Build the Stack: How Parker Added Tiers 1 & 2 for $31K Extra Monthly
Parker’s coaching business grew from $107K to $138K in 5 months by adding a 3-tier offer stack that captured missed leads using this simple tier-build roadmap.
The Executive Summary
Coaching and consulting operators at the $107K/monthly level waste $372,000 in annual opportunity by utilizing a single-tier offer structure; implementing a 3-tier “Offer Stack” allows for a 29% revenue increase by capturing leads previously turned away.
Who this is for: Founders and high-ticket coaches in the $80K–$150K/month range who are maxed out on 1:1 capacity and burning 20+ qualified leads monthly due to price friction.
The $372,000 Opportunity Cost: Operators with a “binary” buy-or-walk offer trap lose nearly $400k a year in “lost leads” who are ready for a framework but not yet ready for a $3,800+ premium partnership.
What you’ll learn: The Tiered Architecture Framework—a system for building a Curriculum-based Tier 1 ($800) and a Strategic 1:1 Tier 2 ($2,400) alongside an Anti-Cannibalization Protocol to protect your premium fees.
What changes if you apply it: Transition from a 56% lead conversion rate to 88% within 5 months, increasing your effective hourly rate by 21% while shifting from a “maxed out” delivery model to a scalable, multi-tier ecosystem.
Time to implement: 54 total hours over 5 months; includes an initial 14-hour stack design phase followed by staggered, 60-day launch cycles for each new tier.
The Single-Tier Trap at $107K/Month
Parker’s business coaching practice was generating $107K monthly with 28 clients at $3,800/month each. Good revenue. Terrible conversion.
Every month: 45-50 leads came in. 28 could afford $3,800. 17-22 couldn’t. He turned them away. “Come back when you’re ready for premium.”
Those 20 rejected leads monthly = $76K potential revenue (if he had $3,800 tier for them). Annual: $912K walked away.
Here’s what that single-tier positioning was actually costing him.
Parker, business coach specializing in creator businesses, $107K monthly revenue.
The problem in numbers:
Current tier: 1:1 premium coaching at $3,800/month
Client capacity: 28 clients (maxed at current price)
Monthly leads: 45-50 qualified inquiries
Conversion: 28 closes, 20 turned away (can’t afford premium)
Lost revenue: 20 leads × average $1,500 (potential mid-tier) = $30K monthly = $360K annually
Why it mattered:
Burning qualified leads (they’re ready to buy, just not at $3,800)
Can’t scale 1:1 (physically maxed at 28 clients)
Revenue ceiling hit (can’t raise price further, can’t add more clients)
Margin pressure (all revenue from high-touch delivery)
What caused it: Single-tier positioning. Either you pay $3,800 or nothing. No mid-tier option. No lower-touch tier. Parker thought: “Adding tiers dilutes premium positioning.” Wrong. A single tier creates a binary decision: all-in or walk away.
What Parker tried:
Raised price to $4,200: Lost 4 clients who couldn’t afford the increase. Revenue is down $10,800 monthly. Rolled back to $3,800.
Added group program at $800: Positioned as “cheaper alternative.” Premium clients felt offended (”Is my tier overpriced?”). Group program got 3 sign-ups, lost 2 premium clients (-$3,600). Killed it.
Created “lite” 1:1 at $2,200: Cannibalized premium. 6 existing clients downgraded. Revenue dropped $9,600 monthly. Removed tier.
None worked. Revenue stuck at $107K, 20 leads burned monthly.
The cost: Stayed at $107K (achievable) vs. $138K potential with proper stack = $31K monthly × 12 = $372K annual opportunity cost from single-tier trap.
5-month tier build. Designed Tier 1 (group) + Tier 2 (mid-tier 1:1) with clear positioning. 5 months later: $138K stable with 3-tier stack. From burning leads to capturing every budget. From ceiling hit to scaling system. Here’s the complete roadmap.
This case uses The Offer Stack, The Revenue Multiplier, and The Repeatable Sale. Here's how the pieces stacked to create multi-tier revenue capture.
The 5-Month Tier Build That Added $31K Monthly
Here’s exactly what Parker did month-by-month to go from single-tier trap to 3-tier stack without cannibalizing premium.
Timeline overview:
Phase 1 (Month 1): Stack Design + Positioning
Mapped all deliverables into the tier structure
Designed 3 tiers with clear differentiation
Created positioning that elevates (not dilutes) premium
14 hours total investment
Phase 2 (Months 2-3): Tier 1 Build + Launch
Built group program (Tier 1) at $800/month
Launched to waitlist leads
Result: 18 Tier 1 clients = $14,400 added monthly
22 hours total investment
Phase 3 (Months 4-5): Tier 2 Build + Launch
Built mid-tier 1:1 (Tier 2) at $2,400/month
Launched with premium-protective positioning
Result: 7 Tier 2 clients = $16,800 added monthly
18 hours total investment
Total investment: 54 hours over 5 months. Result: +$31,200 monthly (+29%) without losing premium clients.
Month 1: The Stack Architecture Design
Parker didn’t build tiers randomly. He designed a complete stack with strategic positioning.
Week 1: Deliverable Mapping
Listed everything he delivered in premium 1:1 ($3,800 tier):
Weekly 60-minute coaching calls (4 monthly)
Unlimited async Voxer support
Custom strategy documents (business model, offer design, pricing)
Monthly performance reviews
Direct access (responds within 4 hours)
Client Slack channel access
Quarterly planning sessions
Emergency strategy calls (as needed)
Then mapped which deliverables create 80% of client results:
Weekly coaching calls (accountability + problem-solving)
Custom strategy documents (clarity + direction)
Monthly performance reviews (tracking + adjustment)
These 3 = core values. Rest = premium experience enhancements.
Week 2: Tier Structure Design
Designed a 3-tier stack with clear differentiation:
Tier 3 (Premium 1:1): $3,800/month
Everything (weekly calls, unlimited access, custom everything)
Target: Established creators at $50K+ monthly who need high-touch
Capacity: 28 clients (unchanged)
Positioning: “For creators who’ve proven the model and need strategic partner”
Tier 2 (Strategic 1:1): $2,400/month
Bi-weekly 45-minute calls (2 monthly)
Email support (48-hour response)
Strategy templates (not custom)
Monthly performance reviews
Target: Growing creators at $20K-50K monthly who need direction
Capacity: 15 clients
Positioning: “For creators scaling systems who need expert guidance”
Tier 1 (Group Program): $800/month
Weekly 90-minute group calls (cohort of 20)
Curriculum-based (12-week repeating cycle)
Community Slack access
Template library
Target: Early creators at $5K-20K monthly who need framework
Capacity: 60 clients (3 cohorts of 20)
Positioning: “For creators building foundation who need proven system”
Critical Design Principle: Each tier solves for a different constraint, not a different budget.
Tier 1 = Need framework (constraint: don’t know what to do)
Tier 2 = Need guidance (constraint: know what to do, need expertise)
Tier 3 = Need partner (constraint: complex decisions, need strategic thinking)
This positioning = value-based, not price-based.
Week 3: Anti-Cannibalization Protocol
Parker’s previous tier attempts failed because they cannibalized premium. This time, he designed protective positioning:
Rule 1: Tier 2 requires qualification (not open enrollment)
Must be at $20K+ monthly revenue
Must have a working offer (not starting from zero)
Must have a specific strategic question (not general guidance)
Application required, Parker approves
This prevents premium clients from downgrading (”I don’t qualify for Tier 2 anymore”).
Rule 2: Tier 1 has an explicit graduation path
Designed as a 12-week program (not ongoing)
Ends with: “You’ve built foundation. Time for Tier 2 or Tier 3.”
Creates natural ascension (not comfortable staying)
Rule 3: Premium positioning elevates with stack
New language: “Tier 3 is for creators who’ve outgrown group programs and structured guidance”
Reframes premium as a destination, not a starting point
Makes premium more desirable (exclusivity signal)
Week 4: Launch Sequence Planning
Planned tier rollout (staggered, not simultaneous):
Month 2-3: Launch Tier 1 first
Test group delivery model
Build case studies from Tier 1 graduates
Use Tier 1 results to sell Tier 2
Month 4-5: Launch Tier 2 second
Use Tier 1 graduates as proof
Position Tier 2 as “next step after group”
Protect premium with qualification requirements
Why staggered: Launching both simultaneously creates confusion (”Which do I buy?”). Sequential launch = clear path: Start Tier 1 → Graduate to Tier 2 → Advance to Tier 3.
Month 2-3: Tier 1 Build + Launch
Built the group program (Tier 1) completely before launching.
Month 2, Week 1-2: Curriculum Design
Created 12-week repeating curriculum (Tier 1 content):
Weeks 1-3: Foundation Quarter
Week 1: Business model clarity (pick your lane)
Week 2: Offer design (what you’re selling)
Week 3: Pricing strategy (what to charge)
Weeks 4-6: Growth Quarter
Week 4: Traffic systems (how they find you)
Week 5: Conversion systems (how they buy)
Week 6: Delivery systems (how you fulfill)
Weeks 7-9: Scale Quarter
Week 7: Team building (first hires)
Week 8: Systems documentation (operations)
Week 9: Time protection (founder capacity)
Weeks 10-12: Optimization Quarter
Week 10: Metrics tracking (what to measure)
Week 11: Bottleneck identification (what’s blocking growth)
Week 12: Next-phase planning (graduation to Tier 2)
Each week: 90-minute group call + template + implementation assignment.
Month 2, Week 3-4: Launch to Waitlist
Parker had 47 leads in the “can’t afford $3,800“ email list (previous rejections).
Email sent:
Subject: I built something for you
You reached out about coaching, but couldn’t afford $3,800. I get it. That tier is designed for established creators who need a strategic partnership.
I built Tier 1 for creators at $5K-20K monthly who need a framework, not a partnership. 12-week group program. $800/month. Weekly 90-minute calls with 20 other creators at the same stage.
Starts [date]. 20 spots. Application: [link]
If you’re past needing frameworks and ready for strategic guidance, I’m launching Tier 2 (1:1 at $2,400) in 2 months. Reply, and I’ll put you on the early list.
- Parker
Results:
47 emails sent
34 applications received (72% response)
20 accepted into Cohort 1 (capacity filled)
14 waitlisted for Cohort 2 (launching Month 3)
Tier 1 Revenue Added: 20 clients × $800 = $16,000 monthly
Month 3: First Cohort Delivery + Cohort 2 Launch
Month 3, Week 1-4: First Cohort Results
Delivered the first 4 weeks of curriculum to Cohort 1 (20 clients).
What worked:
Group format worked (creators learning from each other)
90-minute calls = right length (enough depth, not exhausting)
Templates are useful (implementation happening)
Community Slack is active (peer support working)
Early churn reality:
2 clients dropped after Week 2 (realized they needed 1:1, not group)
1 client dropped after Week 3 (couldn’t keep up with weekly pace)
Retention: 17/20 after Month 1 (85%)
Tier 1 Cohort 1 Revenue: 17 clients × $800 = $13,600 monthly
Parker’s response: “This is normal. Group programs have 10-20% churn in first month. I’ll fill these 3 spots from waitlist.”
Month 3, Week 2: Cohort 2 Launch
Launched Cohort 2 to waitlist + new leads.
Results:
14 waitlist + 8 new leads = 22 applications
20 accepted into Cohort 2
2 waitlisted for Cohort 3
Combined Tier 1 Revenue (Month 3):
Cohort 1: 17 clients × $800 = $13,600
Cohort 2: 20 clients × $800 = $16,000
Total Tier 1: 37 clients = $29,600 monthly
However, Parker reduced the premium client load from 28 to 25 to accommodate Tier 1 time (6 hours weekly for group calls).
Net revenue impact from Tier 1:
Lost from premium: 3 clients × $3,800 = -$11,400
Gained from Tier 1: 37 clients × $800 = +$29,600
Net Tier 1 contribution: +$18,200 monthly
Month 4-5: Tier 2 Build + Launch
Built mid-tier 1:1 (Tier 2) with premium-protective positioning.
Month 4, Week 1-2: Tier 2 Design + Positioning
Designed Tier 2 to capture Tier 1 graduates + $20K-50K monthly leads:
Tier 2 Structure: $2,400/month
Bi-weekly 45-minute 1:1 calls (2 monthly, not 4 like premium)
Email support with 48-hour response (not 4-hour like premium)
Strategy templates, not custom builds (faster, scalable)
Monthly performance review (30 minutes, not 60)
Capacity: 15 clients (50% of premium capacity per client time)
Qualification Requirements (Premium Protection):
Revenue: $20K-50K monthly (below this = Tier 1, above this = consider Tier 3)
Business stage: Working offer, needs strategic guidance
Problem clarity: Specific bottleneck to solve (not general “help me grow”)
Application required, Parker approves
Why qualification works: Makes Tier 3 more exclusive (”I graduated to Tier 3, don’t qualify for Tier 2 anymore”).
Month 4, Week 3-4: Launch to Tier 1 Graduates + Waitlist
Email 1 (to Tier 1 graduates who hit $20K+ during program):
Subject: You outgrew Tier 1
You came into Tier 1 at $8K monthly. You’re at $23K now. Congrats.
You’ve built the foundation. Time for strategic guidance. I’m launching Tier 2 for creators at $20K-50K who need expert direction.
Bi-weekly 1:1 calls. $2,400/month. 15 spots total.
Not a group. Not templates. Strategic problem-solving specific to your business.
Application: [link]. Spots fill by [date].
- Parker
Email 2 (to waitlist leads at $20K-50K monthly):
Subject: The tier between group and premium
You reached out about coaching. Too advanced for Tier 1 (group program), not ready for Tier 3 (premium $3,800 1:1).
I built Tier 2 for you. $2,400/month. Bi-weekly 1:1 strategic calls. For creators at $20K-50K monthly who need guidance, not partnership.
15 spots. Application: [link].
- Parker
Results:
23 applications (11 from Tier 1 graduates, 12 from waitlist)
15 accepted (capacity filled)
8 waitlisted
Tier 2 Revenue Added: 15 clients × $2,400 = $36,000 monthly
But Parker reduced premium clients from 25 to 22 to accommodate Tier 2 time (15 Tier 2 clients × 2 hours monthly = 30 hours, equivalent to 3 premium clients at 10 hours monthly each).
Revenue Impact:
Lost from premium: 3 clients × $3,800 = -$11,400 monthly
Gained from Tier 2: 15 clients × $2,400 = +$36,000 monthly
Net Tier 2 Addition: $24,600 monthly
Month 5: Stack Stabilization + Final Numbers
By Month 5, Parker stabilized the complete 3-tier stack.
Final Stack Configuration:
Tier 3 (Premium 1:1): $3,800/month
Clients: 22 (reduced from 28 to accommodate time for Tier 1 + 2)
Revenue: 22 × $3,800 = $83,600 monthly
Tier 2 (Strategic 1:1): $2,400/month
Clients: 15 (capacity filled)
Revenue: 15 × $2,400 = $36,000 monthly
Tier 1 (Group Program): $800/month
Stable clients after churn: 23 (managed to 1 cohort at a time for sustainability)
Revenue: 23 × $800 = $18,400 monthly
Total Stack Revenue: $138,000 monthly
Revenue Transformation:
Before stack: $107,000 (28 premium clients only)
After stack: $138,000 (22 premium + 15 Tier 2 + 23 Tier 1)
Increase: +$31,000 monthly (+29%)
Added Revenue Breakdown:
Net premium change: -6 clients × $3,800 = -$22,800
Tier 2 addition: 15 × $2,400 = +$36,000
Tier 1 addition: 23 × $800 = +$18,400
Net total addition: $31,600 monthly
The math validates: Parker captured $31K monthly through tier stacking while protecting premium positioning.
The Tier-Stacking Framework Extracted
Here’s the replicable system for building a multi-tier stack without cannibalizing premium.
The core insight: Single tier = binary decision (buy or walk). Multi-tier = budget capture (buy at the right level).
Stack architecture principles:
Principle 1: Differentiate by constraint, not by budget
Don’t say: “Premium is for rich people, cheap tier is for poor people”
Do say: “Tier 1 solves framework constraint, Tier 2 solves guidance constraint, Tier 3 solves partnership constraint”
Value-based positioning = no shame in lower tier (”I need framework right now”).
Principle 2: Design graduation paths (not parking lots)
Tier 1 is designed to be outgrown (12-week program, not ongoing)
Tier 2 qualification includes a revenue threshold (signals progress)
Tier 3 is positioned as achievement (you’ve earned this level)
Makes ascension natural, not forced.
Principle 3: Protect the premium with qualification
Tier 2 requires application and approval
Prevents premium downgrade (”I don’t qualify for Tier 2”)
Makes premium more exclusive (harder to get in = more desirable)
Why this works mechanically:
Traditional single-tier: 50 leads, 28 can afford $3,800, 22 walk = 56% conversion.
Multi-tier stack: 50 leads, 22 buy Tier 3, 12 buy Tier 2, 10 buy Tier 1 = 44 total clients = 88% conversion.
Math: Stack captures 32 percentage points more leads (88% - 56% = 32 points).
At 50 leads monthly: 32% × 50 = 16 additional clients monthly who would have walked.
16 clients at average $1,800 (blended Tier 1+2 rate) = $28,800 monthly captured = $345,600 annually.
The tier positioning framework:
Tier 1 Positioning:
Target: People who need a system, not customization
Language: “For [audience] who need a proven framework.”
Delivery: Group + curriculum + templates
Price: 20-25% of the premium tier
Tier 2 Positioning:
Target: People who need expertise, not partnership
Language: “For [audience] who need strategic guidance”
Delivery: 1:1 reduced frequency + templated strategy
Price: 60-65% of the premium tier
Tier 3 Positioning:
Target: People who need a thought partner, not just an expert
Language: “For [audience] who’ve outgrown frameworks and structured guidance.”
Delivery: Full 1:1 access + custom everything
Price: Premium (unchanged)
The Three Critical Moves That Made It Work
These 3 moves created +$31K monthly without cannibalizing premium.
Move 1: Map deliverables to tiers by constraint solved, not by “lite versions.”
Most coaches build tiers wrong. They create “lite” versions of premium. Premium = 4 calls monthly. Tier 2 = 2 calls monthly. Tier 1 = 1 call monthly.
This positioning = “less of the same thing.” Makes lower tiers feel cheap.
Parker mapped by constraint:
Tier 1 constraint: “I don’t know what to do” → Curriculum + framework
Tier 2 constraint: “I know what to do, need expert direction” → Strategic guidance
Tier 3 constraint: “Complex decisions, need thinking partner” → Full partnership
Each tier solves a different problem. Not less of same solution.
Why this matters:
“Lite” positioning creates shame. Client thinks: “I’m buying cheaper version because I’m poor.”
Constraint positioning creates pride. Client thinks: “I’m buying right solution for my stage.”
The build:
Week 1: Listed all premium deliverables (8 total)
Week 2: Identified which solves “framework” vs. “guidance” vs. “partnership” constraints
Week 3: Grouped deliverables into 3 constraint-solving tiers
Week 4: Named tiers by value (Foundation / Strategic / Premium), not by price (Bronze / Silver / Gold)
Time investment: 8 hours. Result: Clear constraint-based differentiation.
Implementation checklist:
List all deliverables in the current premium tier
Identify constraints each deliverable solves (framework/expertise / partnership)
Group deliverables by constraint type
Design Tier 1 around the framework constraint
Design Tier 2 around expertise constraint
Keep Tier 3 for the partnership constraint
Name tiers by value delivered, not by comparison to premium
Move 2: Launch tiers sequentially with graduation positioning, not simultaneously
Parker’s previous attempt failed because he launched the group program and the premium simultaneously. Created confusion: “Which do I buy?”
New approach: Sequential launch with graduation language.
Launch sequence:
Months 2-3: Tier 1 only
Positioned as “starting point for $5K-20K creators”
12-week program (designed to be outgrown)
Final week: “You’ve built foundation. Graduate to Tier 2.”
Months 4-5: Tier 2 launches
Email Tier 1 graduates: “You outgrew Tier 1”
Positioned as “next step after group program”
The qualification requirement prevents current premium clients from downgrading
Tier 3 repositioned (not relaunched):
New language: “For creators who’ve graduated past structured guidance”
Makes premium more desirable (it’s the destination)
Why this works:
Simultaneous launch = comparison (”Which is better value?”) Sequential launch = progression (”Start here, graduate there”)
First prevents premium cannibalization. The second creates a natural ascension path.
The build:
Month 1: Design complete stack (all 3 tiers)
Month 2-3: Launch Tier 1 only, position as “foundation”
Month 4-5: Launch Tier 2, position as “graduation from Tier 1”
Month 5: Reposition Tier 3 as “advanced graduation”
Time investment: 6 hours (positioning + messaging). Result: Zero premium client downgrades.
Implementation checklist:
Design all 3 tiers in Month 1 (but don’t launch simultaneously)
Launch Tier 1 first with a clear graduation path built in
Run Tier 1 for 2-3 months, build case studies
Launch Tier 2 using Tier 1 graduates as proof
Position Tier 2 as “you’ve outgrown Tier 1”
Reposition premium as “you’ve graduated past structured guidance”
Track: Did any premium clients downgrade? (Should be zero)
Move 3: Build qualification requirements into Tier 2 to protect premium
The anti-cannibalization key: Make Tier 2 require qualification.
Parker’s Tier 2 Qualification:
Revenue minimum: $20K monthly (proves they’re scaling)
Working offer required (not starting from scratch)
Specific strategic question (not “help me with everything”)
Application and Parker approval
Why qualification protects premium:
Without qualification: Premium client thinks “I can save $1,400/month by downgrading to Tier 2.”
With qualification: Premium client thinks “I’m too advanced for Tier 2 (it requires being under $50K). I need premium partnership.”
Psychological trick: Make the middle tier feel lower in exclusivity. Makes premium feel higher.
The build:
Week 1: Created qualification criteria (revenue, business stage, problem type)
Week 2: Built application form (5 questions)
Week 3: Set approval process (Parker reviews every application)
Week 4: Tested messaging: “Not everyone qualifies for Tier 2” (creates exclusivity but lower than premium)
Time investment: 4 hours. Result: Zero premium downgrades over 5 months.
Implementation checklist:
Set revenue qualification for Tier 2 (e.g., $15K-60K monthly)
Require application and approval (no instant purchase)
Create 3-5 qualification questions
Review every application personally (don’t auto-approve)
Reject applications that should be premium (protect top tier)
Reject applications that should be Tier 1 (maintain Tier 2 positioning)
Message qualification as exclusivity (”Not everyone qualifies”)
The Hidden Problems Nobody Tells You
Here’s what Parker hit that wasn’t in the plan—and how he solved each.
Problem 1: Tier 1 graduates wanted premium, not Tier 2
Month 4: 11 Tier 1 graduates applied for new tiers. Parker assumed they’d choose Tier 2 ($2,400). 7 applied for premium ($3,800) instead.
Why? Tier 1 worked so well, they jumped straight to “I need full partnership now.”
The fix: Parker accepted them into premium (not Tier 2). Why? They qualified for premium (revenue + complexity). Tier qualification prevents downgrades, not upgrades.
Result: Premium grew to 25 clients (from 22), adding $11,400 monthly.
Problem 2: Tier 1 clients asked for 1:1 calls
Month 3: 4 Tier 1 clients requested individual calls. “Group is great, but I have a specific question that doesn’t fit the group setting.”
Parker’s instinct: Add 1:1 call to Tier 1. Bad idea—scope creep.
The fix: Created “office hours” format. 30-minute group call twice monthly (first-come, first-served). Anyone in Tier 1 can bring a specific question, and Parker answers live while others listen.
Cost: 1 hour monthly. Value: Personalization without 1:1 commitment.
Problem 3: Tier 2 clients felt “between” tiers
Month 5: 3 Tier 2 clients said, “I feel stuck. Too advanced for Tier 1, not quite ready for premium.”
Parker realized: Tier 2 has no graduation trigger. Tier 1 = 12 weeks, then graduate. Tier 2 = ongoing, no clear next step.
The fix: Added Tier 2 graduation criteria:
Hit $60K monthly revenue = consider premium upgrade
6 months in Tier 2 = schedule graduation conversation
Complexity threshold = when strategic questions become partnership needs
Made Tier 2 feel temporary (stepping stone), not permanent (parking lot).
Problem 4: Couldn’t deliver 3 cohorts simultaneously
Month 5: Parker ran 3 Tier 1 cohorts simultaneously (60 clients total). Three 90-minute calls weekly = 4.5 hours. Plus prep = 7 hours weekly.
Burned out. Can’t sustain.
The fix: Staggered cohort starts. Cohort 1 starts Week 1 of a 12-week cycle. Cohort 2 starts Week 1 four months later. Only 1 cohort is active at a time.
Reduced to 1.5 hours weekly (one call + prep). Sustainable.
Result: Tier 1 capacity reduced from 60 to 20, but time is sustainable.
The Before/After Transformation
Here’s what changed in 5 months.
Before Stack (Month 0):
Revenue: $107K/month
Tiers: 1 tier only (Premium 1:1 at $3,800)
Clients: 28 premium clients
Lead conversion: 56% (28 of 50 monthly leads)
Leads burned: 22 monthly (can’t afford premium)
Parker’s hours: 45 weekly (28 clients × 1.6 hours each)
Revenue per hour: $107K ÷ 180 hours = $594/hour
After Stack (Month 5):
Revenue: $138K/month (+29%)
Tiers: 3 tiers (Tier 1 $800 / Tier 2 $2,400 / Tier 3 $3,800)
Clients: 60 total (23 Tier 1 + 15 Tier 2 + 22 Tier 3)
Lead conversion: 88% (44 of 50 monthly leads)
Leads burned: 6 monthly (only those under $5K monthly)
Parker’s hours: 48 weekly (22 premium × 1.6 hours + 15 Tier 2 × 2 hours + Tier 1 = 1.5 hours)
Revenue per hour: $138K ÷ 192 hours = $719/hour
Financial impact:
Revenue increase: +$31K monthly = +$372K annually
Client increase: +32 clients (28 → 60)
Hour increase: +3 hours weekly = 156 annually (minimal)
Per-hour rate increase: +$125/hour ($594 → $719)
The 3 metrics that mattered:
Lead conversion rate: 56% → 88% (+32 percentage points)
Revenue per monthly lead: $2,140 → $2,760 (+29%)
Tier distribution: Single tier → 3-tier stack (premium protected, zero downgrades)
Your Next Step: Build Your Stack in 90 Days
If you’re at $80K-150K monthly with single-tier positioning, burning qualified leads, here’s your 90-day stack build.
This works for you if:
Revenue: $80K-150K/month (enough volume to support multiple tiers)
Current structure: 1-2 tiers maximum
Problem: Turning away leads who can’t afford the premium
Lead volume: 30+ qualified monthly (enough to fill lower tiers)
Your 90-day roadmap:
Days 1-30: Stack design
Week 1-2: Map deliverables to constraints (framework/expertise/partnership)
Week 3: Design a 3-tier structure with clear differentiation
Week 4: Create anti-cannibalization positioning (qualification requirements)
Investment: 14 hours total
Days 31-60: Tier 1 launch
Week 5-6: Build Tier 1 curriculum (group program or productized)
Week 7: Launch to “can’t afford premium” waitlist
Week 8: Deliver first month, gather feedback
Investment: 22 hours total
Days 61-90: Tier 2 launch
Week 9-10: Build Tier 2 structure (1:1 reduced or hybrid)
Week 11: Launch with qualification requirements
Week 12: Fill capacity, reposition premium
Investment: 18 hours total
Total investment: 54 hours over 90 days.
Expected result: +25-35% revenue, higher lead conversion, protected premium.
⚑ Found a mistake or broken flow?
Use this form to flag issues in articles (math, logic, clarity) or problems with the site (broken links, downloads, access). This helps me keep everything accurate and usable. Report a problem →
➜ Help Another Founder, Earn a Free Month
If this issue helped you, please take 10 seconds to share it with another founder or operator.
When you refer 2 people using your personal link, you’ll automatically get 1 free month of premium as a thank‑you.
Get your personal referral link and see your progress here: Referrals
Get The Toolkit
You’ve read the system. Now implement it.
Premium gives you:
Battle-tested PDF toolkit with every template, diagnostic, and formula pre-filled—zero setup, immediate use
Audio version so you can implement while listening
Unrestricted access to the complete library—every system, every update
What this prevents: The $10K-$50K mistakes operators make when implementing systems without toolkits.
What this costs: $12/month. Less than one client meeting. One failed delegation costs more.
Download everything today. Implement this week. Cancel anytime, keep the downloads.
Already upgraded? Scroll down to download the PDF and listen to the audio.
