Problems › Should We Raise Our Prices? › Education & Training Providers
The question is never whether fees should rise. It is which programmes, by how much per enrolment, and what shift in enrolment yield or completion rate will follow. The version of this question that applies to education and training providers is not the generic one. To reach 13.44 m usd revenue requires 6,720 enrolments yet incremental support costs erase 0.17 m usd of ebitda — so an answer that ignores 14.4 % will be confidently wrong. The analysis has to start from 71 % and 18.3 % rather than from revenue.
The question is never whether fees should rise. It is which programmes, by how much per enrolment, and what shift in enrolment yield or completion rate will follow. The version of this question that applies to education and training providers is not the generic one. To reach 13.44 m usd revenue requires 6,720 enrolments yet incremental support costs erase 0.17 m usd of ebitda — so an answer that ignores 14.4 % will be confidently wrong. The analysis has to start from 71 % and 18.3 % rather than from revenue.
Fee changes reach the next cohort invoice without expanding the current 5,760 enrolments or the 6,720 required to reach 13.44 m usd revenue, yet any added support needed to protect completion rate removes 0.17 m usd of ebitda through higher cost per learner acquired.
A useful review separates enrolments into those still below value received at the present 312 USD level, those already constrained by the 18.3 % discount spread, and those where blended cohorts show fees set by individual talks rather than policy.
A workable fee change will reduce some enrolments. If the 71 % completion rate and overall volume stay flat, the adjustment was too small to matter.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ Enrolment yield remains near 14.4 % even when quoted fees are raised in test cohorts
✓ Discount amounts vary sharply between otherwise similar programmes and are applied at enrolment time
✓ Instructor utilisation figures show no movement against fee levels while cost per learner acquired continues to climb
The move that usually makes it worse. A single percentage applied to every programme, which removes price-sensitive blended cohorts while leaving the remainder still below the value delivered.
It is for you if you run or finance an education and training provider 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.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on an education and training provider. 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 Brightsel Learning Group, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — 11.52 m USD revenue from 5,760 enrolments.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Cost Reduction & Efficiency · sample company profile
The move. Monetise the existing 48 contracts by adding regulatory add-ons delivered at the physical sites to lift ACV 25–30 % and protect margin.
| Investment required | 0.35–0.45 m USD (within the stated 0.85 m USD FY2026 cap) |
| Expected return | Base case incremental EBITDA of 0.45–0.55 m USD on 0.40 m USD investment yields 1.1–1.4× payback within 18 months; upside case reaches 1.8× if 5 new contracts are added by Month 24. |
| Revenue, year 1 | 12.4–12.7 m USD |
| Revenue, year 2 | 13.3–14.0 m USD |
| Revenue, year 3 | 14.5–15.5 m USD |
| Exit criteria | Strategy abandoned if, by Month 12, fewer than 50 % of the 48 contracts have renewed at the 25 % premium OR if instructor utilisation falls below 65 % for two consecutive quarters, signalling demand or capacity failure. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Pricing & Revenue Optimization, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For education and training providers it works through 14.4 %, 71 %, 18.3 % and 312 USD, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Materially, yes. To reach 13.44 m usd revenue requires 6,720 enrolments yet incremental support costs erase 0.17 m usd of ebitda — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are 14.4 %, 71 %, 18.3 %, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
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 14.4 % and 71 %. 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.
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.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.
English · Español · Deutsch · Português · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · 한국어 · 中文 · Polski · Svenska · Türkçe · العربية · Tiếng Việt · ไทย · हिन्दी · עברית