Provider experience proposal
The current pricing page presents two options separated by $2,495. Everything Clinic Launch Lab delivers — the campaign, the four-day launch, three days of live selling, the training, the scripts, the kits and the guarantee — sits inside that $2,495.
The page is not underselling the launch by a little. It is pricing it at roughly 7% of what it delivers.
Read this first
Our recommendation to Doug. The findings, the arithmetic, the rep-commission problem and the rollout plan. It is internal to this conversation and never goes on contourlight.com. It scrolls top to bottom in order — there is nothing to click past.
A working example of what we are proposing, built on Contour Light's own fonts,
colours, logo and imagery. Three pages at /demo/, each marked with a gold
PROPOSED TEMPLATE ribbon so it is never mistaken for the live site. Doug can take the whole
template or just the pricing page.
The pricing page is the ask. Everything else is optional.
Section 1 · The core problem, in one line
The page itself lists $2,499 of Practice Naturals value inside Option 1 — $500 account setup plus $1,999 in Metabolic Reset Kits. That single line item already exceeds the entire price difference.
By the page's own numbers, the launch event, the training, the campaign and the guarantee are free — and we still lose the sale to Option 2.
Section 2 · Findings
Every item below is taken from the live page at contourlight.com/contour-light-pricing/ as of 12 August 2026.
Two cards side by side, same visual weight, same button treatment, same CTA verb. A buyer reads them as two legitimate products separated by $2,495. Nothing on the page reframes that number, so the buyer does the only arithmetic available to them and concludes the launch costs $2,495 — then decides whether it is worth it.
Option 1 carries more than twenty bullets. Option 2 carries three. On a laptop at normal scroll position, Option 2's button is on screen and Option 1's is far below the fold. The recommended option is punished by its own completeness, and the only visible CTA belongs to the option we do not want sold.
The 4-Day On-Site Launch Event — the single thing no competitor offers — is listed as "(Priceless)", while the $500 Practice Naturals account setup gets a hard dollar figure. In a value stack, the unpriced item reads as the unjustifiable one.
Option 1 carries a 120-Day Profit Guarantee. Option 2 carries none — and the page never says so. The strongest sentence available is missing entirely: there is no profit guarantee on equipment only, because without the launch there is no process to stand behind.
The guarantee reads "if they are not on the path to profitability... we continue working with them." The deliverables read "marketing to the clinic's existing client database." This is internal rep-facing language pasted onto a customer-facing page. There is almost no "you" on the highest-intent page on the site.
The page asks for thirty thousand dollars and never shows what a launch produces. No revenue range, no payback period, no worked example. The number that closes this sale — a real launch that beat the clinic's best month ever — appears nowhere.
No testimonial, no named clinic, no photograph of an actual launch, no case study. The patient testimonials page has more social proof than the page asking a business owner for $29,995.
"Add a passive revenue source to your business**" appears on the pricing page, the physician guide and the purchase page. The double asterisk points to a footnote that does not exist on any of them. Separately, "passive revenue" is the wrong promise for this product — the entire value of the launch is that the service line is actively run by trained staff. It undercuts our own pitch and carries avoidable earnings-claim exposure.
Section 3 · The finding that isn't on the page
20% on a $24,995 base, paid immediately on the sale of the system, identical on Option 1 and Option 2. This is the real reason Option 2 keeps winning, and no amount of page design fixes it.
The commission is not delayed and it does not depend on the launch event ever happening. The rep is paid the same $5,000, at the same moment, whichever option closes. So the only thing that differs is how hard the sale is:
Same money, same day, more work. A rational rep sells Option 2 every time. They are not going off-script — they are following the incentive exactly as it is designed.
There is a real long-term incentive: a clinic that succeeds buys a second and third system, and that is the rep's account. Jerry's assessment is that this is not happening in practice — and that is predictable. A commission today is certain; a repeat sale in eighteen months is a maybe. Reps discount maybes to nearly zero.
That deferred value has to be made concrete and visible, or it will keep losing to the certain $5,000. That is a rep-enablement problem, not a website problem, and it needs its own one-page piece: what a successful clinic is worth to the rep over three years versus what a clinic with an unused device is worth, which is nothing, ever again.
On the current structure the premium on Option 1 covers the Clinic Launch Lab fee, or contributes to the monthly training payments. A rep incentive would be a third claim on the same $2,495.
That $2,500 is the only money in the structure that is not already spoken for by the device itself. It is where a rep incentive has to come from, and deciding how it splits is the single highest-leverage change available — higher than anything on the page.
The $2,500 difference between the two options already exists inside the current structure. The simplest change that moves rep behaviour is to route part of it to the person actually making the choice.
$5,000 / $5,000
Identical on both options, paid immediately on the sale. The rep has no financial reason to take on the harder conversation.
$6,000 / $5,000
$1,000 of the $2,500 difference goes to the rep on Complete System sales. A 20% raise for choosing the sale that actually installs a working service line.
It costs nothing that is not already in the price, it requires no change to the $24,995 commission base, and it is paid on the sale like every other commission — not held until the launch event happens months later, which would discount it to nothing.
Section 4 · The fix
Two equal cards. Buyer compares $29,995 to $27,500 and sees a $2,495 upgrade.
One offer, presented alone with a full value stack totalling $65,999. The equipment-only path appears far below as a plain, gated exception — not a peer.
"On-Site 4-Day Launch Event (Priceless)"
Day 1 training $5,000 · Days 2–4 live selling $15,000 · campaign $3,000 · sales kit $2,500. Every line carries a defensible number.
The delta is left for the buyer to interpret.
The delta is stated and reframed: "Equipment only is not $2,495 cheaper. It is $35,999 less." Same two prices, opposite conclusion.
Both options have a self-serve "Get Started" button.
Complete System has two paths — book a call or reserve and skip the call. Equipment only has no button: "released after a qualification call." It stays in the rep's pocket instead of on the buyer's screen.
No proof, no economics.
A real, named launch: Lux Bio Therapy, Henderson NV — 71% close rate on day one, 11 packages, $22,229 committed against a previous best month of $20,000. Disclaimed as one clinic's actual result, not a projection.
The 30% revenue share on launch-event sales appears nowhere on the site. A buyer finds out about it after the fact, from a rep or a contract.
Stated on the pricing page as a feature, with its scope spelled out: 30% of what we sell together during the launch, and nothing else — everything after is 100% yours, permanently. It is the strongest alignment proof we have. Hiding it wastes it and makes it feel like a catch.
Nothing tells a buyer when any of this happens.
The real sequence, stated plainly: system delivered in about a week so they can start treating immediately, launch events booking two to three months out, and an explicit section on what happens in the gap. The wait becomes proof of capacity instead of an unpleasant surprise.
No objection handling on the page. Every doubt goes to the rep, or nowhere.
Seven FAQs answering the objections the avatar actually raises — burned before, can't sell high ticket, can't afford it, staff won't buy in, already own a device.
Section 5 · Built and ready to review
Built on Contour Light's own fonts, colours, logo and imagery pulled directly from the live site, so they drop into the existing Divi theme without a redesign. Read them in order — they are the buyer's journey. Each carries a gold ribbon marking it as a template, never the live site.
"Install a new revenue line. Not another device." Ecosystem framing, clinical credibility kept intact, and an honest qualification section that names who this is not for.
Open the template →New page. The real sequence from delivery through the launch event to the guarantee, including the two-to-three month booking window and what happens while they wait. This is the page the Contour cut of the sales video should mirror.
Open the template →The primary deliverable. Full value stack, the delta argument, the revenue share stated as a feature, launch economics, comparison table, gated equipment-only exception and seven FAQs. Carries the show/hide toggle.
Open the template →Section 6 · Beyond the pricing page
A buyer arriving at the pricing page has already formed an opinion about what Contour Light is. Right now, everything upstream tells them it is a device.
The first words on contourlight.com are "Tired of yo-yo dieting?" and the primary button is "I WANT TO LOSE INCHES." The provider — the person who spends $29,995 — is a subordinate section further down. One site is being asked to convert two completely different buyers, and the patient is winning.
"German-made LEDs." "Supreme coverage." "Easy to use." "Delivers power." All true, all device features. Across the physician guide and purchase pages there is no mention of a launch event, on-site training, or anyone selling alongside the clinic. A prospect can read the entire provider section and never learn the most valuable thing we do.
The physician guide describes "an innovative marketing program [that] helps Contour Light® users unlock the potential of their product." That sentence is carrying the entire Clinic Launch Lab ecosystem, and it reads like a PDF library. It is the least believable sentence on the site and it describes the most valuable thing on offer.
Homepage asks one question — are you a patient or a provider — and sends each down a dedicated track. Patient messaging stops competing with a $29,995 decision.
Sitting between The Technology and Pricing. Every provider page links into it. This is the page that changes what the buyer thinks they are buying.
Keep every clinical credibility asset — the IRB trial, both FDA clearances, the reflective coating. Reframe the benefit from "add a revenue source" to "install a service line your staff can run."
Wrong promise, no footnote behind the asterisk, unnecessary earnings-claim exposure. Replaced throughout with defensible language.
Launch event photography, staff-training footage, and one named clinic case study. Currently there is none anywhere on the buying path.
One for cliniclaunchlab.com. A second for contourlight.com framing the purchase as installing a revenue department. Filming in Austin in the coming weeks; this page structure is the storyboard.
Section 7 · If Doug says yes
Pricing page goes live. Clinic Launch Lab supplies the finished copy, value stack and Divi build notes. Contour's team publishes, or gives us staging access and we build it. Lowest risk, highest return, one page.
"The System" page added to top-level nav. Provider home reworked. Passive-revenue language and the orphaned footnote removed sitewide.
Both video cuts land. Contour cut embeds on the provider home and system pages. Launch event photography and the first named case study go on the provider track.
It is one page, it is already built, and it is where the money is being left.