EF Pricing v0.3 — Budget-Fit Revision

Filed: 2026-05-24 by Mycelia Supersedes: EF_PRICING_v0.2.md (which was structured before the $100K budget context surfaced) Trigger: Billy 2026-05-24: "His 'exploratory budget' is 100k but that would include our costs, media etc." For: Billy's full review. This is the doc you read on your time + come back to me with directional preference. Not a poll — a real working memo. Status: v0.3 DRAFT · awaits Billy's directional pick from 3 structural options + the dependent details

§1 — What changed + why this matters

The v0.2 pricing structure was built without knowing Ryan's actual budget context. v0.2 had:

• $10K signing fee
• $5K / $10K / $20K monthly tier (Growth recommended @$10K)
• Tiered marginal success fee capped at $15K/quarter Y1
• Year 1 total range: $130K (no success fee) — $190K (success fee at cap all quarters)
• This was for Tapt alone, BEFORE media spend.

Ryan's stated "exploratory budget" is $100K all-in — meaning includes Tapt costs + media spend + everything.

If media spend is the typical ~$15-50K/yr for a $4M ARR brand entering paid social meaningfully, that leaves $50-85K for Tapt — well below where v0.2 landed.

Conclusion: v0.2 doesn't fit. We need a structure that:

1. Year 1 total fits cleanly inside $100K (Tapt + media combined)
2. Year 2+ has room to scale as results land (Ryan's exploratory $100K is a Y1 cap, not a permanent ceiling)
3. Honors Ryan's risk posture (founder-led brand, never done major marketing, considered decisions)
4. Doesn't over-discount Tapt's actual cost basis (Year 1 still needs to recover sunk dev + leave operating contribution)

§2 — Internal cost recap (so we don't underprice)

From the v0.2 internal cost model:

• Tapt sunk dev cost (already incurred for EF): ~$260-$450 API/infra + ~60 hr of Billy's time
• Tapt forward COGS per client at Growth-tier production volume: ~$110-$425/mo (Anthropic + Gemini APIs + GCP + storage)
• Tapt-side AI agent ops (Mycelia + Faber + Lumen): ~$50-$150/mo
• Billy's time at Growth tier: 10-20 hr/mo opportunity cost ($2K-$4K at $200/hr)

Total real monthly cost to deliver Growth-tier: ~$2.2K-$4.6K/mo Annual real cost: ~$26K-$55K/yr

Anything above that is operating contribution + buffer for client #2-N investment.

Floor we shouldn't go below for the EF engagement: ~$50K/yr for Tapt (1.5-2x real-cost = healthy margin, not extractive).

§3 — Three structural options

All three fit inside $100K Y1 all-in. They differ in shape, risk posture, and Y2+ scaling.

Option 1 — Lean Tapt + Generous Media Room (RECOMMENDED for Ryan's posture)

Structure:

• Signing fee: $7,500 (one-time, covers system activation + integration + brand DNA load + first-round creative + 12-mo system management — same value as v0.2's $10K, slightly compressed for budget fit)
• Monthly tier: Single "EF Launch" tier @$5,000/mo = $60K/yr
• Success fee: Soft kicker only — 10% of attributable revenue lift over baseline, capped at $10K/quarter Y1 → max $40K/yr if cap hit all 4 quarters
• Year 1 Tapt range: $67.5K (no success fee) — $107.5K (success fee at cap)
• Media spend allowance within $100K: ~$25-32K/yr (modest Meta + Pinterest = 60-75% of typical entry-level paid spend)

Y2+ ramp logic:

• Signing fee falls off → $60K + success fee
• Add option to upgrade to $10K Growth or $20K Acceleration tier at the 90-day or 12-mo checkpoint
• Year 2 baseline cost (Tapt): $60-100K depending on success fee + tier

Pros:

• Fits clean inside $100K Y1 in the no-success-fee scenario ($67.5K Tapt + $32K media = $99.5K)
• Even at success-fee-cap scenario, Tapt is $107.5K which is just over but he'd only hit the cap if revenue grew by $400K — meaning the lift covered the over-budget piece many times over
• Low barrier to entry for a founder-led brand that's never done major marketing
• Clear path to Y2+ scaling without forcing a high Y1 commit
• Ryan's "exploratory" framing maps clean: Y1 IS the exploration

Cons:

• "EF Launch" tier is leaner scope than Growth — narrower channel set or lighter cadence (need to define)
• Some Tapt margin compression vs v0.2 (but $60K/yr at ~$30K real cost is still 2x margin, healthy)
• Less clearly tiered ("what's at $10K?" question deferred to Y2 upgrade conversation)

When this fits best: Ryan is risk-averse, budget-anchored, wants to prove value before scaling. This matches what we know about EF's culture (slow, considered, scarcity-by-design, word-of-mouth-built).

Option 2 — Phased Ramp (Quarterly Increases as Trust Builds)

Structure:

• Signing fee: $10,000 (same as v0.2)
• Monthly tier — quarterly ramp:
  • Q1 (months 1-3): $4,000/mo = $12K — proves system value
  • Q2 (months 4-6): $5,500/mo = $16.5K — channels expand
  • Q3 (months 7-9): $7,000/mo = $21K — full Growth-equivalent scope
  • Q4 (months 10-12): $7,000/mo = $21K — sustained
  • Total monthly Y1: $70.5K
• Success fee: 8% of lift over baseline, capped at $7,500/quarter Y1 → max $30K/yr
• Year 1 Tapt range: $80.5K (no success fee) — $110.5K (success fee at cap)
• Media spend allowance within $100K: ~$20-30K/yr (lighter than Option 1)

Y2+ ramp:

• Settle at $8-10K/mo (Growth-tier-equivalent)
• Success fee cap relaxes to $15-20K/quarter
• Y2 baseline cost: $96-120K + success fee

Pros:

• Matches the "system gets better over time" narrative — pricing literally reflects the ramp
• Initial Q1 commitment is small ($22K all-in) — very low friction to sign
• Each quarterly increase happens at a natural decision point (90-day check-in)
• Y2 pricing is clearly mapped + presented as "the success path"

Cons:

• More moving parts to explain (multiple quarterly steps)
• Tapt revenue lighter in early months (when sunk dev cost recovery matters most)
• Quarterly increases are friction points — Ryan could opt out at each ramp step
• "What's the real price?" question harder to answer ("it depends on which quarter")

When this fits best: Ryan needs the smallest possible Q1 commit to say yes + the ramp aligns with his confidence growing.

Option 3 — Fixed Annual Commit (Predictability First)

Structure:

• Annual fee: $75,000 flat (paid quarterly: $18,750/quarter)
• No separate signing fee (rolled in)
• No tiered monthly (one program, fully scoped)
• Success fee: 5% of lift over baseline, capped at $10K total Y1 → max $10K
• Year 1 Tapt range: $75K (no success fee) — $85K (success fee at cap)
• Media spend allowance within $100K: ~$15-25K/yr (Ryan picks)

Y2+ ramp:

• Year 2: $85K-$100K (annual fee adjustment + cap relaxed)
• Year 3: $100K-$130K (tier evolution)
• Long-term: lands where Growth-tier value is (~$120K/yr Y3+)

Pros:

• Cleanest accounting for Ryan (one number, paid quarterly, predictable)
• No tier-decision friction — one program from day one
• $75K leaves the maximum room for media ($25K) within $100K
• Stable Tapt revenue for cash-flow planning
• Easy to explain ("here's your year, here's the cost, here's what you get")

Cons:

• Less aligned-incentive — small success fee cap means we don't share in big upside
• "What if I want less / more?" harder to flex
• Year 1 isn't optimized for Tapt margin (basically at the $50K floor + buffer)
• No tier escalation built in — Y2 conversation is "all or nothing"

When this fits best: Ryan is procurement-style decisions; wants one number; doesn't care about the success-fee nuance; wants predictability above shared-upside.

§4 — Comparison table

§5 — Media spend math (helping you see what fits)

Inside $100K, after each option's Tapt cost, here's media room:

Important context: Ryan's $100K is his "exploratory budget." If success fee triggers (revenue grew measurably), the over-budget piece is paid for by the lift itself many times over. Ryan should feel that math:

"If we go over $100K, it's because your revenue grew by 5-10x that amount. The success fee is contingent on lift. It pays for itself."

§6 — What changes in the tier scope vs v0.2

Since v0.3 collapses to a single tier (no Foundation/Growth/Acceleration), the scope needs to be clear. Recommended scope for the single tier (whichever option):

"EF Launch" scope (the single tier across all 3 options):

• 2-3 channels active (email + one social channel + Pinterest if it's the second)
• Monthly creative cadence (vs biweekly in v0.2 Growth)
• Brand voice live in the platform
• One seasonal Holiday campaign produced (Year 1)
• One PR pitch wave per quarter (Holiday + spring)
• Monthly performance review w/ Mycelia
• Website-implementation collab (the 5 page mockups, implemented across Y1)
• Founder voice content cadence (monthly)
• Memory layer learning continuous

Scope NOT in "EF Launch" (Y2 / Acceleration tier):

• 4-channel concurrent + Meta paid social production (heavier paid)
• TikTok activation
• SMS lifecycle full activation (light SMS only in Launch)
• Multi-campaign concurrent
• Weekly performance reviews
• Influencer pipeline

This adjusted scope is honest about what we can deliver at the lower price point without overpromising. Ryan upgrades to a heavier scope post-90-day or post-Y1 if results justify.

§7 — Success fee mechanic — adjusted thinking

In v0.2 I proposed tiered marginal rates (10%/6%/4% across $50K/$100K/$100K lift bands). For v0.3 budget-fit, simpler is better:

Recommended (Option 1):

• 10% of attributable revenue lift over agreed baseline
• Capped at $10,000/quarter Y1 (= $40K/year max)
• Baseline = 90-day pre-engagement trailing revenue × seasonality adjustment
• Floor = $0 (no lift = no fee)
• Quarterly true-up

Why simpler:

• Easier for Ryan to model in his head
• Smaller cap means less anxiety about "what's my real ceiling?"
• 10% is industry-standard for performance marketing
• Cap means we don't accidentally over-extract; relationship stays clean

Alternative (Option 3):

• 5% of lift, cap $10K total Y1 (one-time, not quarterly)
• Much smaller upside for Tapt; much more bounded for Ryan

§8 — How to present this to Ryan

Whichever option you pick, the framing to Ryan can be:

"Your exploratory budget of $100K is the right shape for this engagement. We've structured it so the system + integration costs land at $[Tapt Y1 number] for the first year, with $[media room] of runway for media spend across your own ad accounts.

The success fee only kicks in if we actually drive revenue lift — and even at the cap, the lift itself pays for it many times over. There's no scenario where you spend more than the lift earns.

Year 1 is the exploration. If we land it, Year 2+ scales naturally + opens up to the heavier scope you'll have grown into."

Don't lead with the v0.2 tier comparison ("we lowered it for you"). Just present this as the right shape for the relationship.

§9 — Internal margin math (Tapt's economics across the options)

For your reasoning only:

All three are healthy. None bleed Tapt. Option 2 has best Y1 economics for us; Option 1 has the strongest Ryan-friendliness; Option 3 is the cleanest accounting.

§10 — My recommendation

Option 1 — Lean Tapt + Generous Media Room.

Reasoning:

• Best fit for Ryan's posture (founder-led, risk-averse, considered, never done major marketing)
• Cleanly inside $100K in the no-success-fee scenario
• Aligned-incentive on the success fee (10% with $10K/quarter cap = he pays only when revenue grows)
• Cleanest narrative ("Y1 is the exploration; Y2+ scales naturally")
• Healthy Tapt margin without being extractive

What I need from you to lock this:

1. Pick Option 1, 2, or 3 (or hybrid you specify)
2. Confirm the "EF Launch" scope is acceptable (or specify changes)
3. Sign off on the success fee mechanic for your pick
4. Then I update the reveal spec + the Slack canvas + Faber's investment-page content + the email to Ryan

This is the doc — review on your time. Come back to me with directional pick + any tweaks.

— Mycelia, 2026-05-24