Group Training Results After 18 Months - 19% Continued
Here's where it gets interesting. We found some eye-opening numbers if we look at students who were still actively performing the procedure 18 months after their training. For students who participated in group training, about 19% were still applying what they had learned in class. This statistic mainly pertains to training programs designed to teach Powder Brows or microblading skills and aimed at students who plan to start a career afterward. So, to put it simply, one out of every five students from the group classes was actively performing the procedure later on.Individual Training - Two Out of Three Continue
Moving to individual training, the landscape shifts dramatically. Compared to group training, almost two out of three students, or more precisely 65%, continued practicing the procedure 18 months after their individual training. This strongly suggests that those who opt for individual training have a significantly higher chance of building a career in Powder Brows or microblading. It's worth noting, however, that we can't accurately measure students' motivation levels in individual vs. group training. This is mainly because students usually don't disclose whether they are "serious about learning the skill" or not.
The Greatest Disparity - Becoming a Top Artis
t Let's dive deeper into the earning potential of students post-training. Our data shows a marked difference in earnings between group and individual training. Of the students who continued practicing the service 18 months after group training, about one in five made most of the money. To put that into perspective, considering the overall pool of students entering group training, it leads to a glaring income inequality. Specifically, only 3.5% of students from group training in Powder Brows or microblading end up sharing a massive 82% of the total income generated from the procedures after 18 months. Essentially, a small number of top-performing students take home the bulk of the earnings, while the rest make a minimal contribution to keeping the academies running. Of course, results can vary between different academies and training programs. Still, if one out of five students turns into a practicing artist, that's a pretty solid outcome.
Now for the most crucial point: the likelihood of becoming a top artist in the field. In group training, only around 20% of practicing students make the learned skill their primary source of income. Contrast this with individual training, where the number jumps to 56%. That's a 2.5 times higher likelihood of breaking into this profession's top tier of earners. The gap widens even further when you look at the proportion of top artists among all entering students. If 3.6% of students from group training become top artists, then from individual training, a whopping 34% do.
Are Students Who Enter Different Types of Training the Same?
Before jumping to conclusions about which training format is superior, examining if the same kinds of students enroll in individual and group training is crucial. Could external pressures or motivations account for the observed differences in outcomes? We analyzed over 340 pre-enrollment forms from students in both training formats to investigate. Interestingly, no significant demographic or psychographic differences were found between the two groups. The primary differentiating factor affecting the outcomes seems to be the training format itself. Factors like training duration, content, and the portion devoted to practical work were essentially identical across the board.
Does the Higher Price Motivate Students to Learn More Actively?
Most students enter either training format—group or individual—with the expressed intent of genuinely learning the skill, not merely "trying it out to see what happens." Naturally, it's challenging to gauge the absolute honesty of respondents or, more precisely, their intent to misrepresent their true motivations. However, most students in both formats have declared a sincere desire to become proficient artists. Consequently, no evidence suggests that more highly motivated students gravitate solely toward individual training.
Surprisingly Small Fee Differences
Another intriguing finding concerns the training fees. Despite the higher success rates of individual training, the average fee is only 46% higher than that of group training seats. This insight is based on quotes gathered from over 31 Powder Brows and microblading trainers. There are some caveats to consider, most notably that individual training often requires students to be more flexible with their schedules and, in some instances, willing to travel greater distances to attend sessions at times convenient for the trainer. It appears that many trainers are eager to fill their available time slots, which often lie outside group training schedules, with individual training sessions. Since the prices for these individual sessions aren't typically public, trainers are more willing to negotiate or offer various options. These options can include training without supplies or starter packages and training of different durations. For a fair comparison, we examined packages that included the same types of supplies - the only difference being the training format.
The Influence of Training Fees: Nominal vs. Real Price
One could argue - and rightfully so - that students opting for individual training might be more motivated because they're paying approximately 1.5 times more for essentially the same training. However, our research indicates that the cost has a surprisingly limited impact on motivation. To understand this, it's crucial to differentiate between the training's nominal and real price. The real price is the training cost framed against the average yearly income of a student. While the nominal price might differ by 46%, the real price can vary by an astonishing 800% when calculated against a student's yearly income. To put it plainly, the price of a Powder Brows, Hairstrokes, or microblading training could consume up to eight times more of some students' yearly income than others. Therefore, it's incorrect to assume that those with lower yearly incomes would necessarily opt for group training; both options might be relatively more expensive for them.
