← Back to All Projects01 / 04

High-Value Customer Profiling and Willingness-to-Pay Analysis

Project Type:

Customer Insight / Business Analysis

Business Context:

Customer acquisition and conversion for a family-law services team

Analysis Scope:

Converted-customer cases and willingness to pay

Core Outputs:

Structured master table + assessment models + pricing reference

Output Overview

01Structured Master Table for Converted-Customer Profiles and Pricing Information 02Customer Situation Intensity and Interest-Imbalance Assessment 03Customer Payment Capacity Model 04Customer Willingness-to-Pay Model 05High-Need Customer Personas 06Legal-Fee Benchmark and Staged-Service Reference Table

Analysis Process: From Consultation Recordings to Business Tools

The core of this project was not simply to organise customer information. It was to turn information scattered across recordings, interviews, and conversion records into comparable and reviewable business tools that could support consultation decisions.

Individual Case ReviewUnderstand why a particular customer converted Cross-Case Master TableStandardise scattered information into comparable fields Situation AssessmentAssess pressure and imbalance of interests Payment AssessmentSeparate payment capacity from willingness to pay Personas and PricingDevelop reusable business tools

Single-Customer Consultation Review

A review of one customer can explain why that individual converted, but it cannot reveal the shared characteristics of a broader customer group. The analysis therefore needed to move from individual cases to cross-case comparison.

Why Start with a Single-Customer Review?

This was the starting point of the analysis. A single-customer review was not a final portfolio output; it served as source material for the structured analysis that followed.

Privacy Notice

These documents contain substantial customer privacy and case-specific information. The original documents are therefore not displayed in the portfolio and are used only as source material for the subsequent structured analysis.

What the Review Covered

The stage and circumstances shaping the customer’s immediate motivations, and what the customer was thinking at that point;
What worked well during the consultation and could be reused;
What needed to be improved immediately.

Moving from Individual Cases to Cross-Case Comparison

To compare different customers, information from recordings, interviews, and conversion records first had to be standardised into comparable fields. This led to the structured master table.

Final Output

View Final Output: Structured Master Table

Why This Table Was Needed

An individual case review focuses on one customer;
Cross-case comparison focuses on a type of customer;
The structured master table provides the basis for comparison.

How I Structured the Information

Basic customer information: used to understand who the customer was, their position within the family and financial structure, and whether they had a realistic basis for payment;
Customer circumstances: used to identify the pressures the customer was facing;
Customer thinking: used to understand why the customer was willing to act;
Pricing and conversion information: used to compare service plans, pricing paths, and final conversion outcomes across different customer types.

Building the Customer Situation Intensity and Interest-Imbalance Assessment

The structured master table contained comprehensive information, but too many fields made rapid judgement difficult. Key variables therefore needed to be extracted into a separate assessment of situation intensity and imbalance of interests.

Final Output

View Final Output: Situation Intensity Assessment

Why This Assessment Was Needed

The master table was comprehensive, but not fast enough to use;
Customer circumstances needed to be compared across cases;
Willingness to pay required experience-based indicators to support judgement.

How the Scoring Method Evolved

Convert fields into stagesAssign scores to each stageAdd the scores directlyIdentify discrepanciesIntroduce weightsIdentify duplicated calculationsApply grouped weighting

What This Assessment Changed

From judging long-form narratives to judging defined variables;
From impressions of individual customers to cross-case comparison;
From subjective intuition to an experience-based index;
A foundation for the willingness-to-pay model.

Building Separate Frameworks for Payment Capacity and Willingness to Pay

A difficult situation does not necessarily mean that a customer can pay, and having payment capacity does not necessarily mean that the customer is willing to act. Payment capacity and willingness to pay therefore needed to be assessed separately.

Final Output

View Final Output: Payment Capacity Model View Final Output: Willingness-to-Pay Model

Why the Two Needed to Be Assessed Separately

Having a need does not necessarily mean that a customer has a realistic basis for payment;
Having money does not necessarily mean that a customer is willing to pay;
Payment capacity answers whether the customer is able to pay;
Willingness to pay explains why the customer is prepared to act and pay.

Developing Personas and Pricing References

Once customer circumstances, payment capacity, and willingness to pay could be assessed in a structured way, the analysis could be used to develop reusable high-need customer personas and more systematic pricing references.

Final Output

View Final Output: High-Need Customer Personas View Final Output: Pricing Reference Table

Why Personas Could Be Developed

Customer information had been structured;
Situation intensity could be compared across cases;
Payment capacity and willingness to pay could be assessed separately;
These foundations made it possible to identify reusable high-need customer personas.

Why a Pricing Reference Could Be Developed

Conversion values could be compared across cases;
Service scope could be divided into stages;
Customer categories could be used to infer pricing ranges;
These comparisons made it possible to create an internal pricing reference.