Should We Raise Our Prices?
in Accounting & Advisory Firms

The short answer

The question is never whether to lift fees in general. It is which clients, by how much on compliance versus advisory lines, and what drop in realisation rate or compliance retention you are prepared to accept. For accounting firms, this shows up in a particular place. The numbers that carry the answer are 82% realisation rate and 71% billable utilisation, and the complication specific to this industry is that compliance fee compression and inability to shift hours to advisory without reducing statutory output. The general version of this problem and the one you are actually in have different first moves.

Fee setting is the fastest lever available: it changes the next invoice without new clients, added chargeable hours or extra fte. Managing partners still hesitate, which leaves realisation rates stuck at 82% while utilisation sits at 71% and work-in-progress grows.

A useful review does not produce one target hourly rate. It produces a split of the book by work type: which compliance clients sit below the value delivered at current realisation, which advisory engagements already test the ceiling, and where inconsistent discounting is eroding gross margin rather than policy.

Any effective adjustment will lose some compliance clients. If the change leaves the 91% retention figure untouched, the increase was too small to restore margin after the existing 82% realisation rate.

How to tell this is actually your problem

These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.

✓ Almost every compliance engagement is won at the quoted fee with little push-back on scope.
✓ Discounts or write-downs appear on a large share of bills and differ sharply between partners with no recorded rationale.
✓ Charge-out rates have stayed flat while chargeable hours and utilisation have not offset the compression in compliance fees.

The move that usually makes it worse. Applying the same percentage increase to every hourly rate and fixed compliance fee, which compresses the clients already at low realisation further and still leaves advisory work under-priced relative to the 34% win rate on new advisory mandates.

Who this is for — and who it is not

It is for you if you run or finance an accounting firm and almost every deal closes, and closes quickly. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.

It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.

Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.

What this looks like when the analysis is actually run

Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on an accounting firm. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.

The subject is Pennmark Advisory, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — 43.2m total revenue with 210 fte staff.

This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.

What the engine does with this question

This question routes to Pricing & Revenue Optimization, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For accounting firms it works through 82% realisation rate, 71% billable utilisation, 34% advisory win rate and 91% compliance client retention, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.

You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.

Questions people ask about this

How much can I raise prices without losing customers?

There is no general answer, and the useful analysis is per segment. What can be said is that the loss you fear is usually concentrated in a group whose economics you would improve by losing them.

Should I raise prices for existing customers or only new ones?

New first is safer and slower; existing is where the money is. A defensible sequence is to move new-customer pricing, watch win rate for a quarter, then bring existing customers up at renewal with notice.

What if my competitors are cheaper?

Then you are selling against them on something other than price, or you are not — and that is the real question. Competing on price without the cost structure to support it is the most reliable way to lose money at increasing volume.

Is this different in accounting & advisory firms than in other industries?

Materially, yes. Compliance fee compression and inability to shift hours to advisory without reducing statutory output — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are 82% realisation rate, 71% billable utilisation, 34% advisory win rate, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.

What data do I need before this analysis is worth running for an accounting firm?

Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on 82% realisation rate and 71% billable utilisation. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.

When is Percision the wrong tool?

Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.

Does Percision replace a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, or AI implementation team?

Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.