A value map: benefit against price

"Expensive" only means something next to benefit. To compare offers, first turn benefit into one number that reflects what buyers value, not what you like about yourself.

1. List the attributes buyers care about and give each a weight (weights add up to 1). From twenty parent interviews, for teen programming: visible progress 0.4, one-to-one attention 0.3, real projects 0.2, a flexible schedule 0.1.
2. Score each offer 0–10 on each attribute.
3. Benefit = sum of weight × score.

Worked example, the private tutor (scores 7, 9, 5, 6): 0.4 × 7 + 0.3 × 9 + 0.2 × 5 + 0.1 × 6 = 2.8 + 2.7 + 1.0 + 0.6 = 7.1.

Both the weights and the scores are assumptions: the team's judgement, checked with parents. Say so wherever the number is used.

A value map plots each offer by benefit (across) and price (up). Then draw a market line: the price the market typically asks for each level of benefit. For teen programming it's roughly 100 UAH per benefit point, so a benefit of 7.1 "should" cost about 710.

Where an offer sits against the line says how its price compares with its benefit:

• on the line: priced like the market for what it gives (the private tutor, 700 for 7.1, line 710);
• above the line: buyers pay more than the benefit usually warrants; the offer must win on something the map leaves out, or lose buyers;
• below the line: buyers get more benefit per hryvnia, by the seller's choice or by accident.

The map doesn't show costs, so it says nothing about the floor. It's a picture of the ceiling side: how buyers are likely to see price against benefit.

To read the map, compare each offer's price with the line at its benefit level: line price = benefit × 100.

• Premium one-to-one school: benefit 8.0, line 800, price 950: 150 above the line, the only clearly over-priced offer.
• Private tutor: 7.1, line 710, price 700: on the line.
• Klasna 16-pack: 8.1, line 810, price 720: below.
• Online group course: 4.7, line 470, price 320: below.
• Offline coding club: 5.5, line 550, price 450: below.
• Free videos: 2.7, line 270, price 0: far below, as free offers always are.

Being above the line isn't automatically fatal: the premium school may win on something the scores leave out. But it needs that something, or it loses buyers to offers that give the same benefit for less.

Klasna sits below the line, yet parents call 720 expensive. They compare it with the private tutor's 700, see a higher price, and stop there. The benefit gap behind it (visible progress, real projects, a flexible schedule) is invisible to them.

So the first problem is communication, not price. Cutting to 700 would make Klasna an even better deal on paper and still leave parents unaware of why. The better move is to make the benefit visible where parents compare: progress reports they can see, finished teen projects on the page, the schedule flexibility spelled out.

A rule worth keeping: when buyers call a below-the-line offer expensive, fix what they can see before you touch what they pay.

Klasna's distance below the line is easy to compute: line 8.1 × 100 = 810, price 720, so 90 below. Leo's reaction, "then let's go to 810 tomorrow", treats that gap as proof.

It isn't. The weights come from twenty interviews, the scores are the team's judgement, and the line is a rough fit. So the 90 is room on the map, a hypothesis that Klasna might charge more without losing parents.

Before any move, two steps: check willingness to pay with real buyer behaviour (the next module's topic), and then choose a stance on purpose, whether Klasna wants to sit near the line or stay below it as a deliberate good deal. Moving to the line by default skips both.

A value map belongs to one group of buyers, because the weights are theirs. Dana drew one for her adult learners and found very different priorities from Klasna's parents: evening slots and lessons on their own work topics far outweigh everything else.

On that map her 600 sits well below the line. Cheaper evening group courses in the city score low on exactly those top two attributes, so they sit near or below the line too: a cheap offer scoring low is what a map expects.

The sound reading: Dana may have room, or a good-deal stance she wants on purpose. It isn't proof she should raise the price next month, because the weights and scores are her own guesses. The next steps are the same as Klasna's: check what learners actually pay, then choose where to sit.

A value map is only as good as its inputs, and three of them are assumptions:

• Weights differ by segment. Night-shift families might weigh the schedule far higher; on their map the free course climbs. If weights differ a lot, draw one map per segment.
• Scores are perceived benefit. If parents don't know about Klasna's projects, the projects don't count for them, however good they are.
• Attributes can be missing. The premium school might offer something the map didn't score, such as a certificate parents value.

Two things the map is not: it isn't limited to products (it works for services just as well), and the market line isn't proof of what any buyer will pay. It describes the market's typical price per benefit. Treat the whole map as a hypothesis to test.

When an offer above the line keeps selling, the tempting conclusion is that its buyers are irrational. The more useful one: the map is missing an attribute those buyers value.

The premium school charges 950 against a line of 800. If parents keep buying, it probably gives something the four scored attributes don't capture: a recognised certificate, a famous teacher, a prestige that matters to some families. Find it, and either add it to the map or accept that those buyers belong to a different segment.

How it fits together: benefit scores come from buyer weights, the market line shows the typical price per benefit, positions show over- and under-pricing, and every input is an assumption to check. The next lesson uses the map to choose a price stance on purpose: premium, middle or economy, for Klasna and for Dana.