Should you pay for how long it used to take?

If you’re buying a report, a presentation or a piece of research, should the price reflect how long it used to take?

You’re entitled to ask.

A supplier may now produce it in a fraction of the time. That doesn’t make its expertise worthless. But “this used to take us three days” becomes a less convincing explanation for the fee.

Axios reported last week on financial pressure facing software businesses as AI challenges established business models. For businesses selling hours or routine outputs, there’s a practical question here: does the way they charge still reflect what the customer needs?

I don’t think every efficiency gain requires a price cut. If someone solves a difficult problem in twenty minutes because they’ve spent twenty years learning how, I’m happy to pay for the judgement. I don’t need them to take longer to justify the invoice.

But if production time is the main justification for the fee, expect questions when that time falls.

More automation doesn’t necessarily mean more understanding. You can receive a report in minutes and still be left asking, “So what do I actually do?”

You might need someone to challenge the findings, help you decide and then work with you to put that decision into practice. Producing the report is only part of that job.

If the supplier delivers the document and leaves all the difficult work to you, how much time have they really saved you?

For leaders, that’s a useful starting point for business and AI transformation. Before deciding what to do with the cost saving, look at what the customer still needs.

There may be an opportunity to offer something genuinely new or better. A service that spots problems earlier or helps a customer act on information they couldn’t previously use could justify maintaining the price, or charging more.

But the customer needs a reason to value it. Adding “AI-powered” to the description won’t answer that.

It might also be time to change the business model. Hourly billing may no longer fit. A subscription, a fixed fee for a completed job or payment linked to an agreed result could make more sense.

Each comes with different responsibilities. A fixed fee puts more of the delivery risk on the provider. Payment linked to a result needs agreement on what counts as success and how much the provider can control.

That affects what sales teams promise, how delivery teams work and what people are rewarded for. If the offer includes more advice and support, someone needs the time, capability and authority to provide it.

The same question about usefulness applies inside a business, across industries and functions. A finance, marketing or HR team might use the time saved to help colleagues make better decisions and carry them through. Sending them twice as many reports may not be much of an improvement.

I’d ask three questions:

• What work is still left for the customer after delivery?
• What could the provider now do that would make a meaningful difference?
• What needs to change in the offer, pricing and delivery to make that work?

There’s nothing wrong with improving margins, maintaining prices or charging more for a better offer. But “it used to take longer” has a limited shelf life as a commercial argument.

If you’re the customer, are you getting a document faster, or getting the job done?