Optimize · Pricing / Offer Tests

Build an A/B Test Plan for Two Offer Structures

Build a rigorous A/B test plan comparing two agency offer structures with sample size, randomization, and decision rules.

foundermanagerAdvanced

When to use

Use when you have two distinct offer structures (e.g. fixed retainer vs sprint-based, or scope-locked vs flexible hours) and want to run a clean head-to-head instead of guessing. Best for agencies with 15+ pitches per month so you can hit sample size in a quarter.

The prompt

Prompt

You are an agency monetization strategist who runs pricing tests responsibly (no race to the bottom). You design experiments with explicit hypotheses, clear primary metrics, and pre-committed kill criteria so the agency learns regardless of outcome.
Agency: [AGENCY_NAME] — [SERVICES] | Offer A: [OFFER_A] @ [PRICE_A] | Offer B: [OFFER_B] @ [PRICE_B] | Current win rate: [WIN_RATE] | Avg deal: [AVG_DEAL_SIZE] | Test audience: [TEST_AUDIENCE] | Hypothesis: [HYPOTHESIS] | Monthly pitch volume: [PITCH_VOLUME]
Build an A/B test plan to compare Offer A vs Offer B head-to-head, including randomization method, required sample size, primary/guardrail metrics, and kill criteria.

- Specify randomization unit (lead, demo, week) and why
- Calculate minimum sample size per arm to detect a 5pt close-rate lift at 80% power
- Define one primary metric and 2 guardrail metrics (e.g. ACV, churn risk)
- Include explicit kill criteria and a max test duration
- Flag confounds (seasonality, rep skill mix, lead source)

Sections: (1) Test Design Summary, (2) Variants table with hypothesis, (3) Sample Size & Duration, (4) Primary + Guardrail Metrics with Decision Rules, (5) Confound Mitigation, (6) Go/No-Go Checklist.

Variables

[AGENCY_NAME]Your agency name
[SERVICES]Core services
[OFFER_A]First offer structure (control)
[PRICE_A]Offer A price
[OFFER_B]Second offer structure (variant)
[PRICE_B]Offer B price
[WIN_RATE]Current close rate %
[AVG_DEAL_SIZE]Current ACV
[TEST_AUDIENCE]Segment to test against
[HYPOTHESIS]What you expect to happen
[PITCH_VOLUME]Pitches per month

Example input

Input

Agency: Lumen Studio — web design + Webflow dev | Offer A: 12-week fixed-scope build @ $38k | Offer B: 2-week design sprints @ $9k each, min 4 | Current win rate: 28% | Avg deal: $36k | Test audience: Series A-B founders | Hypothesis: sprint model wins more deals because of lower entry commitment | Monthly pitch volume: 18

Example output

Output

1) Test Design Summary: 90-day A/B by lead week.

2) Variants:
| Variant | Structure | Price | Hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Fixed-scope build | $38k | Baseline |
| B | Sprint-based | $9k × 4+ | Lower entry lifts close +8pts |

3) Sample Size: 64 pitches/arm to detect 8pt lift at 80% power → ~7 weeks at 18/mo.

4) Metrics:
- Primary: close rate (decision: ship B if +5pts sustained)
- Guardrail 1: 6-mo realized revenue per pitch (kill B if -15% vs A)
- Guardrail 2: sprint-to-sprint renewal rate (kill if <70%)

5) Confounds: alternate by lead week to absorb seasonality; balance rep assignments; tag lead source.

6) Go/No-Go: pricing committee sign-off, deck variants locked, CRM stage map updated, weekly readout cadence set.

Pro tips

Randomize by week, not by lead — it prevents reps from cherry-picking which variant a 'hot' lead gets
Always set guardrail metrics on realized revenue and retention, not just close rate
If your pitch volume is under 12/month, run sequentially (A for 90 days, then B) instead of true A/B

Related prompts

Optimize

Generate Three Pricing Test Variants for a Retainer

Optimize

Test a Performance-Based Pricing Pitch

Optimize

Test a Higher Anchored Price

Free 20 minute sales audit

A prompt is not a system.

These are free and they work. What they cannot do is make your team run the play every week. That is the part we install.

Book a Free Sales Audit