OVERVIEW

Our pricing strategy is designed to guide prospects toward understanding the true value of Science Interactive’s solutions, using data-driven insights and a partnership mindset. Reps should first gauge the institution's pricing expectations and tactfully challenge low estimates by questioning how they arrived at those figures. By providing market data showing that students are willing to pay for flexibility (averaging $171), reps emphasize the broader value of online labs. Finally, reps align with the institution's goals by positioning SI as a growth partner focused on boosting enrollment and finding a balanced solution

(Link to Example Call)

Science Interactive Pricing Strategy 

1. Gauge Expectation:

   • Ask the institution: "What do you expect our solution to cost students, or do you have a budget in mind?"

      

2. Question Them If They Give a Low Price (e.g., $50):
   • If they give off a low price and allude to it being a mandate, "We have to stay under $100 dollars", we need to understand HOW they arrived at that target price. 
   • Tactfully challenge: "How did you arrive at that number?"

   • Often, there is no mandate—it’s a perception based on what “feels right.”

      

3. Provide Valuable Market Insight:

   • Inform them that across over 1,000 institution partners, the average cost of our solutions is around $171 (some upwards of $250, some below).

   • Emphasize that WE KNOW students are willing to pay this for the flexibility of completing labs online, which offsets costs such as parking, gas, childcare, and lunch.

      

4. Align and Partner:
   • Reaffirm that we’re growth partners—our goal is to find a solution that boosts enrollment, not price students out.

   • "Our motivation is not to create a $450 solution but to provide insight into what students are actually willing to Pay

      

5. Stats to Lean on
   • On a yearly basis, we run aggregated analytics and surveys across all of our client institutions across thousands of courses and in looking at this data from respondents:
   • 91% of students say it is extremely important for them to be able to that their science course(s) online
   • 72% of Students said the cost of the solution was aligned with the value of the materials in the kits and content. 

Psychology at Play:

1. Challenge Assumptions (Cognitive Dissonance):

   • By questioning how they arrived at their cost expectation, we introduce cognitive dissonance—a psychological tension between their assumption and reality, prompting them to reconsider their stance.

      

2. Social Proof (Market Insight):

   • Providing data from 1,000+ institutions uses social proof to show that other reputable institutions align with our pricing, making it easier for the prospect to justify.

      

3. Anchoring Effect:

   • Presenting the average price of $171 subtly anchors their expectation at a reasonable mid-point, while ensuring flexibility with examples of both lower and higher price points.

      

4. Scarcity of Resources and Value Proposition:

   • Highlighting how our solution provides flexibility and offsets other costs taps into the psychology of scarcity and value—students and institutions recognize the broader value beyond the initial cost, making it seem like a worthwhile investment.

      

5. Partnership Framing:
   • Positioning ourselves as growth partners shifts the dynamic from a purely transactional relationship to a collaborative, long-term relationship, making them more open to negotiating a reasonable price point.

This combination of tactics helps align institutions with the true value of our solution while ensuring that students remain willing to invest in it.