Value-based selling efforts often fizzle after an initial push because companies fail to see beyond the numbers when calculating the economic impact of product or service benefits. While quantifying evidence of benefits is at the heart of value-based selling, it's not enough. Companies can follow a five-step process that builds commitment to joint value creation with their customers and develops a deep mutual understanding of what it can offer and what benefits are meaningful to customers.

Proponents of the subscription model argue that it offers customers a better user experience and a lower barrier to access, while providers gain predictability and ease of communication with customers. But the risks of supply chain disruption and inflation are calling into question vendors' ability to fulfill their service commitments to customers and retain them over the long term.

Joy4Home Brands, the maker of novel houseware items, was gearing up for its launch. The company would be introducing two lines: kitchenware products and storage containers. The initial go-to-market plan called for a direct to consumer (DTC) channel strategy. While Joy4Home had a handle on its customer acquisition efforts, it had yet to determine the DTC pricing for each line. Moreover, two additional opportunities had recently emerged. The first was a B2B opportunity involving a modified kitchenware line, and the second was a brick-and mortar wholesale proposal for larger storage containers. The Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) had market research data and other information to help her determine the optimal pricing scheme for these various sales avenues. Recommendations were needed soon.

More and more companies are relying on pricing algorithms to maximize profits. The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning enables real-time price adjustments based on supply and demand, competitors' activities, delivery schedules, and so forth. But constant price shifts have a downside: They may trigger unfavorable perceptions of a firm's offerings and its brand. It's vital, therefore, to understand and manage the signals being sent by the algorithms. The authors offer real-world examples of companies that have succeeded in this endeavor and others that have not. And they recommend four steps to avoid harm: Determine an appropriate use case for algorithmic pricing and explain its benefits to customers; designate an owner to supervise and be accountable for the system; set and monitor guardrails, both to protect against wild surges and to learn how price changes affect all aspects of the organization; and override the algorithms when necessary.

NiPay is a software provider competing in the Nigerian business-to-business payments market. Founded by Idaku Ibrahim nearly 20 years ago, NiPay sells two products to retailers and other merchants, which enable individual shoppers to transact either online or via a mobile device.

Pearson, which billed itself as the "world's learning company," faced a host of critical decisions in mid-2020. Several years prior, it had embarked on a new path that put the learner at the heart of the business and committed to a new strategic orientation. The new approach, under the heading of "efficacy," was meant to ensure that products and services were developed with measurable outcomes that mattered to learners in mind; and such offerings would further be taken to market with an emphasis on touting their efficacy credentials. While several efficacy reports had been produced on existing products to hone the framework, 2020 marked the first year Pearson launched a new product (the AIDA Calculus app) with efficacy in mind from the get go. As CEO John Fallon, the main architect behind efficacy, neared the end of his tenure at Pearson, he wanted to chart the next phase of the efficacy journey. In particular, should the company develop all its products and services with efficacy as the guiding principle? Which learner outcomes made the most sense to focus on in the future? How could Pearson better communicate efficacy in the marketplace and get it to resonate with various stakeholders-particularly educators and learners? With competitors following suit and using efficacy in their own communications, often without the same rigor that Pearson had applied, how should Pearson combat such "copy-cat" behavior? Was efficacy a pillar upon which to build the Pearson brand? In short, should he and his successor bet the "Pearson farm" on efficacy?

In 2020, the three cofounders of Holaluz, a newcomer to Spain's electricity retail market, are preparing to launch a new offering: installing and managing solar panels on households' roofs at no extra cost for the consumer, who would still benefit from the energy savings stemming from the panels' production. Holaluz would fund the installations via a special purpose vehicle and use the surplus energy to power neighboring Holaluz clients at lower costs. There were many challenges in the new venture, like how to market the offering and if investors would buy into the new business. And what if Holaluz went a step further, got rid of all its tariff offerings and disrupted the market with a monthly "unlimited" flat rate for electricity consumption like telecom operators did with mobile phones bills? Was the market ready?

This exercise serves to help students understand the proper role and use of costs in a firm's pricing decisions. The exercise is designed such that the learning of students evolves across a classroom session, starting from understanding which costs are relevant when setting the price of a product, progressing to a discussion on the wisdom of the traditional "cost-plus" approach to pricing, and ending with a demonstration of how to leverage cost information to construct an iso-profit curve-which, in turn, serves as a useful benchmark to assess possible price changes. These topics emerge as the result of hands-on calculations, where students make recommendations based on the data provided in the exercise, and in-class discussion, where students defend their preferred course of action and reflect on the biases and heuristics that may lead managers to misuse costs in pricing decisions.

Since its launch in 1998 as "the Amazon.com of DVDs," Netflix had evolved from a DVD rental company to a video streaming platform and producer of original films and television shows. As the company matured, it regularly increased prices and adjusted its product offerings while continuing to add new subscribers. However, between late 2019 and mid-2020, competition within the streaming industry intensified with the launch of new entrants such as Disney+, Apple TV+, and HBO Max, jeopardizing Netflix's position as the industry leader. In spite of the heightened competition in the streaming industry, some analysts and customer willingness-to-pay surveys suggested that Netflix had the opportunity to implement another rate hike in the near future. By May 2020, Netflix must decide whether to increase prices again, or whether it should consider a different pricing model altogether.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. For most companies, pricing has always been a sensitive, private affair. This article is directed at managers who seek to profit from product differentiation and take maximum advantage of their ability to stand out. Instead of leaving good money on the table and struggling to convert product differentiation into revenue, the authors argue, companies should consider enlisting the pricing help of their customers. Outsourcing pricing isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. Managers can select pricing models ranging from complete oversight to complete delegation. Citing examples from companies including Google, Uber, Orbitz, Volkswagen, Coca-Cola and Humble Bundle, the article integrates classic views on pricing with the latest research and practice to develop a simple framework to help managers decide how much pricing control they should retain and how much they should relinquish to customers. For most businesses, the default approach is having a single fixed price and selling to anyone willing to pay that amount. However, authors Marco Bertini and Oded Koenigsberg argue that this is economically inefficient: Those prepared to pay more in effect receive a discount; those willing to pay less (but an amount that's still profitable) are turned away. For companies interested in interactive approaches to pricing, the authors discuss three collaborative models: auctions, name-your-own-price auctions and negotiations. In the authors'view, asking customers to weigh in on price can have benefits that go beyond promoting greater efficiency. It can promote customer engagement, provide opportunities for customization, allow managers to signal information about their company or product and open up opportunities for increasing market share.