Same Deliverables. Different Price.
Some work you ship. Some work you have to live with.
I sent a proposal last month that was almost double what I’d usually charge for the same surface-level deliverables.
Brand. Site. Strategy.
The scope didn’t change. The deliverables didn’t change.
What changed was who had to live with the consequences if I got it wrong.
This wasn’t a pricing problem. It was a category problem.
The split
Some work is built to move.
Landing pages, onboarding flows, campaign creative, early product surfaces.
It moves fast. You expect to change it. If it misses, you fix it.
The cost of being wrong is usually time and lost momentum, not long-term damage.
That kind of work is usually priced on capacity and pace.
Hands, speed, execution.
Other work has to hold.
Your positioning. Your homepage story. Your company name. Your pricing story.
Once it shows up in decks, sales calls, hiring, or press, it starts doing work whether you like it or not. Changing it later costs money, time, and trust.
That kind of work is priced differently because the risk is different.
You’re not just paying for execution.
You’re paying for judgment.
I think of these as Move work and Anchor work.
The difference isn’t importance.
It’s how hard it is to change once it’s out in the world.
Same deliverables don’t mean same stakes.
Three questions that help
When I’m trying to figure out what kind of work I’m looking at, I come back to three questions:
How long will this live before it gets revisited?
How expensive will it be to change once it’s out there?
Who takes the reputational hit if it lands badly?
If the answers are:
A long time.
Very expensive.
The client.
That’s probably Anchor work.
And Anchor work shouldn’t be priced like quick-turn execution just because the deliverables look familiar.
Where people get tripped up
The mistake is comparison.
“I charged X for a brand last year.”
“I did something like this before for half.”
Those comparisons usually fall apart.
A brand for a small team cleaning things up isn’t the same as a brand that’s about to sit in front of investors, prospects, hires, and partners for the next few years.
Same categories on paper.
Very different downside in real life.
The conversation that usually follows
You send the proposal.
They pause.
Then they say:
“That feels high for a brand and a site.”
Usually that isn’t really a pricing objection.
It’s a mismatch in how the work is being understood.
They’re looking at familiar deliverables and expecting familiar prices.
You’re pricing the weight of the decision underneath them.
So instead of defending the number, I think it’s better to explain what kind of work this actually is:
This is going to show up in investor conversations, sales calls, hiring, and how people understand the company. We’re not making something disposable. We’re making something you’ll be pointing back to for years. That’s what the price reflects.
Some clients hear that and move ahead.
Others need time.
Not because they want to haggle, but because they’re realizing this isn’t just a design project.
It’s a decision they’ll have to stand behind.
That’s useful either way.
The truth
The projects that make you question your pricing often aren’t more difficult.
They carry more weight.
The simplest way I know to say it
Move work: you’re paying for my hands.
Anchor work: you’re paying for my judgment.
If you’re not sure which one you’re pricing, look at who carries the downside if it goes wrong.
That usually tells you everything.
Thanks for reading,
Gev