← Every exhibit

Figure Table 1 Go-to-market & pricing

The tier-promise and cost boundary

Keep the customer promise and the provider's delivery boundary in the same row. A tier is incomplete when its transition or exception rule is blank.

A five-column decision worksheet for a pricing tier: customer promise and entitlement, cost-to-serve driver, boundary and evidence, transition and exception authority, and expiry and review.PROMISE ANDENTITLEMENTWhat customer problem,outcome, access, orresponse does this tierpromise?COST-TO-SERVE DRIVERWhat work, risk,capacity, usage, orcoordination conditionchanges delivery burden?BOUNDARY ANDEVIDENCEWhat limit is visible,and what observationshows the boundary isreal?TRANSITION ANDEXCEPTIONWhat causes a change,pause or exception, whoapproves?EXPIRY ANDREVIEWWhen does it expireor get reviewed,what changes it?The worksheet is complete only when entitlement, burden, limit, transition, authority, and review are named. Blank fields aredesign work, not a zero-cost assumption.
Vector SVG Cite Embed

Reference & Evidence

Source: Author's decision worksheet grounded in Zbaracki et al. (2004), Urbany, Madden and Dickson (1989), Kienzler, Kowalkowski and Kindström (2021), and Grennan and Swanson (2020). Labels are synthetic; no prices, customer terms, or current service data are shown.

Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.

  • A The cost types, named: "we identify and measure three types of managerial costs information gathering decision making and communication costs and two types of customer costs communication and negotiation costs" zbaracki-etal-2004-price-adjustment-costs · published full text · G04-C5
  • A One firm, and the paper says so: the totals are "1 22 of the company s revenue and 20 03 of the company s net margin": a single U.S. industrial manufacturer, not a benchmark zbaracki-etal-2004-price-adjustment-costs · published full text · G04-C6
  • A The KKT prediction held: "we obtain empirical support for kkt s prediction that unjustified price increases are perceived as unfair while cost justification legitimates a price increase in consumers eyes" urbany-madden-dickson-1989-dual-entitlement · URB89-C1
  • A And the part usually dropped: "we also find however that fairness perceptions are not significantly related to behavioral intentions as the theory would suggest" urbany-madden-dickson-1989-dual-entitlement · URB89-C2
  • A At equal cost, 68% of purchasing professionals chose the flat rate (Study 1, n = 124, ~40 per condition, cloud analytics). The design is scenario-based: "A series of four experiments showed that experienced purchasing professionals tend to exhibit a flat-rate bias in their price plan choices", and "they preferred the flat-rate over the pay-per-use option" in the equal condition Kienzler, Kowalkowski & Kindström (2021), Journal of Business Research 132, 403–415 · VoR held · KKK21-C1
  • A Only the bounds varied: "All participants saw the same past average monthly usage (500 h), but the minimum and maximum usage values were varied to create two conditions (100 and 600 h versus 400 and 900 h, respectively)", and "Participants in the equal condition (89%) were significantly more likely than chance to choose the flat rate when past usage indicated upper bound extremes", while "However, this was not the case (56%) when past usage information indicated lower bound extremes" Kienzler, Kowalkowski & Kindström (2021), Journal of Business Research 132, 403–415 · VoR held · KKK21-C3
  • A Hospitals gaining peer-price benchmarking saved 3.3% on physician-preference items and 3.9% where buying in high volume: "under transparency for hospitals purchasing PPIs at formerly high prices (3.3% savings) and in relatively high quantities (3.9% savings)". The object of study is the information, not the price level: "we empirically examine the effect of transparency in the form of benchmarking information on prices negotiated by hospitals and their suppliers" Grennan & Swanson (2020), Journal of Political Economy 128(4), 1234–1268 · VoR held, no page citations ship · GS20-C1

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.

Related exhibits