By Ryan Richardson · Published 8 October 2026
A single order-value figure gets quoted as the funnel's headline number, and it doesn't seem to match what recent weeks are actually producing.
This book's own funnel has had three distinct pricing eras, each with its own prices for the entry asset and the order bumps on top of it. A single average computed across the whole measured period weights the longer, earlier, cheaper era more heavily than the shorter, recent, more expensive one, simply because it ran for longer in raw time. The blended figure that results, sitting close to the earlier low number, is real, and so is the higher recent figure. Neither one alone is the honest answer; the blended average without the era breakdown beside it hides exactly which price is live right now.
Close the order-value ledger at every price or offer change, treating each pricing era as its own period rather than folding it into one continuous average. When quoting a headline order-value number, put the era-by-era table beside it, not instead of it, so a single number never stands in for a history of repricing.
If your order-value figure is quoted as a single number with no date range attached, check how many pricing changes have happened across the period it covers. If there's been more than one, rebuild the figure broken out by era before trusting the blended version for any decision.
| Claim | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Why a single blended average across eras is misleading | a blended average weights the longer, cheaper era more heavily, which is why a single headline figure needs the three-repricing table beside it rather than standing alone | Measured in Real Money, Field Manual |
| This funnel has had three distinct pricing eras, each needing its own order-value figure | three pricing eras tracked separately rather than pooled into one blended average | Measured in Real Money, Field Manual |