Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt is the partner of willingnesstopay.com where they help companies create pricing models that radically accelerates growth and unlocks the value of their underlying technology. He has founded and sold two different companies, and he has a master’s degree from Harvard. He also has an upcoming book called “The Pricing Roadmap” which will be published this December.
In this episode, Ulrik enumerates four (4) things that he thinks are the most important in SaaS pricing. He also shares his methods on product segmentation, and explains why the traditional “good, better, and best” product tier is lacking some important details.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Why you have to check out today’s podcast:
- Learn about designing your models as well as the structure of SaaS pricing
- Find out how different ‘tiered packaging’ is to Mark’s idea of good, better, best
- Understand what prescriptive solution is and why you should not do it
“Usually, people underestimate the pricing power they have in the market. So, I see, even if you had to do it blind, the chances that you could make more money by raising prices, even poorly, is better than what you’re doing.”
– Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Topics Covered:
01:47 – How Ulrik got into pricing
05:43 – The top four things that really matter in SaaS pricing
08:22 – There are no perfect outcomes; only workable and functional outcomes
09:27 – How Ulrik does product segmentation
12:09 – What is prescriptive solution and why you should avoid it
15:19 – Ulrik’s attempt on product packaging with conjoint analysis
18:04 – What Ulrik likes about being a pricing consultant
19:45 – Ulrik’s thoughts on the three tiers of products (Good, Better, Best)
21:24 – How Ulrik actually defines the tiered packaging model
22:08 – The specifics of “Tiered Packaging”; how it’s different from good, better, best
28:30 – Ulrik’s pricing advice
29:59 – Connect with Ulrik
Key Takeaways:
“If you have segments that are so different that they need different pricing models and product models, that’s the first thing you need to figure out.” – Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
“There are two different high level tool boxes to do price discrimination; pricing matrix and packaging. Packaging runs on functionality, and pricing metrics on some volume or usage.” – Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
“There’s not a perfect outcome. There is a workable outcome, functional outcome to run through. And then you might want to go back and change something if there is a better outcome to be had.” – Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
People / Resources Mentioned:
- The Pricing Roadmap: https://www.willingnesstopay.com/saas-pricing-book
Connect with Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt:
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ulriklehrskovschmidt/
- Website: https://www.willingnesstopay.com/
- Email: [email protected]
Connect with Mark Stiving:
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stiving/
- Email: [email protected]
Full Interview Transcript
(Note: This transcript was created with an AI transcription service. Please forgive any transcription or grammatical errors. We probably sounded better in real life.)
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Usually, people underestimate the pricing power they have in the market. So, I see, even if you had to do it blind, the chances that you could make more money by raising prices, even poorly, is better than what you’re doing.
[Intro]
Mark Stiving
Today’s podcast is sponsored by Jennings Executive Search. I had a great conversation with John Jennings about the skills needed in different pricing roles. He and I think a lot alike.
If you’re looking for a new pricing role, or if you’re trying to hire just the right pricing person, I strongly suggest you reach out to Jennings Executive Search. They specialize in placing pricing people. Say that three times fast.
Mark Stiving
Welcome to Impact Pricing, the podcast where we discuss pricing, value, and the designed relationship between them. I’m Mark Stiving and today, our guest is Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt, and I will never say that again.
Here are three things you’d want to know about Ulrik before we start. He is the managing partner of willingnesstopay.com, and that is the coolest URL I’ve ever seen. He’s founded and sold two different companies, and he has a master’s degree from Harvard. Oh, and I saw a couple of videos of his on SaaS Pricing and agreed with every single word, so I thought I’d invite him on the podcast.
Welcome, Ulrik.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Thank you. Happy to be here. So, it’s good; I think you’re the one who saw the video, so it’s always good for you. Probably something that day that gets out there.
Mark Stiving
That somebody sees it.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah, exactly.
Mark Stiving
Hey, how did you get into pricing?
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
First, as a business owner. The first company I had, which was a media company focused on commercial real estate, and we would sell, we monetize all the media through conference tickets. And so, it would be like we would put on half day events on development opportunities and so and so area, and then we would sell tickets for the events for let’s say, $500. And then obviously, if you raise the prices, you make more money. And so, we, in the team, debated whether we would raise prices for, I think, six months. We had all the arguments like if we raise prices to $600, we can afford losing 60% of customers and so forth. And in the end, I had no process to actually answer the question except just try it, right?
So, we raised prices to $600 a ticket and just made those 20% extra. It’s just like zero impact on elasticity. So naturally, I waited like one Mississippi, two Mississippi and then I did it again, and then I shouldn’t have, you know, because then, actually, we hit some sort of barrier and we had to actually roll back and go back to $600.
And then, I sold the business, and the owner who took it over after I sold it then changed it to a subscription model where he would charge people, I think, $3,000 for all the conferences that they get to attend given a year, and then he tripled revenue. So, I think, that actually sort of is a great example of things I started to ponder after that. I was like, “okay, so one thing is the price point, but another thing is the model that you rev it into,” and that can be, in that sense, the pricing model is a part of the product itself.
So, fast forward, another couple of businesses and maybe almost a decade, and my wife actually, she studied at Harvard and came back and wanted to operationalize a lot of the things that she had been into over there, which was behavioral economics. And she asked me if I wanted to co-write a book on the psychology of pricing, which is, from an academic standpoint, something that we’ve just both been interested in. So, we wrote a book on the psychology of pricing and went into charm pricing and all these different aspects on it, published that, and then we needed to do a speaking tour on the book. And then people wanted me to help them with their pricing and I said yes. And then suddenly, I was a consultant. So that’s sort of the backstory.
Mark Stiving
Nice. I don’t know if you know this, but my dissertation was on $0.99.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah, I read that on your bio. It’s one of the questions I get most often. People, they feel they’re a little bit in on the know when they notice details like that and they start asking about it.
Mark Stiving
It’s funny that it does matter but very, very little. You know, worry about other things but not about that.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah. I usually run sort of a hierarchy of things to worry about, and actually, optimization comes sort of at the end, but things like this where you do sort of micro-optimization on charm pricing like 95 prices and 99 comes to the very end, right? But it does matter. And so, if you have all the structures right and you know what you’re selling and you have the volume to run data, you can squeeze out those extra percentages that really matter.
Mark Stiving
Right. And by the way, you can squeeze out the extra percentage if you don’t have everything right, but getting everything else right is worth way more than those couple little percentages of $0.99.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah, so the catch phrase I use is that “the money is in the structure and not in the individual price points”.
Mark Stiving
Nice. Tell us how you think about the structure of SaaS pricing. Do you have a hierarchy or you know, the top level that says these are the three things that really matter?
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
I think it sort of has to do with my entry point into pricing, which was the psychology of pricing. I have a master’s degree in finance, so it’s not like I don’t know how to run Excel sheets, but I think a lot of the companies that I started working with didn’t have the data that was necessary to run any kind of elasticity analysis and so forth. And also, it wasn’t something I had done professionally, and I think I was acutely aware that there are just other people that does it better. And then on the other hand, I had been operationally involved in running businesses for so long that I could just immediately realize that even if I came up with some optimal price, we needed to do a lot of other things as well, or maybe even before that for it to work.
So, my approach to pricing was as a design task. I think it usually goes something like this: Pricing needs to fit that product, and those two, it needs to fit the sales model or the acquisition model depending on how you do your customer acquisition, and then that needs to fit the service model. So, it’s the combination of these sort of service model that generates the commercial output. My focus is always on that – to generate pricing that fits the product model and so forth.
But from a design or structural perspective, I have four steps, simple SaaS pricing design model that I usually won’t resist. Figure out what the company is able to do. So, what are their capabilities? The example I always use is a railroad where you can take people from A to B. Then you do high level segmentation, which I call fencing, which is not in the traditional sort of revenue management type where you fence markets but more in the sense that if you have segments that are so different that they need different pricing models and product models, that’s the first thing you need to figure out. So, for trains, that would be freight transportation and passenger transportation. They’re so different that you need to sell them differently and market them differently and price them differently. Beneath that, you have the product model. So first, second, third class tickets, and then you have pricing, which is the longer you go, the more you have to pay. And then at the very end comes price points. You have this hierarchy of questions that are answered in a specific sequence in order to get to your complete model. So, segments, the product, pricing model, and price points.
Mark Stiving
I actually love that, and in a lot of ways, it fits the way I think about it. I usually think there are these three value levers, and I define those as market segmentation, your packaging, and your pricing metric. So, you could call those the same thing as your last three. And I like the fact that you put a hierarchy on them. I often think of them as iterative. So, I might want to change my packaging based on my pricing metric. Or sometimes there’s some flowback. But I think that in general, the way you’ve phrased them probably makes a lot of sense in terms of designing the initial models that we’re going to go through.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah. I agree that there’s flowback and that’s part of what a design process is, right? There’s not a perfect outcome. There is a workable outcome, functional outcome. So, you run through, and then you might want to go back and change something if there is a better outcome to be had. But you just don’t figure it out until you’re later in the process, right?
Mark Stiving
And I think the other thing that happens in a lot of businesses, and tell me if you see this much, the segmentation piece, companies just assume they have it right. They don’t think about it. And so, they built a product and they sell it to everybody and they call it generic. And then once they sit down and really think about “What are the problems we’re solving for who?”, then they realize, “Wow, there’s a whole different way to talk to our market to build products for a market to price for our market”.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
And maybe it’s just inherent laziness, but usually, when I think about segmentation, there’s these two levels; one is at that fencing level where we have totally different segments and we need to design differently for each of them. But down in the packaging, at the product packaging level, I usually segment based on “jobs to be done” framework where I try to find sources of demand first and then just package around those. I think the reasoning for this is that it’s the best concept I have found so far that you can use in a design process to really align the product department with the sales department.
So, the jobs to be done being that it’s not we’re not trying to find a problem; we’re trying to find a problem that has demand wrapped around it. Because really, if you find such a problem, then suddenly you can – for example, earlier today, I talked with a company that does an H.R. data analysis. And so, they do analysis of employee satisfaction and so forth. And so, we talked about “how should we package this?” And I said, “Well, what are they trying to get done by buying a solution like yours?” And we had a conversation and then a few things emerged. But one of the things are, for example, employee retention.
Employee retention seems to be something that all of their customers are focused on. They have budget for it. They have very clear understanding of the costs associated with this and so forth. And then we just can pull in features from there, from the software product and from their service offering and so forth, and wrap it around this particular outcome for the customer. We have a retention package, and then maybe right next to it, we have a recruitment package, and then we might have a performance management package and so forth. But each of these are identified precisely because they have budget and they do have attention. They have action inside of the customer’s organization that sort of tries to get this done, which makes it essentially have product market fit.
Mark Stiving
Yeah, and I have no qualms about that whatsoever. I agree completely. In fact, I often think about value, as companies have problems, when they solve the problem, they get some result, which is typically a measurable, quantifiable result, which yields to some dollar value or additional profit to the end customer. And so, it doesn’t bother me where we are in there as long as customers recognize it, right? That’s the way I think about it. If a customer is thinking in terms of customer retention or employee retention, then I think that’s great. Let’s talk about employee retention. But if they’re thinking in terms of “we have too much, too high turnover”, great. Let’s talk about the turnover and talk about the problems there.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Sure. I think that’s where we agree, like I think this is one of the gospels that I usually sing when I talk to startups is that a lot of startups I meet are – and these can be even let’s say not very early, but even later stage startups – are very much focused on solving a valuable problem with their customers, but they’re missing whether or not that customer actually has a demand for solving that problem, right? And usually, I call these prescriptive solutions. Like, I build a piece of software on the assumption that if only my customer would use the software to solve this problem, then it would generate value. But their customers just don’t care. They’re just busy doing other things. So, it’s a prescriptive solution. It’s something I think you ought to do, like you need to exercise and eat well, but 90% of people won’t do it.
Mark Stiving
Yes. Fabulous insight. By the way, I love this banter because I love thinking how you think and how I think. And so, the way I think about that is we need to make sure we’re going after people who have the problem, then we prefer people who know they have the problem, then we prefer people who are trying to solve the problem. It’s exactly what you just said, right?
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah. This is a really good clue as to whether you’re actually discovering something that does exist in the world. If you find other people that says the same thing using other words, right? Because then usually, we’re actually describing a real aspect of reality.
And so, I think part of my background is not as a formally trained pricing consultant. I essentially sort of picked up other frameworks, like design frameworks and so forth, to try and solve the problem of pricing. I like to speak to more actually educated people about it. It’s like, “okay, they thought about this for 20 years. I didn’t know that. I thought, I came up with it yesterday”. And that happens to me more than I care to admit. But there you go.
Mark Stiving
Yeah. Well, if you were in finance, I just want to brag for a second, I invented utility theory long before economists knew it existed.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah?
Mark Stiving
It was one of those aha moments I had. And then when I took economics classes, I realized, “Oh, they’ve been talking about this for a hundred years.”
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah, there you go. I know that feeling.
And what do you think about this: the concept of doing quantitative optimization of packaging in terms of measuring preferences and utilities with conjoint studies and all these things to create better bundles?
Mark Stiving
I think conjoint is brilliant if you can get enough respondents because you can get a decent perspective of the way people think, because people are making choices instead of asking them “how much would you pay for this or whatever other metric you want to use”. So, I’m a huge, huge fan of conjoint. I think an even better way to do packaging though is if you have a lot of customers and you’re tracking usage data, use the usage data as representations of who cares about what features. And I think that’s a much, much more effective way to do packaging.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Yeah. I have a lot of half-baked theory about how to measure these things because I’ve tried to create taxonomies of features, essentially, to do this kind of analysis. But so, my example is something like, usage is correlated with value, okay. But then you think about, “Well, what if I use the customer support a lot? Is that because I have a lot of issues with the product and I’m really annoyed with it? But if so, I actually would prefer not to use the customer support a lot, but I am, right? Because I’m constantly running into issues”. Common sense will solve like 95% of all these issues a lot. But if you wanted to teach, let’s say, computer how to measure preferences of utility, you run into problems like that. And then on the inverse side, you have features like source code escrow.
So, some of the startups I work with, if they have to sell to really high-end enterprise clients, sometimes these enterprise clients are demanding from the startup that they put their source code in escrow so if ever they go bankrupt, the enterprise clients is going to keep operating. So, this feature – you don’t want to use ever but just has to sit there, right? So, you have this situation where most features, it is true that the more you use them, the more valuable they are. But you have these exceptions where some features actually are inversely correlated, where more usage is actually sort of less valuable sometimes and others are just totally sort of uncorrelated at all. So, I’ve tried to come up with anything from hygiene theory to other kinds of taxonomies to just like, orchestrate features in order to do this kind of analysis. But I’ve got nowhere.
Mark Stiving
My perspective on that is I don’t need a computer to do it. I’m going to require a person to look at it and figure it out. Once you start looking at usage – and what I find fascinating when you look at usage closely – is people, we started the conversation with “people don’t know their market segments”. And if you start watching usage, what you’re going to see is some people use these three features a ton and other people don’t use them at all, but they use these other features a lot. And I can tell you right now, those are two different market segments. I don’t even know what the features are. Those are two different market segments because they’re solving different problems and doing different things. And so, when we start looking at our own usage using, I don’t know that I would even try to use A.I. or computerize this. I would always look at it and say, “Now, why is it that these people are using this? What are they trying to do that these people aren’t trying to do?” And so that’s how I would think about it.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
That’s what I do, too. Actually, the reason I am a pricing consultant is that for some reason, I find it endlessly fascinating to think about how these things work, because to me, it feels like a magic puzzle. You go in there and you have all these pieces and you have this sense that if you put them together just right, you can create fantastic results for these people that through the process you start to care about, right? And that, I just enjoy that very much. I don’t know why, but it’s just like my favorite thing.
Mark Stiving
And it has such a huge impact on your customers, right?
Okay, so I’m going to ask you one more question that I’m really curious about. Pontificate for a minute on good, better, best. The three tiers of products.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
I like tiered systems. I think the idea that you split them into “okay”, “worse”, and “worthless” isn’t quite right. I actually was sort of excitedly segueing off of our conversation we have a second ago which is usually this is – I see a lot of these good, better, best models created by people who have no understanding of what the product actually does for the customer. There is this tendency where we say, “Well, the best one should have all the most advanced features, the newest, and that we just spend a lot of resources developing. And then the first one, the good one, the worst of the three should be barely usable.” But really, usually what you’re doing is you’re just splitting one source of demand into sort of three, let’s say, affordability categories instead of actually identifying three individual sources of demand and then packaging according to that. And so, for example, with the good, better, best model, I see a lot of startups struggling with their good one, the entry level one, because it’s just not good enough. If they make it better, it cannibalizes the other ones and so forth. And I think the solution to this is just to change your framework entirely and just look at packaging differently, like with the jobs to be out there. But the tiered model I like to use all the time.
Mark Stiving
What do you mean when you say tiered model? Just to make sure we’re all on the same page.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
The idea that all the functionality in one bundle or package is included in one other and that they are substitute products. Like, I would never buy the basic and the advanced tier. I buy the advanced tier, and all the basic features are in that tier, right? As opposed to modules that have different functionality and can be bought independently of each other. So, for me, there are two different high level tool boxes to do price discrimination – pricing matrix and packaging. Packaging runs on functionality, and pricing metrics on some volume or usage. And together, you can pretty much solve for every customer.
Mark Stiving
I don’t understand something. You said you like tiered packaging. I think of that as good, better, best. When I define good, better, best, I think of the tiered packages – How much functionality am I giving you? And which package? And yet you seem to not like good, better, best. But you do like tiered. What’s the difference? What am I missing?
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
I did, for example, it’s one of the cases I used publicly – I did a pricing project for a large German manufacturing and logistics conglomerate. They do all the luggage transportation systems in airports, so they have a thousand airports globally and they do all their hardware. And they had come up with a software application for that. And essentially, they had created a four-step good, better, best model for that. And so, it was a data analysis software and it would be something like, well, we describe the data, then we diagnose the data, then we prescribe what to do and then we do something else.
So, it was sort of a classical machine learning AI escalation of sophistication. At one level, I could just see the data, then I could understand the data, then I could predict what would happen next and that I could simulate new scenarios. And then we looked at that and said, “Well, who would actually use any of these? Because it’s pretty obvious that you need to go pretty far back in the chain for it to be useful”. And then they were going into their customers organizations saying, “Well, it seems like the maintenance teams in the airports – they would want predictive maintenance because that’s really where the money is. The operational teams, they just want the described part because they’re just going to pull the data out and then use it in their own system. And then airport management would have something else.”
So, they were about to feature toggle all of these and say, “Well, the sales teams will figure out and maybe maintenance can buy one thing and operations can buy another. And basic combinatorial math showed that they would have more product combinations, than there would be airports in the world because of all this feature toggling that they were about to enter into. And then I essentially said, “Well, what is the first sales meeting always about?” And I call this the point of first demand.
So, whenever you enter with a new customer, what is always the first thing you talk about? And the thing that they always talk with their customers about first was predictive maintenance, always the entry point. So, it’s like, “Okay, why don’t we make maintenance the first package?” And everything you can do, every service, everything you can do around maintenance, every dashboard and so forth, we put that in the first tier. And then you ask yourself the question “If we solve maintenance, what is the next thing we can sell them or solve for them?” So, if they solve maintenance, the next thing they want to do is they want to solve operations. So, you do maintenance in Tier one and you do operations in Tier two.
And then the next thing you do is management because then you do a simulation of whether or not to build new terminal, and so forth. Then you have a tier structure that is maintenance, operations, management. And it’s not good, better, best. They’re just different. But because of the expansion lifecycle of the customer, they are sequential. They’re ordered in a specific way and you have that in your packaging. Does it make sense?
Mark Stiving
I understand the words. I would still call that good, better, best in the sense that better is everything good has plus more.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Sure. That’s what I’d say. Simply for me, just tiered structure. But that to me is something, let’s say more than that; it’s a specific version of a tiered structure to me. That’s how I use the words in ways.
Mark Stiving
Okay. And I also think good, better, best done well, tells a story. Here’s what you can do. It isn’t the features, it’s the capability. Or let’s go back to outcomes or results. What are the results you can get with good? What are the results you can get with better? What are the results you can get with best? So that’s how I often think about good, better, best. And a great example of that is when companies go to enterprise, if I’m going to sell a good version, I probably don’t have enterprise level features. But as soon as I sell the enterprise, I’ve got single sign on and extra security and a bunch of capabilities that really matter to the people who are willing to pay me more. And so that’s how I tend to think of the good, better, best packaging.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
I think I understand where a lot of people are coming from. And for me, I think it’s missing the crucial point that it’s good because it’s only good if it does something very specific. So, it needs to have a specific, complete, let’s say, job that it solves; will be the terminology I use, so it can do these things. And by the way, I usually say that enterprise is a job. And actually, when we compare features across a lot of different software applications, the features often have wildly different value depending on what kind of solutions they’re in there. But usually what happens is that as organizations grow large, they just need a specific set of features to use a software application like single sign on, audit trails, advanced roles and permission, PNL specific billing.
There’s a bunch of features that as you sell to large enough organizations, they need this hygiene list, right? So, they just need to cross it. It doesn’t provide value, just allows them to use the software. I have actually sometimes with the lock, in modular packaging used enterprise as a module; it’s an add on. It’s just a security compliance add on that just provides all these features depending a little bit on what kind of expansion and methodology you would have elsewhere. But really, it’s so case specific with how the sales narrative is performed within that organization, how you should actually run that product. And actually, also to some degree how different the sizes of customers you have are, right? So, some businesses sell to customers where the smallest and largest are like a 10x of each other and others, it’s a 10,000x, literally. And that matters a lot as well to what kind of packaging you can pull off.
Mark Stiving
Ulrik, this has been so much fun. I could talk to you for hours, I think. This is just a hoot. Well, we’re going to have to start wrapping it up, but I’m going to ask you the last question.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Sure.
Mark Stiving
What’s one piece of pricing advice you would give our listeners that you think could have a big impact on their business?
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
It’s going to be, it just could be the nights like you just do it. And I see so many people that just don’t do it. They procrastinate. And mostly, it’s fear-based, right?
Mark Stiving
What do you mean by just do it? Do what?
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Usually, people underestimate the pricing power they have in the market. So, I see, even if you had to do it blind, the chances that you could make more money by raising prices, even poorly, is better than what you’re doing. It’s the fear that by actually doing something, you will lose compared to losing out by not doing something. So, there is this vacuum of responsibility that if nobody touches anything, it’s nobody’s fault. And so, executives really need to own this and drive pricing to some extent, but it just needs to be done. It doesn’t happen on its own. Especially, it doesn’t happen in sales. Usually, it doesn’t happen in product either, even though they often own it. So, for me, the execution part is the most important part because you can bury yourself before you ever get anything done.
Mark Stiving
I love your phrase “a vacuum of responsibility”. That is just so spot on.
Ulrik, thank you so much for your time today. If anybody wants to contact you, how can they do that? Oh, and make sure you mention the new book that’s coming out.
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
My website is willingnesstopay.com. So, you can find the book there as well. But it’s published, I hope, just before Christmas. My publisher is trying to make me publish it just after Christmas because the issue tells me that there’s too much competition there. But it’s going to be called “The Pricing Roadmap” and it’s coming out through Houndstone Press and find it on Amazon. And if not, you can subscribe to sort of like a preorder list on my website and I’ll let you know in the newsletter.
Mark Stiving
Awesome. Thank you. And can anyone reach out to you on LinkedIn?
Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt
Sure. Just Google my name Ulrik Lehrskov-Schmidt. And I’m right there on LinkedIn, so they’re welcome to. Yeah.
Mark Stiving
Alright, perfect.
Episode 192 is all done. Thank you so much for listening. If you enjoyed this, would you please leave us a rating and a review? The easiest way to do that is to go to ratethispodcast.com/impactpricing, and your reviews are extremely valuable. And finally, if you have any questions or comments about the podcast or pricing in general, feel free to email me. [email protected]. Now, go make an impact.
Mark Stiving
Thanks again to Jennings Executive Search for sponsoring our podcasts. If you’re looking to hire someone in pricing, I suggest you contact someone who knows pricing people. Contact Jennings Executive Search.
Tags: Accelerate Your Subscription Business, ask a pricing expert, pricing metrics, pricing strategy
