How to Develop Value Language for a New Service Offering

Launching a new service presents a particular value articulation challenge: the practitioner does not yet have client outcomes specific to the new offering. The outcome review process — the foundation of specific value language — requires completed engagements, which the new service does not yet have.

This is real, but it is not an insurmountable problem. Value language for a new service can be developed from adjacent evidence, qualified honestly.

What counts as adjacent evidence

Adjacent evidence is evidence from related work that is close enough to the new offering to inform what the new offering is likely to produce.

If the new service is a group program structured around the same methodology as individual work the practitioner already does, the outcomes from the individual work are adjacent evidence. The group format may produce somewhat different outcomes than the individual format — but the territory, the before state, and the direction of movement are likely similar.

If the new service addresses a specific aspect of work the practitioner has done in a more general context, the outcomes from that more general context are adjacent evidence. “Most clients I’ve worked with who are dealing with that specific pattern, within our broader engagement, tend to move in this direction” can be the foundation of more specific language for the new offering.

If the practitioner has personal experience with the before state the new service addresses — and has moved through it themselves, through a process similar to what the new service will offer — that personal experience is adjacent evidence.

Using adjacent client results for new service language: the outcome review process for a new service draws on whatever adjacent evidence exists, organized explicitly. What are the before states from related work that map to the before state this new service is designed for? What outcomes appeared in that related work? How do those translate to what this new service is likely to produce?

The honest qualification

Value language for a new service is necessarily more qualified than value language for an established service with a clear outcome pattern. The honest qualification is not “I can’t say what this will produce because we haven’t done it yet.” It is “Here is what I expect this to produce, based on [adjacent evidence], and here is why I expect that.”

An early-phase description might sound like: “I’m designing this program based on what I’ve seen work with clients navigating this before state in individual engagements. My expectation is that participants will move from [before state] toward [after state] within [timeframe]. I want to be clear that this is based on adjacent experience rather than direct outcomes from this specific program — and I’m pricing it accordingly.”

This is more honest and more useful than either refusing to make any claims or making claims with false confidence.

Parallels to early-stage value articulation: developing value language for a new service parallels the early-stage practitioner’s situation. In both cases, the evidence base is thin and needs to be qualified honestly. In both cases, adjacent evidence is the starting point. The difference is that an established practitioner launching a new service already has the language skills and the review practice — they simply need to apply them to thinner evidence.

Pilot cohorts as evidence builders

One practical approach to building the evidence base for a new service before the full launch is to run a pilot cohort at a reduced investment, explicitly framed as a first cohort where the practitioner is developing the offering.

A pilot cohort gives the practitioner three to eight completed engagements before the public launch — which is enough to do a genuine outcome review and develop specific value language based on actual outcomes rather than design intent.

The pilot cohort framing is honest: participants know they are investing in a developing offering and are compensated with a lower investment. The practitioner gets genuine evidence and genuine outcome review. The post-pilot launch can be built on specific, reviewed value language rather than on projection.

Applying the description format to new services: the before state, after state, and timeframe format applies to new services. The before state comes from the adjacent evidence and the design intent. The after state is the outcome the service is designed to produce, drawn from adjacent evidence where possible. The timeframe is the projected arc based on what the practitioner has observed in adjacent work.

Updating language as evidence builds

Value language for a new service is not permanent. As the first cohort completes, the practitioner can review the actual outcomes and update the language accordingly — making it more specific, more confident, and more accurate.

The first version of the value language is the best available approximation. The updated version is built on actual evidence from the offering itself. This iterative development is normal and appropriate.

Developing a value proposition for a new service: the value proposition for a new service follows the same structure as any value proposition — for whom, what outcome, in what timeframe — but is explicitly framed as based on adjacent evidence and design intent rather than established outcome patterns.

Maintaining specificity in new service descriptions: even with limited evidence, specificity is the goal. A specific projection — drawn from adjacent evidence and qualified honestly — is more useful to a prospective client than a vague aspiration with apparent confidence behind it.

The Abundance GPS Skool community helps practitioners develop the value language for new services that is specific, honest, and grounded in the best available evidence. Join us here.