Illustrative example — fictional company, real published sources

One decision, from evidence to record.

A fictional Irish subscription business is considering an 8% mid-year price increase across its consumer base. This is what the platform produces. No client data appears on this page.

The decision as framed

"We are considering raising consumer subscription prices by 8% from July. Our costs have risen, our reliability has improved, and we acquired a large number of price-led customers in the last year. Should we do it, and how should we say it?"

Market: Ireland
Decision type: Pricing
Council size: 4 perspectives

Illustrative analysis layer

What may materially affect this decision

6 attributes reviewed

Proposed mechanism: the increase is more likely to create resistance when affordability is tight, price was the reason for joining, and the reliability gain is not recognised. This is an analytical hypothesis, not a proven causal model.

Household affordabilityDerived

Price rise considered against income and committed household spend

Why it matters: An identical increase can create very different pressure depending on the room left after essential spending.
Evidence basis: Derived for this illustration from CSO SILC 2024 median disposable income and the 2022–2023 Household Budget Survey.
Limitation: National medians do not describe the distribution of affordability across this fictional customer base.
Evidence that would help most: Customer-level bill-to-income bands, aggregated and privacy-safe.

Price-led acquisitionInferred

Recent customers may be more exposed to a loss of price advantage

Why it matters: The decision brief says many recent customers joined on price, making the original reason for choosing the service relevant.
Evidence basis: Inferred from the fictional decision brief. No measured customer distribution is supplied.
Limitation: Acquisition motive does not prove later switching behaviour.
Evidence that would help most: Acquisition-channel mix joined to observed 30- and 90-day retention.

Customer tenureInferred

Recent and long-standing customers may respond differently

Why it matters: Tenure may proxy familiarity, accumulated trust and the effort of changing provider.
Evidence basis: The brief mentions recent acquisition, but no tenure distribution is provided.
Limitation: Tenure is only a proxy and must not be treated as loyalty by itself.
Evidence that would help most: Churn and complaint rates by tenure band after previous price changes.

Housing tenure mixSampled

Irish population context, not a fact about any individual customer

Why it matters: Housing tenure can change exposure to other fixed costs and therefore the context in which a price rise lands.
Evidence basis: CSO Census of Population 2022, Housing: 68% owner-occupied housing tenure.
Limitation: A national population share is not the fictional company’s customer mix.
Evidence that would help most: A consented or suitably aggregated customer housing-tenure distribution.

Reliability valueInferred

Improved reliability may offset some price resistance

Why it matters: The brief presents reliability improvement as the benefit intended to justify the increase.
Evidence basis: Inferred from the fictional decision brief; no service metric or customer valuation is supplied.
Limitation: An operational improvement does not mean customers noticed or valued it.
Evidence that would help most: Measured reliability change alongside customer satisfaction and cancellation reasons.

Switching base rateBase rate

Not available in this worked example

Why it matters: A real market switching rate would provide context for synthetic reactions and guard against treating them as a forecast.
Evidence basis: No Irish market switching source is included in this example’s evidence record.
Limitation: The council’s pattern of reactions cannot substitute for an observed market rate.
Evidence that would help most: A dated Irish regulator switching rate matched to the relevant market and period.

Evidence readiness: partial

Official population context is present; customer behaviour, tenure and switching data remain assumptions or gaps.

Highest-value missing evidence

Observed churn after earlier price changes, split by acquisition motive and tenure.

The evidence record

A number without a source is not evidence. Every figure below carries its publication, reference period, retrieval date, market relevance and a link.

€48,240Median household disposable incomeIreland
Publication
Central Statistics Office — Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC)
Reference period
2024 (published 2025)
Retrieved
12 August 2026
Why it was used
Sets the income headroom a mid-year price increase has to fit inside for Irish households.
View source
€992 / weekAverage weekly household expenditureIreland
Publication
Central Statistics Office — Household Budget Survey
Reference period
2022–2023
Retrieved
12 August 2026
Why it was used
Shows what a household already commits weekly, so the increase can be read as a share of committed spend.
View source
68%Owner-occupied housing tenureIreland
Publication
Central Statistics Office — Census of Population 2022, Housing
Reference period
Census 2022
Retrieved
12 August 2026
Why it was used
Tenure mix separates households with fixed housing costs from those exposed to rent movement.
View source

Held out of this decision

UK regional gross weekly earnings — Office for National Statistics — Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2025. Excluded from the Irish read. Retained only as a cross-market comparator for a later UK decision.

A UK statistic cannot stand in for an Irish one. Comparators are visible and labelled, never blended into the market read.

The Decision Council

Synthetic perspectives, not real respondents. Each carries the basis it was built from and how far that basis is evidence rather than inference.

SarahResistant

Switched in the last 12 months · Price-led

"I moved because you were cheaper. If that disappears now, I'm comparing again."

Basis: Acquisition channel mix · Recent churn reasons · Published competitor pricing
Provenance: Evidence-backed

MichaelSupportive

Six-year customer · Reliability-led

"I won't like it, but I'd rather pay a little more than risk unreliable service."

Basis: Retention history · Service satisfaction research
Provenance: Supported inference

AishaCautious

Digitally engaged · Value-conscious

"Explain what improves for me. A price increase without a benefit is hard to justify."

Basis: Customer survey · Product usage patterns
Provenance: Supported inference

DermotCautious

Small business account · Budget fixed annually

"My budget is set annually. An 8% rise mid-year has to come out of something else."

Basis: Account mix · CSO business cost indices
Provenance: Synthetic interpretation

What remained uncertain

How price-led switchers behave when a competitor holds price — not observed, only inferred from churn reasons.
Whether a paired service improvement changes the response, or is read as justification after the fact.
Whether small business accounts absorb the rise or renegotiate at renewal.

Recommendation

The increase is defensible where reliability is the reason customers stay. It is not yet defensible for customers acquired on price in the last year. Phase the increase, pair it with a stated service commitment, and test a benefit-paired message against a bare increase before rollout.

The decision record

What we knew
Three Irish population statistics and four internal sources, all cited and dated.
What we assumed
That reliability remains the primary reason long-standing customers stay.
What we decided
Phase the increase and pair it with a stated service commitment.
Who decided
Commercial director, with the pricing lead and customer operations present.
What we will watch
Switch rate among customers acquired in the last 12 months, at 30 and 90 days.

Bring us one real decision.

We run it in the platform during the session and walk through the evidence behind the result.

Book a live decision session