Umsatzverluste durch fehlerhafte Preis- und Erlösmodelle

Definition

Australian financial modelling consultancies explicitly state that models are used to support pricing and costing decisions, revenue forecasting and assessment of value drivers.[4][5][9] Where strategic management firms or their clients use simplistic or error‑prone spreadsheets for revenue modelling, several leakages occur: underestimation of willingness to pay and elasticities, failure to test alternative tariff structures, and omission of upsell/cross‑sell logic in the model. For corporates with $50–500m revenue, international benchmarking suggests that poor price realisation typically costs 1–5 % of potential revenue. Applying the lower bound (1–3 %) as a conservative logic‑based estimate for Australian mid‑market clients implies $0.5–15m in foregone revenue per year, depending on scale. Because Grant Thornton and KPMG both position financial modelling as central for pricing, costing and strategic option evaluation, their need to offer specialist services and independent reviews is itself evidence that unmanaged in‑house models are often inadequate.[2][5] Each strategic pricing initiative that proceeds without a robust, scenario‑driven model risks locking in suboptimal prices across multi‑year contracts, multiplying the annual leakage.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Strategic management firms in Australia 🇦🇺 often leave 1–3 % of potential revenue unrealised each year because pricing and upsell scenarios are not properly modelled. Automating driver‑based revenue and pricing models can recover $1–3m annually for a $100m‑turnover client.

Affected Stakeholders

Pricing managers, Chief Revenue Officers, CFOs, Corporate strategists, Product managers

Related Business Risks