CFO asks: What does '90% cheaper than training' mean and how to calculate it

TL;DR:

  • "90% cheaper" should be measured per person by comparing full training cost (trainer, logistics, lost productivity) to the annual Empatyzer cost (licenses plus minimal ops).
  • Calculate honestly: total all training expenses, divide by participants for unit cost, then compare to Empatyzer total for the same group and period.
  • Consider scale: in-person workshops have fixed costs, while Empatyzer costs scale linearly, so savings grow with user count.
  • Include hidden costs: lost billable hours, project delays and turnover increase the return on Empatyzer.
  • With conservative assumptions you can expect roughly 80–95% savings; at full scale and repeated training the figure can approach 99%.

As a CFO, use one clear definition: compare the total solution cost for the same group over the same period. A practical calculation: 1) add every traditional training expense for the edition under review (trainer fee, travel, room hire, catering, materials, internal coordination); 2) divide by participant count to get the per‑person training cost; 3) add lost productivity (training hours × average hourly employee cost); 4) calculate Empatyzer's total cost: annual license fees for the required seats, minimal HR/IT support and any implementation expenses amortized over a year; 5) compute percentage saving = (1 - cost_empatyzer / cost_training) × 100%. Example using conservative numbers: a one‑day workshop for 20 people with trainer and logistics at 27,000 PLN equals 1,350 PLN per person; add lost work time 8 hours × 150 PLN/h = 1,200 PLN, totaling 2,550 PLN per person. If Empatyzer’s annual per‑user cost is conservatively 300 PLN (subscription + minimal support), saving = (1 - 300 / 2550) = 88%. Compare that with larger workshops, repeated yearly editions, or more elaborate training formats and the gap widens easily to >95%. Important: do not inflate benefits—use actual invoices and your company’s wage rates, account for how many editions occur annually and the geographic reach of participants. Also compare scope: a single short workshop often produces fleeting effects, while Empatyzer delivers continuous, on‑demand support, so the time dimension of the solution must be part of the comparison. Finally, present three scenarios for the CFO: pessimistic (shorter training, lower rates), realistic (the example above) and optimistic (higher training costs and broad Empatyzer adoption). This makes clear when the advertised "90%" is realistic and when automation plus scale can push savings toward 99%.

Summary: tally all training costs per person, tally Empatyzer’s annual per‑user cost, compare percentages and show pessimistic/realistic/optimistic scenarios; under realistic assumptions 80–95% savings are credible, and at full scale with repeatable use savings can reach 99%.

Author: Empatyzer

Published:

Updated: