.
For them, profits are only improved by controlling costs, working harder, searching for greater efficiencies or finding more high-net-worth clients.
While important, Mark understood something more valuable: It’s far easier to price one client valuably than to work with three clients priced too low.
Here’s the thing that might sting a bit: If you’re working harder every year, if your team is maxed out, if you’re delivering comprehensive advice but your profit margins are not improving, you’re probably trapped in the same place, fearing your own success as those principals did over twenty years ago.
And here’s the hope: Mark wasn’t special.
He wasn’t a better adviser.
He decided to stop pricing based on what felt comfortable and started pricing based on the value his clients were actually experiencing.
The $4,500 advisers could have been $11,500 advisers.
They had the skills, the clients, the processes.
They just needed to do the work of repositioning how they presented and priced their value.
That work is learnable. It’s systematic. And it’s far less scary than staying on the treadmill.
The comfort-zoners in that room?
A few of those Deutsche Bank franchisee owners made the shift.
Not overnight.
But for some, real results were realised in 90 days.
With proven frameworks, proper support, and a community of like-minded advisers, they repositioned their fees, and their businesses underwent a transformation.
Fewer clients.
Better relationships.
Better profit margins.
The question isn’t whether an advice team is capable of charging appropriately for the value their clients experience.
The question is whether advice principals are ready to do the work to make it happen.
What do you reckon?
Jim
“P.S. If this hits for you and you’re ready to do the repositioning and repricing work, let’s talk. I work with 12 comprehensive advice firms at a time, helping them make this exact shift. Not theory – actual implementation. If you’re interested, reply ‘interested’ and I’ll send you details. If we engage before Christmas ’25, we’ll engage using 2025 fees before my 20% increase for 2026 engagement.”
Photo Credit: shutterstock_2109743600