This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Many suppliers serving business markets believe that practicing value-based pricing means finding out what the value of their offerings is relative to alternatives for their customers and then charging as high a price as they can. But the authors suggest that "charging what the market will bear" isn't always the right strategy. Instead, they argue that an organization should tailor its pricing to a more robust market strategy. "Unfortunately," the authors say, "when stripped of jargon and word-speak the ' 'market strategy' for many businesses is simply' 'Sell more!'" To counter this problem the authors suggest several questions that an organization should ask to improve its pricing strategy, including: What is the marketing strategy in this segment? What is the differential value that is transparent to target customers? What is the price of the next best alternative offering? What is the customer's expectation of a "fair" price? By asking these questions and others, an organization can choose a price point that provides the largest long-term value to the supplier. The benefits of this approach include improved relations with customers that often lead to longer-term, more profitable relationships. Using this approach, customers are also more willing to collaborate with suppliers, which can lead to shared data and improved products. According to the authors, suppliers that practice this kind of value-based pricing boost profits not only in the present, but they also set themselves up to profit over the long term.

Examples of consumer value propositions that resonate with customers are exceptionally difficult to find. When properly constructed, value propositions force suppliers to focus on what their offerings are really worth. Once companies become disciplined about understanding their customers, they can make smarter choices about where to allocate scarce resources. The authors illuminate the pitfalls of current approaches, then present a systematic method for developing value propositions that are meaningful to target customers and that focus suppliers' efforts on creating superior value. When managers construct a customer value proposition, they often simply list all the benefits their offering might deliver. But the relative simplicity of this all-benefits approach may have a major drawback: benefit assertion. In other words, managers may claim advantages for features their customers don't care about in the least. Other suppliers try to answer the question: Why should our firm purchase your offering instead of your competitor's? But without a detailed understanding of the customer's requirements and preferences, suppliers can end up stressing points of difference that deliver relatively little value to the target customer. The pitfall with this approach is value presumption: assuming that any favorable points of difference must be valuable for the customer. Drawing on the best practices of a handful of suppliers in business markets, the authors advocate a resonating focus approach. Suppliers can provide simple, yet powerfully captivating, consumer value propositions by making their offerings superior on the few elements that matter most to target customers, demonstrating and documenting the value of this superior performance, and communicating it in a way that conveys a sophisticated understanding of the customer's business priorities.