"Almost everyone will find something in our services worth paying for"
About this Quote
A salesman’s compliment disguised as a sociological observation, Gavyn Davies’s line is built to lower your defenses while widening the net. “Almost everyone” is the key lubricant: it signals inclusivity, inevitability, and scale without promising anything testable. Nobody is excluded, yet nobody is guaranteed satisfaction. That’s not an accident; it’s a corporate sentence engineered to be hard to argue with and impossible to litigate.
The phrase “find something” quietly shifts responsibility onto the customer. If you don’t see the value, it’s because you haven’t looked hard enough, not because the product failed. It also reframes the offering from a discrete service to a buffet of micro-benefits: some feature, some convenience, some status marker. This is classic subscription-era psychology before the term became cliché: you don’t need to love it, you just need to keep paying.
“Worth paying for” is similarly elastic. Worth can mean financially rational, emotionally reassuring, professionally necessary, or merely cheaper than the alternative. In business contexts - especially media, finance, consulting, or telecom-style bundles - that ambiguity is a strategy. The statement doesn’t sell excellence; it sells coverage. It implies a portfolio approach to value: even if many customers only nibble, the aggregate will pay.
The subtext is confident and slightly defiant: we don’t need unanimity, we need enough perceived utility across segments to justify a price. It’s a line aimed less at consumers than at investors and regulators, a tidy defense of monetization dressed up as democratic choice.
The phrase “find something” quietly shifts responsibility onto the customer. If you don’t see the value, it’s because you haven’t looked hard enough, not because the product failed. It also reframes the offering from a discrete service to a buffet of micro-benefits: some feature, some convenience, some status marker. This is classic subscription-era psychology before the term became cliché: you don’t need to love it, you just need to keep paying.
“Worth paying for” is similarly elastic. Worth can mean financially rational, emotionally reassuring, professionally necessary, or merely cheaper than the alternative. In business contexts - especially media, finance, consulting, or telecom-style bundles - that ambiguity is a strategy. The statement doesn’t sell excellence; it sells coverage. It implies a portfolio approach to value: even if many customers only nibble, the aggregate will pay.
The subtext is confident and slightly defiant: we don’t need unanimity, we need enough perceived utility across segments to justify a price. It’s a line aimed less at consumers than at investors and regulators, a tidy defense of monetization dressed up as democratic choice.
Quote Details
| Topic | Marketing |
|---|
More Quotes by Gavyn
Add to List







