[wanderingbort]

You can say it’s insufficient but it is what it costs them today.

I guess the better comparison is that cost in a financial statement plus some expected increase in revenue due to a “better” product.

Again, I think you are correct in your analysis of the improvements but that contributes little to the revenue as explaining the benefit to most customers requires framing your existing product as potentially harmful to them. Educating them will be hard and it may result in an offsetting realization that they were unsafe before and as a result were paying too much.

[brendoelfrendo]

Not really, you would phrase it to your customers or investors as a way of mitigating risk. You can probably apply a price tag to that risk by estimating the impact of a data incident vs. the likelihood of one happening. Different businesses have different risk appetites, and I would hope that a board or C-Suite is thinking about what level of risk is acceptable for their business.

[wanderingbort]

Mitigating risk is covered in the cost reduction side.

Yes the C-Suite is thinking about and mitigating risk. They probably know the exact number for a given class of risk in terms of current mitigation costs. You have to beat that by a margin wide enough for them to take action.

Even if you know their numbers and know you beat it by enough to warrant the deployment you will still get bumped if someone sells them a path to increasing revenue.

The out I gave was to frame it as value added (more revenue) and that is where you risk devaluing your current product.

If you frame it as cost reduction you are capped in both price and interest by the current, necessarily acceptable, levels of risk and cost of mitigations.