From 1.0 to 4.0 in 130,000 Years: Pricing’s Extraordinary Adventure from Haggling to Scientific Micromarketing

Pricing has evolved from the ancient art of haggling to the application of scientific methods to the micromarket.  In a sense we are going back to the unique knowledge of individual customers and products that existed in the old bazaars and town squares – but we’re armed with powerful technological tools of the 21st century.  The world of Pricing 4.0 is upon us.

But let’s start at the beginning.  In the beginning there was the trade, and the trade saved humanity.  Seriously.

Homo neanderthalensis – Neanderthal man – had been occupying the planet for about 200,000 years when our ancestral gene pool, Homo sapiens, showed up on the scene (both species evolved from a common ancestor Homo habilis that had begun to make and use basic tools about 2.5 Ma (million years ago), but their evolutionary paths diverged some 600,000 Ma).  Despite what would seem to be a solid first-mover advantage thriving in the harsh Ice Age climate of Europe and Western Asia, Neanderthal man vanished from the face of the earth sometime around 30,000 years ago while the progeny of H. sapiens went on to give the world the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Magna Carta and How I Met Your Mother.  In 2005 academicians Richard Horan, Erwin Bulte and Jason Shogren presented a well-researched argument for why this happened: trade.  According to their paper “How Trade Saved Humanity from Biological Extinction: An Economic Theory of Neanderthal Extinction” it appears that our ancestors had particularly honed skills in organizing specialized activities such as tool-making, and trading their goods between different social organizations.  As the Ice Age melted and populations grew and migrated, the skills of free trade became an evolutionary competitive edge. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

Revenue Optimization: Coming Soon to a Big Drug Company Near You

Large brand-name drug companies – Big Pharma in the common vernacular – are not exactly known for competitive pricing or razor-thin margins.  For 2008 the industry was ranked third most profitable in the U.S. according to Fortune magazine, with average profit-to-sales margins of 19.3%.  That’s a pretty fat comfort zone compared to the scorched-earth landscape of many other industries…or is it?  Until recently Big Pharma was pretty consistent at the #1 spot in those rankings. A look under the microscope reveals some troubles bubbling up in the hitherto happy world of magic molecules and blockbuster brands.  These days the whole country seems transfixed by the subject of healthcare, and no matter what does or does not come out of the legislative sausage factory this year, some major trends are afoot that have potentially far-reaching consequences for Big Pharma and may influence the normally lackadaisical approach drug makers have exhibited to the prices they charge for their brand-name drugs – in particular when those drugs reach the end of their exclusivity protection period and go off patent. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

Quantitative Intuition: It’s Not Counterintuitive (Nor an Oxymoron)

Think of the best salesperson you know: if you’re fortunate, perhaps someone in your company or, less happily, in a competitor’s firm.  What are the qualities that make this person excel at the job of sales?  In a classic Harvard Business Review article “What Makes a Great Salesperson” (July-August 1964) David Mayer and Herbert Greenberg likened a star salesperson to a heat-seeking missile: “Sensing what customers are feeling, they [the sales stars] are able to change pace, double back on the track, and make whatever creative modifications might be necessary to home in on the target and close the sale.”   Whereas most of us have intuitive abilities to a greater or lesser extent, excellent salespeople lever this intuition with strong empathy skills (sensing what the customer’s needs are) and the relentless personal drive necessary to cross the finish line.  If they could, managers would bottle this elusive elixir of talents and have all their salespeople drink it, every morning of every day. Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

If Price is Your Most Valuable Asset, Why Put it out There for Everyone to See?

Of all the intellectual property your organization possesses, nothing is more important than your prices.  But, unlike all of your other intellectual property, which you protect with impenetrable secrecy (i.e., the recipe for Coca-Cola, the manufacturing process of an Intel microprocessor, the not-so-open source code for Microsoft Office, etc.), you indiscriminately broadcast your prices to the market and lay it bear for all to see.  Yet, there is so much proprietary knowledge echoed in this single price, and you essentially give this knowledge away for free to your competitors.

A single price captures everything that makes you special.  It embodies the value the market sees in your product, the value of your product in this particular season, the value your brand wields in the marketplace, the degree to which your product satisfies the needs of specific customer segments, the degree to which buyers are willing to pay for your reputation, the degree to which buyers are loyal to your product despite competing products, etc.

Once you reveal your prices to the world, your competitors instantly know how much brand equity you have, they immediately see how much value your product has in this particular season, they immediately see your reputation is strong, they are able to assess the amount of loyalty you command, and so forth.  By putting your prices out there for all to see, you implicitly give your competitors a leg-up.  To compete against you, all they need to do is see your price and shoot for something just a tad lower.

What would a future world look like where you only… Read the rest of this entry »

Subscribe   |  

Globally, $50 Trillion of Wealth Disappeared in 2008; Will the Long Tail of Consumer Choices Survive?

The global financial crisis wiped out $50 Trillion of wealth in 2008, and the global economy is likely to shrink in 2009 for the first time since World War II. The cumulative effects have left consumers without any excess household income – some losing their homes or jobs altogether – and therefore less likely to spend on frivolous products or services. As this trend continues through the predicted turnaround starting in 2010, I wonder if we’ll see an equally large contraction in the number of consumer choices that have exploded in the past 10 years?

In October 2004, Chris Anderson coined the term the “Long Tail,” referring to a new economic model where companies sell more of less. This was a direct result of the ubiquity of the Internet (along with increased processing power and cheap online data storage), where an unlimited selection exists for information, products and services 24/7/365. He argued that consumers were no longer confined to a narrow list of choices that emerge from large corporate entities in the form of “blockbuster” hits that are meant to satisfy the masses. Instead, consumers were wandering further from mainstream tastes and discovering that their preferences lie in the form of smaller niche movies, books, music, websites, services, etc. I found the theory intriguing back in 2004, but am now reconsidering it’s viability in the context of the global economic crisis: will the long tail survive?

To answer this, I can simply skim the news headlines to find companies scrambling to trim the fat off their product portfolios. No longer is cutting prices a viable strategy for dealing with declining consumer demand. Companies have turned to the ax to focus marketing dollars on their higher-margin, best-selling brands to help retain consumers, who are trading down in the recession. Auto companies have been hardest hit, where GM’s Hummer, Saturn and Saab brands will likely be lost if a buyer isn’t found. Chrysler management has already stated that the company has too many brands and too many dealers. Ford remains afloat, but for how long? Food companies from Sara Lee Food Corp. to H.J. Heinz Co. are trimming their offerings. In the airline industry, Aloha, ATA, MAXjet, Skybus, and Champion Air grounded their planes. Simply put, the long tail just got a little shorter. OK, a lot shorter. As shrinking payrolls, housing values and credit availability continue to push consumer demand down, I think it’s likely Chris Anderson will annotate the theory of the Long Tail to show its existence is more often a byproduct of exuberance in the markets rather than a permanent trend.

Subscribe   |  

Is Pricing a Core Competency?

I’m not sure whether or not Tom Peters actually coined the term “core competency”, but it certainly took firm root in the business world following publication of his Ur-management tome In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run Companies back in 1982.  The equity bull market that started that same year may have run its course, but core competencies are still with us.  A core competency is supposed to be a unique configuration of intelligence, skills, experience, processes, systems – the things that enable a company to do something really, really well, that are hard for others to replicate and therefore lead to an enduring competitive advantage.   In the business world “advantage” is achieved through profitability, and profitability is achieved through doing things that lead to higher revenues and lower costs.  And the strongest lever the company – any company – has at its disposal to shape its profit line is price.  Given this rather widely understood fact, would not it be logical to assume that a large number of our best-run companies manage pricing as a core competency? Logical, perhaps – but the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

For all its impact on the bottom line pricing often seems to be more on the periphery of the activity flow than at the center – an outer rather than a core competency, and sometimes not much more than an afterthought – oh, yeah, we need to stick a price on that now… hmmm, let’s see.   There are three commonly-used methods for firms to price their goods and services, and none of them could be considered the basis for a core competency.   The Old Faithful of pricing methodologies is cost-plus: add up a bunch of direct and indirect costs, slap an arbitrary profit margin on top and voila – that’s the price. Then there’s competitor-based pricing, which many people seem to think is several evolutionary legs up from cost-plus but which Michael Douglas’ Wall Street character Gordon Gekko might have called “a dog with a different set of fleas”.  Why should either bean counters in the accounting department or your competitors be the metronome for what you charge your customers?

The third common pricing method perhaps comes closer to hitting the mark, but it still falls short of a core competency.  In fact it is not really a method per se but more an amalgam of several things – gut instinct, trial and error and maybe some back-of-the-envelope elasticity calculations .  Here the intention is right – try to figure out what motivates a customer to want to pay a certain price and then try to meet it – but the delivery is weak.  Even mid-sized companies in retail or distribution businesses face literally millions upon millions of pricing decisions every day – what product to what customer in what location via what marketing message and selling channel?  The permutations are too staggering to handle in any way other than with technology-aided, systematic rigor.  For a long time the tools did not exist to facilitate this – but as more companies become aware of the tools and best-in-class practices evolve (to borrow another one of those indispensable bons mots from Tom Peters) I expect that we’ll see some migration of the pricing discipline from the periphery to the core.

Subscribe   |