The practitioner in this story is a composite illustration — a character drawn from common patterns experienced by practitioners who raise rates. She is not a real individual.

What Happened When She Raised Rates Three Times in Two Years

Christine had charged $120 per session for four years. She had started at $100 in year one and had moved to $120 in year two, where she had stayed. By the time she began examining the rate seriously, she was in her sixth year of practice — a seasoned practitioner whose outcomes were significantly better than they had been at $120, and whose income was still calibrated to year two.

The gap between what she charged and what the work warranted was not small. She had arrived, through careful examination, at a number she felt was right: $275 per session. The gap between $120 and $275 was $155 — she would need to more than double her rate to get where she believed she should be.

She had asked a peer who had successfully raised rates whether she should make the move all at once or in stages. The peer had offered a question back: “How long did it take to get comfortable at $120?” Christine thought about it. About six months, she said. “So at that pace, one large jump versus three smaller ones is not just a pricing question — it’s a timeline question. How long do you want this process to take?”

Christine decided on three increases over two years. The first: $120 to $170. The second: $170 to $220. The third: $220 to $275. Each increase would be preceded by a period of preparation, announced with adequate notice, and given enough time to settle before the next review.

The choice between small and large increments: the choice was not purely strategic. Christine had recognized, from her conversation with her peer, that her inner relationship to the rate was a variable. She was genuinely not ready to inhabit $275 from $120 in a single step. The gap was too large — not because the market could not support it, but because her own internal relationship to the number had not been built. Three steps would give her three opportunities to do the inner work, integrate the rate, and arrive at each new number from a more settled position.

The first increase was announced in October. She communicated it to her 14 existing clients with five weeks’ notice. The email was direct and warm. Eleven clients continued at $170. Two said they needed to step back from regular sessions. One asked if there was a way to stay at $120, which Christine declined. The holding period was two weeks of mild discomfort followed by the rate becoming ordinary in the way things become ordinary with use.

By January — three months after the first increase — she had rebuilt to 14 clients, all at $170. She noted something specific: the clients who came in at $170 arrived with a slightly different quality of readiness than the clients who had been at $120. She could not have quantified the difference, but she felt it in the intake conversations — a greater clarity about what they wanted, a more serious orientation toward the process.

What each increase required internally: the second increase was announced the following June, eight months after the first. By this point, $170 was thoroughly ordinary — she no longer noticed herself stating it, had no visceral reaction to it, and had delivered it to prospective clients in discovery calls with the same matter-of-fact ease she had once imagined was only possible at $120. The inner work for the second increase was easier than the first, though not easy. She was moving to $220, which again required her to examine what the work had been producing and whether the new number was warranted by the evidence.

The second increase had a different texture than the first. More of her existing clients continued — nine of twelve. The clients who left left for reasons that were, on examination, not primarily financial. One was completing a natural arc in the work. One was relocating. One was taking a break from coaching more broadly. Christine noticed that the reasons clients gave for leaving, at $220, were more varied than the reasons they had given at $170 — which had been primarily cost. The cost conversation was becoming less central.

The cumulative learning from multiple rate increases: by the time Christine prepared for the third increase, she was not doing the same inner work she had done for the first. She was doing a more sophisticated version of it. She had two previous rate increases to draw on as evidence — not just evidence of what the work produced, but evidence of her own capacity to hold a rate increase, to navigate the conversations that followed, to watch some clients leave and watch the practice rebuild. The inner preparation for the third increase was informed by the learning from the first and second in a way that made it more specific and more grounded.

Navigating the last mile each time: the third announcement — from $220 to $275 — was communicated fourteen months after the second. By this point, Christine’s practice had been through two holding periods. She had a relationship to the process that she had not had at the beginning. She knew what the first client response to the announcement would feel like. She knew that the discomfort of the holding period was temporary and finite. She knew, because she had done it twice, that she could hold the rate under pressure and that holding it got easier as she did it more.

The third announcement went to 13 existing clients. Ten continued. Two stepped back from regular sessions. One left, citing cost, and asked Christine to refer her to a practitioner at a lower rate, which Christine did warmly.

Her approach to scheduling rate reviews: Christine had learned, through the two-year process, the value of deliberate timing. Each of her three increases had been preceded by a period of genuine preparation — not just deciding on a number but examining outcomes, sitting with the number, preparing policies. The preparation was not the same length each time, but it was never skipped.

By the end of the two years, Christine’s practice looked like this: 13 clients, all at $275, generating significantly more income than her full practice at $120 had ever produced. She was working with fewer clients than she had at the beginning — her client load had settled at 13 instead of 16 — but seeing each one with more energy and presence than she had brought to her $120 sessions.

The inner relationship to $275 had been built incrementally. She had not arrived at the number from $120 in a single jump — and she had not needed to. Each intermediate step had done real work: it had given her a rate to inhabit, a holding period to navigate, and evidence to carry forward. By the time she arrived at $275, the number had been earned not by credentials or years of experience but by a practitioner who had moved through three cycles of preparation, announcement, and holding — and had come out the other side with a genuine relationship to each number along the way.

The Abundance GPS Skool community helps practitioners approach rate increases with the preparation that makes each cycle productive. Join us here.