--- title: Asymmetric Performance-Based Pricing type: article created: '2026-04-05' updated: '2026-04-05' source_docs: - raw/2025-10-10-client-health-pulse-check-internal-93456393.md tags: - pricing - performance-pricing - service-guarantees - business-development - retainer-model - asymmetric - strategy layer: 2 client_source: null industry_context: null transferable: true --- # Asymmetric Performance-Based Pricing ## Overview During the 2026 strategy session, Mark Hope outlined a shift away from flat-fee retainer-only pricing toward models that tie Asymmetric's compensation to client outcomes. The core motivation: reduce perceived risk for prospective clients and align Asymmetric's incentives directly with client growth. This approach is intended to support new client acquisition and differentiate Asymmetric from commodity marketing agencies. See also: [[wiki/clients/asymmetric-applications-group/_index]] and [[wiki/knowledge/agency-operations/asymmetric-2026-growth-strategy]]. --- ## The Problem This Solves Prospective clients at the $10–20M revenue tier are often skeptical of marketing agency retainers. The objection is predictable: *"What if it doesn't work?"* A flat monthly fee with no performance linkage places all the risk on the client. Performance-based pricing and guarantees are designed to shift that dynamic. --- ## Model 1: Service Guarantee (90-Day Benchmark) The primary model discussed is a **results guarantee tied to a 90-day benchmark**: 1. At engagement start, Asymmetric and the client agree on a specific, measurable outcome to be achieved within 90 days (e.g., lead volume, cost per lead, revenue lift). 2. If the benchmark is not met by day 90, Asymmetric continues working **at no charge** until the target is reached. 3. Internally, the guarantee creates strong accountability — the team is motivated to hit the benchmark to avoid triggering the free-work clause. > *"We're going to come right out of the gate, the very first moment, knowing the thing we need to achieve in 90 days, and we're going to internally be figuring out how to make sure we don't trigger that guarantee."* > — Mark Hope **Key design considerations:** - Benchmarks must be realistic and mutually agreed upon upfront — not aspirational stretch goals. - The guarantee applies to the retainer fee, not ad spend or third-party costs. - This model works best when Asymmetric controls the primary levers (ads, SEO, content, CRM) rather than being dependent on client-side execution. --- ## Model 2: Performance Fee (% of Incremental Revenue) A second model under consideration is a **profit/revenue participation fee**: - Asymmetric charges a base retainer (lower than standard) plus a percentage — approximately **5% of incremental revenue** attributable to Asymmetric's work. - This model is being piloted with **Cramp-Aid** as a test case (see action items below). - It is particularly suited to clients where revenue is directly trackable and Asymmetric's contribution is clearly attributable (e.g., e-commerce, direct lead-gen with closed-loop CRM data). **Advantages:** - Lowers the upfront cost barrier for new clients. - Creates a long-term revenue upside for Asymmetric as clients grow. - Reinforces the "underdog strategy partner" positioning — Asymmetric wins when the client wins. **Risks and open questions:** - Attribution complexity: how is "incremental revenue" defined and measured? - Requires reliable client-side revenue reporting or CRM integration. - May be difficult to apply in industries with long sales cycles or indirect attribution (e.g., senior living, B2B services). --- ## Value Ladder Context These pricing models sit within a broader **value ladder** framework Mark is developing: | Tier | Monthly Investment | Scope | |---|---|---| | Entry | ~$4,000 | Focused single-channel engagement | | Mid | ~$7,000–$8,000 | Multi-channel retainer (target for new clients) | | Full-service | ~$15,000 | Complete outsourced marketing department | The guarantee and performance-fee models are most applicable at the mid and full-service tiers, where the engagement scope is broad enough to demonstrate measurable impact within 90 days. --- ## Positioning Rationale The guarantee and performance pricing are not just financial instruments — they are **sales and positioning tools**. The pitch: > *"We're going to help you overcome asymmetric odds. You are the underdog, and we're going to help you win."* Offering a guarantee signals confidence in the methodology and reduces the perceived risk of a $7,000–$15,000/month commitment. It also filters for clients who are serious about growth — a client unwilling to commit even with a guarantee is unlikely to implement recommendations effectively. This connects to the broader client selectivity principle: [[wiki/knowledge/agency-operations/asymmetric-client-selection-criteria]]. --- ## Action Items (from source meeting) - [ ] **Mark Hope** — Contact Cramp-Aid with a performance-based deal proposal (pilot client for the % of incremental revenue model). - [ ] **Mark Hope** — Include pricing model details in the business plan to be presented at the next all-hands meeting. - [ ] **Mark Hope** — Begin Asymmetric website revamp incorporating the new positioning and guarantee messaging. --- ## Open Questions - What is the right baseline period for measuring "incremental" revenue — trailing 3 months, trailing 12 months, or a negotiated baseline? - Should the guarantee be offered universally or only to clients above a certain retainer threshold? - How do we handle clients who fail to implement recommendations — does the guarantee still apply? - Is there a cap on the free-work period (e.g., maximum 2 additional months)? --- ## Related - [[wiki/knowledge/agency-operations/asymmetric-2026-growth-strategy]] - [[wiki/knowledge/agency-operations/asymmetric-positioning-underdog-strategy-partner]] - [[wiki/knowledge/agency-operations/asymmetric-client-selection-criteria]] - [[wiki/clients/asymmetric-applications-group/_index]] - [[wiki/meetings/2026-04-05-asymmetric-client-health-pulse-2026-strategy]]