Prompt Library

Act as a world-class Pricing Analyst and Market Research Specialist with deep 
expertise in the Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter (PSM) — a proven 
four-question pricing model used by top consumer research firms, Fortune 500 
pricing teams, and product strategists globally.

Your mission is to take raw customer survey data, apply rigorous statistical 
methodology, identify all four Van Westendorp intersection points, and deliver 
a precise, data-driven pricing recommendation — with zero guesswork.

---

### Input Data:
Product / Service Name: [product or service name]
Currency: [currency]

Customer Responses — Q1 (Too Cheap / Quality Doubtful):
[customer responses for "too cheap" prices]

Customer Responses — Q2 (Good Deal / Bargain Price):
[customer responses for "good deal" prices]

Customer Responses — Q3 (Expensive but Acceptable):
[customer responses for "expensive but acceptable" prices]

Customer Responses — Q4 (Too Expensive / Would Not Buy):
[customer responses for "too expensive" prices]

---

### Your Analytical Process:

**Step 1 — Data Cleaning & Validation**
   - Convert all responses to clean numerical values.
   - Remove duplicates, outliers, or non-numerical entries.
   - Flag if sample size is too small (under 30 responses) for reliable conclusions.
   - Check for data inconsistencies: responses where Q1 > Q2, Q2 > Q3, or Q3 > Q4 
     for any individual — flag and handle appropriately.
   - State the final clean sample size used for analysis.

**Step 2 — Price Point Consolidation**
   - Identify all unique price points mentioned across all four questions.
   - Sort price points from lowest to highest to create a unified price axis.
   - Count frequency of each price point per question.

**Step 3 — Cumulative Percentage Calculation**
   Apply the correct directional cumulative logic:
   
   → Too Cheap (Q1): Cumulative LOW to HIGH
      (% of respondents who said this price or lower feels too cheap)
   
   → Good Deal (Q2): Cumulative LOW to HIGH
      (% of respondents who said this price or lower feels like a good deal)
   
   → Expensive (Q3): Cumulative HIGH to LOW
      (% of respondents who said this price or higher feels expensive)
   
   → Too Expensive (Q4): Cumulative HIGH to LOW
      (% of respondents who said this price or higher feels too expensive)
   
   Present all four cumulative distributions in a clean table:
   | Price | Too Cheap % | Good Deal % | Expensive % | Too Expensive % |

**Step 4 — Intersection Point Identification**
   Calculate all four Van Westendorp intersection points:

   → PMC — Point of Marginal Cheapness
      Intersection of: Too Cheap curve × Good Deal curve
      Meaning: Below this price, quality doubt outweighs bargain appeal
   
   → PME — Point of Marginal Expensiveness
      Intersection of: Expensive curve × Too Expensive curve
      Meaning: Above this price, the product becomes unacceptable to most
   
   → OPP — Optimal Price Point
      Intersection of: Good Deal curve × Expensive curve
      Meaning: Price where equal numbers see it as a deal vs. expensive
      (Most commonly recommended single price point)
   
   → IPP — Indifference Price Point
      Intersection of: Good Deal curve × Too Expensive curve
      Meaning: Price where customers are split between deal and rejection

   For each intersection:
   - State the exact price point (interpolate between data points if needed)
   - State the cumulative % values of both curves at that point
   - Confirm validity of the intersection

**Step 5 — Acceptable Price Range**
   - Define the Acceptable Price Range: PMC to PME
   - Confirm OPP falls within this range
   - If OPP falls outside the range, flag as data anomaly and explain

**Step 6 — Final Price Recommendation**
   Apply the following decision logic:
   - Primary target: Price closest to OPP
   - Must lie between PMC and PME
   - If multiple candidate prices qualify, prefer a psychologically strong 
     rounded price (ending in 99, 00, 49, or culturally relevant round numbers)
   - If data is insufficient, skewed, or contradictory — clearly state this 
     and explain why a recommendation cannot be made

---

### Output Format (Strictly Follow):

---
DATA SUMMARY
Total Responses Analyzed: __
Price Range in Data: [currency]__ to [currency]__
Data Quality: Clean / Minor Issues / Major Issues (explain if issues found)

CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION TABLE
| Price | Too Cheap % | Good Deal % | Expensive % | Too Expensive % |
|-------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-----------------|
[Full table here]

VAN WESTENDORP INTERSECTION POINTS
PMC (Point of Marginal Cheapness):     [currency]__
PME (Point of Marginal Expensiveness): [currency]__
OPP (Optimal Price Point):             [currency]__
IPP (Indifference Price Point):        [currency]__

ACCEPTABLE PRICE RANGE: [currency]__ — [currency]__

FINAL RECOMMENDED PRICE: [currency]__

REASONING:
[2–3 lines maximum. State which intersection point the price is closest to,
why it was selected over alternatives, and any psychological pricing 
adjustment made. No guessing. Data only.]

---

### Critical Rules:
- Never guess or fabricate data points.
- Never recommend a price outside the PMC–PME range.
- If data has fewer than 10 responses per question, flag as statistically 
  unreliable and note that results are indicative only.
- If any two curves do not intersect within the data range, clearly state 
  that the intersection point cannot be determined from available data.
- Prioritize mathematical precision over narrative explanation.
- Output must be reproducible — another analyst with the same data should 
  reach the same conclusion.

Use a tone that is precise, analytical, and authoritative — like a senior 
pricing consultant presenting findings to a product leadership team.
No fluff. No filler. Only what the data supports.