# Offer Ladder

#concept #offer-design #pricing

## Summary

A three-tier price structure — entry, core, top — designed **middle-out**: nail the core offer first, then bracket it above and below. A second worked example arrived 2026-07-23 ([[2026-07-23-make-my-first-100k-in-month]], [[dan-martell]]) with an explicit rationale the first lacked: **the flanking tiers are decoys** whose only job is to make the core tier sell. The two examples disagree on ratios, and the two sources are plausibly the same author — treat the structure as one school's recurring pattern, not a law.

`Status: tentative` — two examples, possibly one voice.

## Current Understanding

**The ladder built live on-camera** ([[2026-07-17-design-the-perfect-offer]]):

| Tier | Price | What it is | Client gets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry | $444 (AI Jumpstart) | 90-min working session | One workflow built with them |
| **Core** | **$997/mo** | The productized monthly | 1 personalized AI agent + dashboard + 1 new workflow/month |
| Top | $5,000/mo (AI Ecosystem) | Full deployment | Rolled out business-wide + team training + monthly call |

**Middle-out is the actual insight.** Anchor on the core tier first, then design entry and top around it — it's easier to move a prospect up or down from a defined middle than to build up from scratch. This also composes with the backwards math in [[pricing-from-value]]: the core tier *is* the price you divided your revenue target by, so the ladder is derived from the target rather than guessed.

**The stated bracketing rule** (checklist item 5): entry ≈ 40–50% of core, top ≈ 5× core. Checked against the live example: $444 / $997 = 45% ✓, and $5,000 / $997 ≈ 5× ✓. The rule is arithmetically consistent with the example — but the example is also the only evidence for the rule, so this confirms nothing. It may simply be a description of one ladder.

**Tier shape, not just price.** The structure that varies across tiers isn't only cost but *who does the work and how far it reaches*: entry is done *with* the client once; core is recurring delivery *for* them; top is deployment *across* their org plus training. That progression mirrors the DIY → DWY → DFY ladder in [[productized-service]], from a different source — the one point of cross-source support this page has.

**The second ladder — decoys around the core** ([[2026-07-23-make-my-first-100k-in-month]]):

| Tier | Price | Delivery | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low — DIY | ½× core ($500/mo) | Playbooks handed over, client executes | Anchors the low end |
| **Core** | **1× ($1,000/mo)** | **Productized service — you do it** | **The one you sell — 100/month = $100K** |
| High — DFY | 10× core ($10,000/mo) | Everything managed + team training | Decoy that makes core look like a steal |

Same skeleton as the 07-17 ladder (DIY-ish entry, productized ~$1K/mo core, org-wide top), same DIY→DFY leverage progression across tiers — but this source states outright what the first only implied: *both flanking tiers exist so the middle tier prints*. Under the decoy reading, questions like "do entry buyers ascend?" partly dissolve — the flanks aren't meant to convert, they're priced anchors. Note the ratios differ: entry ½× vs. ~45%, top **10×** vs. **5×**.

## Evidence

- The $444 / $997 / $5,000 ladder table — [[2026-07-17-design-the-perfect-offer]]
- "Anchor on the core tier first, then design entry and top around it" — [[2026-07-17-design-the-perfect-offer]]
- "Build a 3-tier ladder around that core (entry ≈ 40–50% of core, top ≈ 5× core)" — checklist item 5, [[2026-07-17-design-the-perfect-offer]]
- "Middle-out ladder design — nail the core tier, then bracket it above and below" — §8, [[2026-07-17-design-the-perfect-offer]]
- Indirect support for a *different* ladder (leverage, not price): DIY → DWY → DFY — [[2026-06-15-17-ways-first-client]]
- Second ladder ($500 / $1,000 / $10,000 monthly), decoy rationale, "sell the core 100× = $100K" — [[2026-07-23-make-my-first-100k-in-month]] ([[dan-martell]])

## Related Pages

- [[pricing-from-value]] — the core tier's price comes from backwards math
- [[productized-service]] — each rung must be a productized outcome, not a time bucket
- [[outcome-based-selling]] — tiers should differ by outcome scope, not hours included
- [[2026-07-17-design-the-perfect-offer]] — the origin
- [[overview]]

## Contradictions / Uncertainty

- **Two examples, unstable ratios, and possibly one author.** The 07-17 ladder brackets at ~45% / 5×; the 07-23 ladder at 50% / **10×**. The second example doubles the top-tier multiple, so the "rule" wobbles even inside the school that uses it. Worse for independence: the 07-17 speaker is unnamed and plausibly [[dan-martell]] himself (see [[dan-martell]] Contradictions) — if so, this is one person's habit observed twice, not replication. What *is* consistent across both: a ~$1K/mo productized core, a DIY-ish half-price entry, and an org-wide top tier.
- **The two sources disagree on what the flanks are *for*.** 07-17 treats all three tiers as sellable (entry $444 sessions were sold); 07-23 says the flanks are decoys that exist to be declined. Different theories of the same structure — a real design decision the vault can't settle.
- The $444 entry tier is a one-off 90-minute session while core and top are monthly recurring — so the "40–50% of core" comparison is between a one-time fee and a monthly one. The ratio is arithmetically tidy but compares unlike units, which weakens it further as a rule.
- **The rest of the vault argues for *one* package, not a price ladder.** Rodenko, AB Analytics, and Tony all describe a single fixed-price productized offer after 2–3 identical projects ([[productized-service]]); none tiers it into entry/core/top. AB Analytics' DIY→DWY→DFY is a *leverage* progression (who does the work), not three price points of the same service. So the middle-out **price** ladder remains confined to the US coaching school (two examples, possibly one voice). Whether a solo operator should ladder prices at all, or just ship one DFY package, is unresolved — and the independent-source weight still leans toward one package.

## Next Questions

- Does the ladder help or dilute focus before product-market fit? (The other source's advice implies: ship one package first.)
- Should the entry tier be recurring too, to make the ratio meaningful?
- What's the actual conversion path — do entry buyers ascend to core, or are they a separate audience?