How do you set prices with confidence?
At a glance:
Don’t price the cost, price the outcome. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) is what a specific customer will pay for a specific outcome in a specific context. Your job is to discover it, segment it, and capture it (ethically).
WHAT IT IS
Value-based pricing ties price to the benefit delivered (speed, risk transfer, scope, certainty), not your input costs or a competitor’s sticker. Buyers show WTP through their behavior – what they do when faced with real trade-offs across tiers, bundles, and contexts. Companies that default to cost-plus or copy-the-competitor typically (and chronically) under-charge relative to WTP.
WHY IT MATTERS
Money on the table is real. A meaningful share of pricing calls miss the best price; WTP methods surface under‑charging and over‑building.
Value ≠ features. Price the outcome delta between tiers; let elasticity testing set spacing.
Better evidence → better calls. Pair interviews/surveys with in‑market tests to converge on WTP by segment.
CASE FILE
Netflix: Price Hikes + Ad Tier = Willingness-to-Pay Segmentation
“As we continue to invest in programming and deliver more value for our members, we will occasionally ask our members to pay a little more so that we can reinvest to further improve Netflix.”
– Netflix Q4 2024 Shareholder Letter
Setup. After a year of huge subscriber gains in 2024 (with an additional 19 million new subscribers in Q4 alone), Netflix faced the classic question: “How much more can we charge without spiking churn?”
Move. At the start of 2025, Netflix raised prices across plans while expanding the lower-priced, ad-supported tier to catch price-sensitive demand. The move means not only increased revenues at each subscription tier, but a wider band of subscription price points captured both value-conscious and premium ends of consumers.
Outcome. Netflix continues to thread the needle, capturing continued sub growth alongside price increases. And, it signals a confidence in value prop and ability to command higher prices while driving additional revenue.
Lessons.
Price with confidence by segmenting WTP, not by chasing a single “right” price. Use stated WTP (surveys) to set hypotheses while turning to real-world WTP (downgrades, pause rates, rejoin rates) to update priors.
Pair premium increases with a value entry to manage elasticity and expand the demand curve. Treat price moves as experiments rather than events and see how elasticity hits different cohorts to understand downgrades vs. churn, etc.
Keep a clearly “premium” plan to set the anchor and emphasize qualitative gaps through tier names. A clearly more expensive plan anchors the mid-tier as “reasonable.” Use feature names (“Premium/Ultra”) to make the anchor feel significantly different, not just more of the same.
Framework:
-
To understand your value proposition (and therefore how much customers will pay for it), you’ve got to know the outcomes you provide and the pain points you solve. Knowing your value starts with knowing your customer – the job to be done, the benefits your product provides,
Economic Value Estimation (EVE) = reference + differentiation.
Total economic value equals the price of the next-best alternative plus the worth of what differentiates you; it’s the upper bound a fully informed buyer would pay.
Takeaway: Name the NBA for each segment and price to capture a fair share of the outcome delta.
-
Classic WTP approaches have their limitations in capturing context. Stated tools (Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger) give directional ranges – and they’re useful if you recognize them as such. Real WTP shows up in actions (tier choice, upgrades/downgrades, renewals). New methods such as the Comparative Method of Valuation build in an understanding of who or what the competition actually is.
Takeaway: Pair a stated method with at least one in-market test or consider context-forward methods of gauging WTP before locking prices.
-
Buyers (and especially B2B buyers) discount vague claims. If it’s value to the customer that determines the price, you’ve got to make sure that you’re showing (and telling) them the value. Think case studies, ROI calculators, or performance guarantees. Persuasive value propositions document proof to justify the sticker price.
Takeaway: Every proposal should link price → outcome → evidence (“why now”), not feature lists.
-
Bundling can increase profit when valuations differ across items, but framing can hurt evaluation if done poorly. Terms (deposits/commitments) trade discount for predictability.
Takeaway: Test bundles against contribution margin and churn, and default to clear outcome bundles over feature soup.
-
Customers accept price moves tied to costs or capacity but punish perceived opportunism; transparent references and guardrails matter.
Takeaway: Explain “why this price” (inputs, SLA, capacity) and avoid fake reference prices.
OPERATOR CHECKLIST
◻️ We’ve named the outcome we actually sell (time saved, failures avoided, uptime, risk transfer) for each key segment.
◻️ For every offer, we’ve written down the customer’s realistic NBA (do nothing, DIY, temp labor, cheaper tool, incumbent) – not just the closest competitor.
◻️ We’ve built at least a rough EVE/EVC view by segment: reference spend + differential value (including switching/learning costs).
◻️ Our tiers are priced to capture a portion of the outcome delta (Good/Better/Best each map to a % of value, not random round numbers).
◻️ We use at least one stated WTP method (e.g., Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger) plus one revealed method (A/B tests, tier-spacing tests, pilot offers).
◻️ Our proposal templates link price → outcome → evidence (case study, benchmark, or guarantee); no bare price tables without context.
◻️ We review win/loss and upgrade/downgrade data quarterly to spot segments that are clearly under- or over-monetized.
◻️ Bundles and terms are tested against contribution margin and churn; we can point to at least one bundle we killed because it cannibalized high-WTP buyers.
◻️ Discounts are framed as structured exchanges (volume/term/commitment) and logged; we can see where we’re trading value, not just “doing deals.”
◻️ We revisit WTP and value assumptions annually (or when a major NBA shifts) instead of carrying old price logic forward by habit.
SIGNAL TO WATCH
If buyers say “too expensive” yet still purchase premium outcomes (speed, guarantees) when offered your pricing is cost‑plus, not value‑based.
ONE QUICK ACTION
Write one sentence that states the outcome you sell (time saved, failures avoided, uptime guaranteed). Price your middle tier to capture a % of that outcome.
COMMON TRAPS
Averaging across unlike segments (“one price to rule them all”).
Treating survey intent as truth without field validation
Bundling reflexively and cannibalizing high-WTP buyers.
Confusing feature count with value. (Outcomes aren’t checklists.)
Experiment 1:
HYPOTHESIS: OUTCOME DELTA → PRICE
What it’s for: Translate a measurable customer outcome into a defensible price hypothesis (by tier) using a conservative share-of-value approach anchored to the customer’s Next Best Alternative (NBA).
Who it’s for: Founder/GM + product/marketing + finance/pricing partner who need to set or revise price levels without full research.
What it does: Lets you stop guessing: Quantify one outcome delta vs. NBA, decide how much value you capture by tier, and sanity-check the result against variable cost and margin targets.
Use when you need…
Clarity: Turns value into math, not adjectives.
Speed: Gets to a defendable price hypothesis in one session.
Strategic insight: Makes assumptions explicit so you know what to validate.
Experiment 2:
TEST: LEAKS
What it’s for: Test real willingness to pay by raising the most-chosen tier slightly and monitoring mix, win rate, and complaints without changing anything else.
Who it’s for: A growth/pricing owner with access to pricing controls and basic daily metrics (ecomm, sales-led, or subscription).
What it does: Runs a controlled micro-experiment to reveal sensitivity and confirm whether Better is underpriced.
Use when you need…
Clarity: Shows actual sensitivity vs. opinions.
Speed: Low-risk, fast signal in 7-14 days.
Strategic insight: Tells you whether to push price, add proof, or segment/fence.
This document is provided solely for general informational and discussion purposes and is intended to offer insight into certain philosophies, principles, and approaches that Permanent Equity may employ when partnering with the management teams of its portfolio companies following an investment. The material is illustrative in nature only and does not describe a required, uniform, or exhaustive set of practices or expectations.
This document is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, legal, tax, accounting, investment, or other professional advice, nor as creating, modifying, or implying any legal rights, obligations, fiduciary duties, standards of conduct, or contractual commitments. Nothing herein should be relied upon as a substitute for individualized advice or negotiated agreements.
This document does not constitute, and should not be construed as, an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase any securities, investment vehicles, or advisory services. Any such offer or solicitation may be made only pursuant to definitive offering documents and governing agreements, which will contain material information, risk factors, and binding terms that may differ materially from the general concepts described herein.
The practices, decision making frameworks, expectations, and examples referenced in this document are intended solely to illustrate how Permanent Equity may work with certain portfolio companies in certain circumstances. Actual practices vary based on the specific facts, negotiated contractual arrangements, regulatory considerations, industry dynamics, and stage of the business, and may change over time. No representation is made that any approach described herein will apply to any particular company, management team, transaction, or situation.
Nothing in this document should be interpreted as a commitment, promise, guarantee, or assurance regarding autonomy, governance rights, decision making authority, performance outcomes, distributions, returns, or operational results. Past experience, illustrative examples, and general statements of philosophy are not indicative of future results.
Readers should consult their own legal, tax, financial, and other professional advisers regarding the applicability of any concepts described herein to their specific circumstances.
Permanent Equity undertakes no obligation to update or revise this document, and the material may be modified or withdrawn at any time without notice.