Ok, so "how much should we spend on this?" is a fair question. And the honest answer is: it depends what you want it to actually do.
BLUF: wellbeing spend runs from a few pounds a head to over a thousand. The price on its own tells you almost nothing. What matters is the cost per outcome, not the cost per head.
The range is enormous
An Employee Assistance Programme might cost around £14 per employee a year. Broader wellbeing programmes typically run anywhere from about £150 to £1,200 per head per year. That is a huge spread, and it is why "how much should it cost" has no single answer.
Why cheap can be the expensive option
Here is the trap.
A £14 benefit that nobody uses does not cost you £14. It costs you £14 and the problem you still have not solved. Cheap and passive usually means low uptake, and low uptake means you paid for something that changed nothing.
For example: the fruit bowl and the app login are cheap precisely because they ask nothing of anyone and, too often, deliver about as much back.
You are not buying features. You are buying change
The parts that cost more, the coaching, the human support, the accountability, are the parts that actually create the outcome. That is not a coincidence. Change is harder than access, and harder costs more.
So what that means is: a higher price per head that recovers real productive time can be far better value than a token spend that recovers nothing.
Ask a better question
Here's what to do: reframe it from cost per head to cost per outcome.
- What does this actually change for a person?
- How many people will genuinely engage with it?
- What does it recover, in energy, in days, in retention?
Answer those, and the right price becomes obvious.
The key takeaway
Do not ask "what is the cheapest option". Ask "what is the cost of the result I actually want". Get after the outcome first, and the price makes sense.
If you want help working out what the right investment looks like for your organisation, don't sit on it. Get in touch and we will talk it through.
