At first glance, charging different prices for different people seems wildly unfair – but it’s actually about levelling the playing field.
Value-based pricing is when the same project costs different amounts depending on who’s buying: for example, the ten-page website for an electrical company might cost $10,000; but the same site might cost $7,000 for the sole trader electrician, or $4,000 for the local charity. In this article I dive into why this happens, when it’s a good thing, and when it’s unethical.
Why isn’t the price the same for every client? Isn’t this just ripping people off?
Well, no. I used to think that way too, until I realised that it’s ripping off the worker if you make money off them and then don’t pay them appropriately.
Rather than ripping people off, it’s more like making sure your workers get a fair cut of the profits. Or a fair shake of the sauce bottle, as our former-Prime-Minister-and-recently-announced-ex-ambassador-to-the-United-States Kevin Rudd would say.
Think of it this way: Imagine you work for a large multinational company in a managerial role, which directly helps to raise their profits. Your hours are the same as the manager at the younger, smaller, and more homegrown company across the city; your workload is about equal; and your stress levels are reasonably similar to theirs. Your salary is 25% higher, though.
Is that fair?
Most people would say yes. While the workload and tasks are similar, if you’re helping Amazon to dominate the market, your salary should be higher than if you’re helping a new innovator to grow. That’s because a company like Amazon has the means to pay you better, and therefore, ethically, they should, instead of pocketing the benefits for themselves.
Failing to reward good work appropriately, means trickle-down economics fails (many reckon it fails anyway, but I digress). Because without value-based pricing, profits don’t trickle down to those fuelling the productivity – the money stays in the hands of rich executives. Value-based pricing – charging more for powerful people who get the most financial benefit from your work – helps to equalise the system.
It also means that clients who can’t afford to pay much (like sole traders or charities) can receive the same project at a cheaper rate, since the bigger players’ payments offset the wage losses the designer would otherwise have by taking on the lower-paid job.
Make sense?
Okay, I sort of get it. Does Origami Graphics do value-based pricing?
Yes, I do – but frankly, not as much as I should.
My quoting process is as follows: I start with a value-based hourly rate for graphic and web design work ($125/hour as at January 2026, or $95/hour for Not-For-Profits).
I then quote projects based on how many hours I think they’ll take, producing a flat-rate cost.
After that, if there are any further value considerations (eg. if the client is a big corporation or stands to make huge perpetual profits off my work), I’ll consider adding an additional value buffer or ongoing royalties to make things fair for me.
When quoting clients like charities, not-for-profit organisations, or the Australian government, I do not add any value considerations, which makes sure the price stays as low as possible for my client while still paying me my baseline hourly rate.
When I don’t apply value-based pricing on a project and I should have, I often end up kicking myself – because:
- Bigger clients have higher expectations, and are often more rigorous and stressful projects even if the scope looks the same at first. They have more eyeballs on the work, and are likely to need more changes as the review process reaches multiple executives.
- Charging more would have given me more flexibility to take my time, be extra creative, try new approaches, and get things right.
- Scope creep matters less if you’ve charged with value in mind – because a buffer, accounting for the importance of the work, is protecting you. This means you’re not pinching pennies and negotiating terms when you don’t have to. Everyone agrees to the flat rate, and there are no surprises or arguments.
- If I’d charged more, I could have taken on fewer other jobs and dedicated more energy to the big project – instead of stressing out, spreading myself too thin, and delivering everyone a worse product. Fair compensation means more focus and better quality. In a corporate setting, higher salaries mean talent retention.
- If I’d charged more, I could have offered more lower-paid or even free jobs to my charity, not-for-profit, or sole trader clients without stress – since I’d have more financial freedom to do so. Charging high for big corporate projects provides the very funding that makes discounted and pro-bono pieces possible.
So when is it bad to use value-based pricing?
The main scenario I can think of when value-based pricing really should not be happening, is in the public sector: in other words, when you’re using taxpayers’ money. Here are a few examples of when, in my opinion, value-based pricing might have happened in the public sector.
Possible Case Study: The Bureau of Meterology Website Redesign
A possible recent example of value-based pricing gone wrong is the new Bureau of Meteorology website redesign. This project blew out to 96.5 million dollars, and is currently under investigation for budget blowout (as at publishing date of this blog post in January 2026).
I’m a graphic designer and not an economist, but in my opinion there is no reason the website should have cost that much money. I don’t believe it takes that much time and that many resources to build any website.
So, is it value-based pricing?
If built by the public sector (government employees), a cost blowout of this magnitude may just indicate poor management and resource wastage, and is therefore facing rightful scrutiny. However, that’s not considered value-based pricing.
But if built by the private sector (a web design business), a blowout of this magnitude seems out of control, and could equate to unchecked greed using public funds. This could be value-based pricing – applied greedily.
Possible Case Study: The Big Four Consultancy Scandal
Another potential example of value-based pricing gone wrong in the public sector, is with the Australian government consultancy controversy. This saw reforms introduced to prevent conflict of interest, insider information leaks, overpricing, and lack of due diligence – which resulted in disproportionately high spending from the Australian government to private firms, particularly the Big Four.
As a result of this scandal, the government bolstered the public service to make more jobs instead of handing projects to consultants. Meanwhile, the consulting profession fell into reputational crisis after the public found out about their wrongdoing.
So, is it value-based pricing?
This might be value-based pricing, because private consultants won government jobs by leaking confidential information. Then, they completed the work at a higher cost than if public servants did it, which is why the government responded by reforming consultant processes.
From an ethical perspective, I think it is not okay to be using significant amounts of money, which could be going to welfare, to line your pockets as a marketing or design agency – and this is why excessive value-based pricing does not have a place in government. This is also why most government projects over a certain dollar figure should go to tender. This ensures cost-efficiency through competition, and helps to prevent corruption and financial waste.
In all other situations, I think value-based pricing is a good thing. This is especially true in the private sector, which is built on profit. When applied properly, value-based pricing rewards those who are producing large-scale productivity benefits. It gives little players who are lucky enough to get big opportunities the finance they need to grow and thrive – instead of staying stuck in the little leagues.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with value-based pricing? Or, like me, do you think it depends on the context?
Leave a comment below to debate this with me!