April 2024. I was sitting in a small meeting room at a co-working space in Nanshan, Shenzhen, staring blankly at WeCom chat records. Opposite me was the owner of a channel that had been doing "Smoking & Cardiopulmonary Health"popular science for two years. He had just suffered a classic blow: two competing local accounts had slashed the "21-Day Quit Smoking Check-in Camp" from 299 RMB to 99 RMB, and then to a "limited-time" 49.9 RMB. His own camp was still 199 RMB, and sign-ups had dropped from a weekly average of 18 to 4. Someone commented directly: "Others charge 50, why are you three times more expensive?"


That night we laid out nearly 90 days of data: public-domain monthly views were about 900,000 to 1.2 million; private-domain valid contacts were 2,100 people; consultation price points had been tried at 99, 199, and 399 — those who actually wanted to talk through and pay were concentrated among people who "had tried and failed to quit at least once." People brought in by cheap courses had a completion rate of less than 30%, with higher refunds and negative reviews.


My judgment was blunt: In the tobacco science track, lacking pricing power isn't because your price tag isn't attractive enough — it's because users have a mental "all popular science is about the same" comparison table, and you haven't pulled yourself off that table yet.** Pricing power isn't a slogan; it's the ability for users to still choose you and accept your price when faced with alternatives. It's built on three things: **professional depth makes you hard to replace, user trust turns price into a "risk premium," and unique service makes delivery non-replicable.


Below I break down these three lines and share the actual pace I pushed from 2023–2025.



I. Professional Depth: First Raise the Cost of "Being Compared," Then Talk About Raising Prices

Pricing power is not a price tag game — it's the result of three overlapping lines: professional depth, user trust, and unique service.
Pricing power is not a price tag game — it's the result of three overlapping lines: professional depth, user trust, and unique service.

1. Tobacco Popular Science Easily Fakes Professionalism: Lots of Citations, Few Pathways


Many channels project professionalism through: literature screenshots, mechanism animations, technical jargon. This works for follower growth but is nearly useless for pricing. Because what users pay for isn't "I understand how nicotine binds to receptors," but "My hands are itchy this week, I'm coughing badly, it's my 3rd relapse — what do I do next?"


In September 2023, a cross-disciplinary oral-health–tobacco account in Hangzhou had content full of cellular-level breakdowns — decent bookmark rates, but a 49 RMB info pack barely sold. We made a hard pivot: changed the same topic into "verifiable pathways."



Within 60 days of the change, the same account's private-domain "problem-type consultation" inquiries increased about 1.8×; sales of the 99 RMB "14-Day Oral Discomfort Guide + Voice Q&A" went from a monthly average of 6 to 19. Views actually dropped about 15%, but **paying density** went up.


Perspective: The pricing significance of professional depth isn't about citing three more papers than others — it's about compressing "correct knowledge" into a "state-based decision tree." The finer the decision tree, the harder it is for users to erase the difference with the phrase "others are cheaper."


2. Depth Should Be "Verifiable," Not "Venerable"


Users in the tobacco track are extremely sensitive to exaggeration. The more you say "Follow me and you'll definitely quit," the more it looks like a scam, and the harder the price is to justify. Conversely, when you clearly state the boundaries, pricing becomes easier.


In January 2024, I added three fixed disclaimers to the consultation page (placed above the payment button, font size no smaller than the body text):


1. This service provides behavioral management and information organization, and does not replace licensed medical diagnosis or treatment;

2. No fixed quit-success rate is guaranteed; factors affecting results will be explained;

3. Delivery checklist is fixed: duration, number of sessions, whether a written summary is provided, and how to reschedule overdue appointments.


In the week after adding the disclaimers, consultation conversion dropped from about 11% to 8% — some people were put off by "no guarantee." But complaints and refunds dropped simultaneously, and the 399 RMB tier's course completion and repurchase (add-on consolidation pack) became more stable over the following two months. **Pricing power sometimes first shows as: the courage to filter out people who just want to buy a "guarantee letter."**


3. The "Assetization" of Professional Depth: Let Users See Accumulation, Not Just Talk


Pricing power depends on accumulable assets:


Asset Type Specific Examples Effect on Pricing
Evidence chain assets Topic collections, timeline comparison charts, reference packs (not just stacking) Raise the imitation cost for "title-copying" competitors
Method assets Typing questionnaires, 7/14/30-day process cards Turn price from "listening to you talk" into "using your system"
Case assets Before/after comparisons (anonymized), failure retrospectives (more credible than success stories) Reduce user uncertainty about outcomes

In June 2024, we turned the high-frequency pain points from the past 120 paid consultations into 8 process cards (relapse triggers, withdrawal cough, weight, sleep, social smoking pressure, etc.), placed in a pre-read package before consultation. Before paying 299 RMB for a consultation, users had already read 1–2 cards relevant to them. Result: average consultation duration dropped from 48 minutes to 32 minutes, satisfaction didn't decline, and the owner's effective hourly rate actually rose. **Once depth is productized, you're not selling "overtime chat tonight" — you're selling "a path already mapped out."**



II. User Trust: Price Is the Opposite of an "Uncertainty Discount"


1. The Trust Ledger of Tobacco Users Is Harder to Write Than Beauty


Harm-focused content can create anxiety, but it also creates defensiveness. Users think: "Yesterday you talked about cancer, today you're selling a course — aren't you peddling fear?" So in the tobacco track, **trust isn't follower count — it's "dare you let me verify you at low cost."**


The common product layering in knowledge monetization works especially well here: traffic products bear verification, trust products bear profit, and profit products bear deep binding. The industry roughly scales: tens to a couple hundred for entry, hundreds to thousands for trust delivery, and higher for long-term accompaniment — the key isn't copying the numbers, but **each layer must make users feel "the extra money bought certainty."** There's a simple formula I agree with: the perceived value of the result should be notably higher than the price; otherwise, in a high-failure-rate topic like quitting smoking, any price will feel "not worth it."


In November 2023, an account in Chengdu directly launched a 999 RMB "one-on-one quit plan." In the first month they sold 3, with one negative review ("it's just chatting"). We broke it into a ladder:



The result wasn't "everyone buys 1280" — it was: **39.9 verifies trust → about 18%–25% upgrade to 299 within 14 days → about 12%–15% of 299 users enter accompaniment**. The order structure went from "gambling on big orders" to "controllable funnel." For the first time, the owner felt: raising prices doesn't require arguing — it requires upgrading.


2. Trust Comes from "Process Visibility," Not from "Perfect Persona"


I oppose building a "quit-smoking saint" persona in the tobacco track. Users trust "I've stepped in holes, I know which day you'll break down" more.


Actionable trust-building moves (we executed these in private domain in 2024):


1. **72-hour response rule in bio**: Consultation inquiries get first reply within 12 hours on workdays; overtime compensated (e.g., one text Q&A session).

2. **Deliverable sample first**: Payment page shows two pages of an anonymized plan sample so users know they're buying a document + dialogue, not mysticism.

3. **Failure cases published**: At least one retrospective per month on "why this accompaniment didn't help," with clear boundaries (compliance, comorbidities, environmental triggers).

4. **Refund conditions clear**: Refundable within 24 hours if service hasn't started; non-refundable after written plan delivered — rules build more trust than "being flexible."


In August 2024, a video account was attacked as a "monetization dog" over apromotional video, losing about 1,200 followers. Instead of deleting comments to put out the fire, we posted a full cost breakdown: material costs,customer service hours, refund rate, average service duration. Comments were still divided, but private-domain consultation conversions that week didn't drop — they actually rose about 20%. **The crowd wants a morality play; paying users want transparency.** Pricing power stands on the latter's side.


3. The Accounting Metrics of Trust: Don't Just Look at Likes


I asked the team to look at only four trust-related numbers each week:



In a February 2025 review, one account had great view counts but only a 6% 7-day conversation rate. Root cause: thetraffic generation copy sounded like an ad, so users went on guard after adding. Changed to: "First ask about quit days and the single hardest thing — within 24 hours give only one piece of advice, don't pitch a course." Conversation rate rose to 14%, and natural 299 consultation inquiries reappeared. **Without conversation, there's no pricing power — only shelf price.**



III. Unique Service: Upgrade "Content" to "State-Based Personalized Pathway"


1. The End of Homogeneity Is a Price War; The End of Typed Service Is a Menu Price


Tobaccopopular science content is extremely homogeneous: harms, secondhand smoke, e-cigarette controversy, withdrawal symptoms... Users feel "change the cover and it's the same." Unique service isn't about out-of-the-box creativity — it's about **breaking delivery down by user state**.


The simplest typing we used (6-question private-domain survey, 2 minutes to fill):


1. Not yet acting, just anxious

2. Preparation phase (date set, not started)

3. Withdrawal days 0–14 (acute discomfort)

4. Days 15–90 (fluctuations and triggers)

5. Post-relapse restart

6. Family member consulting (spouse/parents)


Different states, different prices:


State Key Delivery Focus Example Price Range (adjustable by city and experience)
Preparation Start-day design, environment modification checklist 99–199 material + one text reply
Days 0–14 Symptom reference, sleep/cough/emotion emergency kit 199–399 short consultation
Relapse restart Triggerretrospective, anti-recurrence rules 299–599
Family consulting Communication scripts, boundaries, non-coercion 199–399
28-day accompaniment Check-in + adjustment + relapse plan 980–1680

In October 2024, an account in Nanjing changed from "unified 21-day camp" to "enter camp by state." Same 21 days, 70% reused course videos; the difference was in-group tasks and weekly feedback templates. Completion rate rose from 28% to 51%, negative reviews dropped significantly, and when the price was adjusted from 99 back to 199, sign-ups didn't halve — because users felt "this is designed for my state," not "another check-in group."


**My principle: Unique service = same knowledge, different arrangement and response rules.** When the arrangement power is in your hands, comparison shopping becomes much harder.


2. Service Differentiation Must Be Written into the "Hours Ledger," Otherwise "Unique" = Self-Indulgence


Unique easily becomes unscalable overtime. We fell into this trap in late 2023: promised "ask anytime," and the owner was still answering "can I just smoke half a cigarette?" at 11 PM. Hourly rate was shattered; no matter how high the price, it was a loss.


We later defined clear service tiers:



After writing boundaries into a contract-style statement, the 1280 accompaniment gross margin went from "looks good on paper" to "actually calculable." **Pricing power includes: you have the right to define how your labor is purchased.** Unlimited responsiveness isn't a service advantage — it's pricing suicide.


3. Uniqueness Can Also Come from "Cross-Disciplinary Ability," Not From Louder Slogans


In the red ocean of tobacco popular science, what's truly hard to copy is cross-disciplinary content: oral care timeline, nasal dryness and withdrawal links, weight and taste rebound, household thirdhand smoke cleanup, pregnancy scenario communication... If you have one cross-disciplinary chain, you can open a product line that others can't easily fight a price war on.


From May to July 2024, we turned "Oral Changes Timeline After Quitting Smoking" into a series, attached with 15–20 minute voice consultations (tried at 199/299). Almost all inbound paths were: read the timeline → their own days didn't match → ask if it's normal. This kind of need **naturally rejects a 9.9 RMB generic course**, because users need "checked against my day." Cross-disciplinary topics are the terrain advantage of pricing power.



IV. How the Three Lines "Gradually" Synthesize Pricing Power: Advance by Stage


Pricing power isn't announcing a price hike one day — it's having different stage goals.


Stage A: 0–3 Months — Validation First, Not Face



The goal of this stage isn't the highestper-order value — it's: **retain 20–50 paying users willing to give honest feedback.**


Stage B: 3–12 Months — Menuize, Start Rejecting Invalid Price Comparisons



In 2024, we had a price increase: 299 → 399, only for consultations "including written plan." We announced it two weeks in advance in private domain and added "one text check-up within 7 days." Conversion rate dipped about 3 points short-term, but monthly consultation revenue was still higher than before the increase — because the per-order value made up for it, and consultation purposes were clearer.


Stage C: 1 Year+ — Lock In with Assets and Reputation, Not Discounts



By this stage, **the sign of pricing power is very concrete**: when competitors lower prices, your inquiry script changes from "can it be cheaper" to "which tier fits me"; your sales action changes from "explaining why it's expensive" to "confirming state and goals."



Conclusion: One Executable General Principle


Pricing power in the tobacco science popularization track doesn't come from tougher sales talk — it comes from three things being true at the same time:


1. **Professional depth** turns content into verifiable decision pathways, raising substitution costs;

2. **User trust** uses low-price verification, process transparency, and outcome boundaries to reduce the fear of paying;

3. **Unique service** arranges delivery and hours rules by state, making price correspond to a menu, not to "the feeling of one article."


If you're currently being ground down by a 49.9 RMB course, don't rush to follow the price down. Open your last 30 days of private-domain records and count: how many people can clearly say what day they're stuck on and what hurts most? If they can't, what you're missing isn't a lower price — it's that you haven't moved yourself from the "general popular science shelf" to the "state-solution shelf." Until you move, any price tag is just a projection of someone else's pricing power.

18→4
Weekly signup change (after following price cuts)
11%→8%
Consultation conversion change after adding disclaimers
48→32min
Average consultation duration after process card pre-reading
18%–25%
Upgrade rate from low-price to 299 within 14 days
12%–15%
Upgrade rate from 299 to 1280 accompaniment
28%→51%
Completion rate increase after state-based camp enrollment
6%→14%
7-day conversation rate increase after optimizing引流 copy
299→399
Price increase for consultations including written plan