Apple does do something like this with songs: once you have bought a single track for 79p, you can "complete the album" for 79p less than the original album cost. But I suspect that while record companies are now happy to accept most of Apple's recommendations on how they can mutually make more money – the film industry might not be ready to do so just yet.

Clearly there is a behavioural reason – perhaps the "fairness" you talk about – why this upselling process works. An interesting issue to think about, particularly in the context of professional services pricing.

The reason you want to buy the video after rental is because you liked the product. "Try before you buy" is good for a customer. That's why the ice cream shops around here are so free to give out tastes of the different flavors.

Whether there is an explicit discount given to you or not is kind of beside the point. You are a buyer and you want to give the seller more money for the same product you already purchased. Apple could find some sort of face-saving way to deal with this. If they wanted the money, that is. They may not want the marginal revenue from you. Stranger things have happened.

But back to the Moral of the Story for accountants and lawyers and normal people like us.

You spent the nominal amount to rent the movie. Then you are prepared to spend more money to buy it. The fact that your seller in this proposed commercial transaction is pushing aside your proffered cash is irrelevant for the moment.

I don't want to be a Dim Bulb like Apple, as the owner of a law firm. How do I capture that additional revenue and not make Apple's error?

It seems to me that a good marketing system gives a potential customer the ability to test — with minimal financial risk — whether he/she wants to do business with you, the accountant or lawyer. Start with free (blog), maybe more free (downloadable PDFs, videos), then offer cheap ebooks, then more expensive paper books, then cheap one-to-many interactions, then one-to-one consultations, then the expensive stuff.

At any point along the way the customer just has to say "Meh, this costs me $20, what do I have to lose?" What you as the seller have done is (1) cleared away the "I want this for free" riff-raff and (2) gained the opportunity to be in front of a real customer and develop trust.

We as professional services firms don't do this. We enter the Restaurant of the Customer and want to jump straight to dessert.

I nominate Alan Weiss at http://www.contrarianconsulting.com as a decent model for what I describe above as a business model. Blog, a little bit of freebie stuff like a podcast, paper books in abundance for a little bit of money, then (I did this) attend a speech at $99, then bigger consulting fees from other stuff he does.

The idea for this gradient of services (cheap to expensive) was originally given to me by @riskin (Gerry Riskin of http://www.edge.ai). He said (eloquently) that you have to get the client used to giving you money. Start small and work your way up.

It works like a champ.

I'm still getting better at it.

@philiphodgen

Too bad Apple doesn't want your money. That's why God made BitTorrent, anyway.

Apple does do something like this with songs: once you have bought a single track for 79p, you can "complete the album" for 79p less than the original album cost. But I suspect that while record companies are now happy to accept most of Apple's recommendations on how they can mutually make more money – the film industry might not be ready to do so just yet.

Clearly there is a behavioural reason – perhaps the "fairness" you talk about – why this upselling process works. An interesting issue to think about, particularly in the context of professional services pricing.