From 30001e065464b7fee5d065590bf8502edd981698 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: alex wiesner Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 01:28:44 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] docs: add Swiss hospitality pricing memo design spec --- ...hospitality-tip-ops-pricing-memo-design.md | 240 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 240 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/superpowers/specs/2026-04-10-switzerland-hospitality-tip-ops-pricing-memo-design.md diff --git a/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-04-10-switzerland-hospitality-tip-ops-pricing-memo-design.md b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-04-10-switzerland-hospitality-tip-ops-pricing-memo-design.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7d430d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-04-10-switzerland-hospitality-tip-ops-pricing-memo-design.md @@ -0,0 +1,240 @@ +# Switzerland Hospitality Tip Ops Pricing Memo Design + +Date: 2026-04-10 +Status: approved design for drafting + +## Objective + +Create a pricing model / memo for the Swiss hospitality tip-ops wedge defined in `reports/2026-04-09-switzerland-hospitality-instant-tip-access-model-stress-test.md`. + +The memo should be structurally comparable to `reports/2026-04-10-switzerland-commission-reconciliation-pricing-model.md`, but adapted where hospitality economics and product shape differ materially. + +## Context + +The hospitality stress test established that the credible Swiss wedge is not a generic `instant tips` product. + +The actual product being priced is: + +`digital tip operations infrastructure = tip ledger + allocation rules + staff transparency + fast verified payout + payroll-adjacent export` + +The memo must preserve the broader project thesis: + +- partner-led custody and payout orchestration +- employer workflow and controls first +- no dependence on float, interchange, or lending economics +- no drift into neobank or consumer-credit framing +- no worker-fee-led identity + +## Chosen commercial posture + +### Product framing + +The hospitality product should be priced and described as: + +`workflow + controls + reconciliation + payout orchestration` + +It should not be priced or framed as: + +- a processor charging mainly on tip volume +- a worker-paid instant access app +- a wallet or stored-balance business +- a broad payroll replacement + +### Default payer + +The employer remains the primary payer. + +Worker-paid instant payout may exist as an optional pass-through mechanism in some accounts, but it is not the default commercial posture and should not carry the model. + +### Core unit + +The core unit is **per site first**. + +That is the right unit because the operational pain sits at site level: + +- tip pool setup +- shift-close review +- manager approvals +- exception handling +- cash adjustments +- payroll/export handoff + +Multi-site operators should still be contracted at the group level when appropriate, but the headline pricing logic remains site-led. + +## Pricing architecture to draft into the memo + +Each plan should combine: + +1. a **per-site platform fee** +2. **included active tipped-worker capacity** +3. **included standard payout capacity** +4. an **explicit instant-payout premium** +5. a **one-time implementation fee** + +### Guardrails + +The memo should explicitly recommend: + +- employer-first economics +- paid pilots only +- implementation charged separately +- standard payout priced as low but non-zero +- instant payout priced explicitly rather than hidden in the base plan +- short, explicit pilot concessions rather than permanent price erosion + +The memo should explicitly reject: + +- tip-volume-first pricing +- worker-fee-led pricing +- dependence on retained balances or float +- low monthly pricing that hides setup and configuration effort + +## Plan structure and target economics + +The draft memo should use three plans, keeping naming parallel to the Swiss commission pricing memo: + +- `Launch` +- `Growth` +- `Enterprise` + +### Target plan posture + +#### Launch + +Purpose: +- selective smaller groups +- larger independents only where strategically justified +- design-partner entry point without collapsing commercial discipline + +Target economics: +- roughly CHF 900-1,200 monthly minimum +- usually 1-2 sites +- implementation roughly CHF 2.5k-4k + +#### Growth + +Purpose: +- default commercial band +- best fit for multi-site restaurant groups, hotel F&B groups, and stronger event/catering operators + +Target economics: +- roughly CHF 1,800-2,500 monthly minimum +- usually 3-6 sites +- implementation roughly CHF 5k-7k + +#### Enterprise + +Purpose: +- selective larger groups, multi-entity operators, or more complex control environments +- sold selectively to avoid product distraction and bad services economics + +Target economics: +- roughly CHF 3.5k-5.5k+ monthly +- usually 7+ sites +- implementation roughly CHF 10k+ + +### First-year value targets + +The memo should steer toward these internal target bands: + +- selective smaller accounts: roughly CHF 13k-18k first-year value +- default multi-site accounts: roughly CHF 25k-40k first-year value +- selective enterprise accounts: roughly CHF 50k+ + +These are directional internal targets, not externally stated promises. + +## Important modeling choice + +Unlike the commission pricing memo, the hospitality memo should **not** use tip-event volume as a headline commercial lever in V1. + +Reason: +- it would pull the product too close to processor identity +- it would make tip volume feel like the core monetization base +- it would weaken the operator-workflow positioning + +Instead, the public-facing model should center on: + +- sites +- tipped workers +- payout behavior + +Tip-event volume can be monitored internally for margin analysis, but it should not be the main commercial story. + +## Memo structure + +The final memo should use this outline: + +1. Executive summary +2. Pricing objective +3. Benchmark anchors +4. Pricing design principles +5. Recommended pricing architecture +6. Example customer scenarios +7. Sensitivity tables +8. Discounting and pilot rules +9. What not to optimize for +10. Recommendation + +## Sensitivity and scenario logic + +The memo should include hospitality-specific examples rather than commission-heavy employer examples. + +### Example scenarios + +Include example estimates for: +- a multi-site restaurant group +- a hotel F&B group +- an event/catering operator + +### Sensitivity tables + +The memo should model: +- site count +- tipped-worker density +- payout cadence / payout intensity +- effective fee as a percentage of digital tip payouts as an internal check only +- gross-margin stress if standard payout costs rise or instant payout mix increases + +## Source and benchmark approach + +The memo should rely primarily on: + +- the hospitality stress test report already in the repo +- the existing Swiss commission pricing memo as structural reference +- Swiss software and payout-cost anchors already established in the repo where relevant + +Where hospitality-specific public pricing is sparse, the memo should clearly separate: + +- fact +- inference +- recommendation + +## Deliverable path + +Write the final memo to: + +`reports/2026-04-10-switzerland-hospitality-tip-ops-pricing-model.md` + +## Acceptance criteria + +The memo is successful if it: + +- preserves a site-first pricing model +- keeps the employer as primary payer +- avoids worker-fee-led and tip-volume-first pricing +- produces plausible Swiss early-stage ACV bands +- stays parallel enough to the commission pricing memo for internal comparison +- adapts the logic where hospitality economics differ materially +- explicitly protects margin through minimums and instant-payout pricing rather than through hidden assumptions about float or balance retention +- treats enterprise as selective rather than default +- recommends paid pilots rather than free pilots + +## Out of scope + +The memo should not: + +- redesign the core product strategy +- move country assumptions into the core docs +- propose a payroll-replacement thesis +- rely on stored value, cards, or lending to make Swiss V1 work +- optimize around worker-fee extraction