Software Pricing Lessons from Business Barbie

Oct 16, 2023

Author

Malvika Gupta

Partner

Read Bio

It was truly a Barbie summer! While they may not seem related, Barbie - both movie and doll - have a lot to teach us about the world of software pricing. First launched in 1959, Barbie has captured the imagination of children across the globe for 60 years – with a spectacular resurgence this summer. Mattel, the company behind Barbie, has used several growth and pricing strategies applicable to companies beyond the consumer goods space. Here are a few lessons we think are particularly relevant to the world of software pricing today, a complex market where the right strategy can make or break a new product. 


1. Value Based Pricing – Know your product’s worth! 

Barbie was always designed as a premium product and Mattel priced it accordingly. They designed the doll with great attention to detail and positioned it as a high-quality product, which allowed them to employ a value-based pricing strategy where the price is set based on the perceived value in the eyes of the customers. 


May software companies have found success setting prices levels based on the customer's perceived value, rather than focusing on the cost of production or anchoring too heavily on industry norms. We encourage many of our fast-growing, category-defining clients to spend time understanding how customers perceive value from their products. The way customers perceive value could be in terms of improved productivity, cost savings, improved business operations, or additional revenue. 


Understanding this value allows software companies to better set and defend their premium prices in the sales process. 


2. Versioning Define packages that target different segments of your customers 

The Barbie movie brought dozens of our favorite versions come to life - from President Barbie to Nobel Prize-winning Barbie. There have been countless variations of the original Barbie, with different outfits, accessories, and themes -- and their own prices. This allowed Mattel to target different segments of the market with different versions of the doll. 


The way that we see this in the software world is different versions of packages (very commonly in the form of good, better, and best tiers) offered at different price points. These package options allow companies to target different types of customers, from small businesses to large corporations, with appropriate features and price points. We can expand this type of targeting through bundling, where related items or add-ons can be sold together to increase ACV. We see this frequently for larger software companies, who have multiple different products that can provide additional value to customers when they are bought together. 

 

3. Freemium pricing – Give away the right amount of value for free 

While we don't normally relate the idea of freemium or free to Barbie, freemium has been a huge part of Barbie enduring brand because it is how Barbie has entered the digital world. Beyond the doll, there is now a thriving ecosystem of Barbie mobile games monetized through subscriptions, in-app purchases, and advertising. 



Freemium models offer some basic features, usage, or experience for free while charging for more advanced features or services. Freemium pricing is very common in software, in particular for companies leveraging product led growth approaches (PLG), because it allows users to rapidly get some value from the product before they commit to making purchases. When we work with clients defining their own freemium models, the most critical question is how much to give away for free to balance getting customers on the product quickly with conversion to paid. 


4. Pricing for new markets – Anchor value high, but discount in the short term  

While Barbie is seen as an all-American brand, Mattel has expanded her empire worldwide. To do this, the company has priced Barbies lower in some markets initially to get a foothold. It has then gradually raised prices as brand recognition and demand increases. 


We see this sort of market entry pricing approach frequently with software companies looking to expand into new verticals or launch a new product. Often in these contexts, it makes sense to provide discounts up front while maintaining a higher value list price that is tied to the known value in their core markets.  By discounting in the short term, these customers can attract more users quickly and gain market share. Once the offering is more established and has higher demand, the company can gradually remove the discounting to get closer to the value-based list price. 


-- 


Software pricing and the world of Barbie might seem like entirely different universes, but so did Barbie and a movie about the nuclear bomb. Whether it's through value-based pricing, versioning, freemium, or market entry discounts, Barbie is still providing valuable lessons. 


16 Feb, 2024
Only 40% of XaaS leaders felt they possessed practical pricing experience when tasked with developing their company’s pricing model, according to a recent survey. While lack of experience may seem daunting, it shouldn't deter you from spearheading a pricing transformation. However, it does introduce risk. To mitigate the potential pitfalls of pricing strategy design, we recommend cross-referencing against four crucial sources to establish a solid pricing foundation.
14 Feb, 2024
Navigating the intricate world of pricing in the SaaS industry is akin to embarking on a voyage through ever-changing seas. In this dynamic landscape, where adaptability and insight are paramount, a robust pricing support network becomes not just beneficial, but essential for personal and organizational growth. Here's why cultivating such a network can spell the difference between stagnation and success in your pricing strategies.
By James Wilton 25 Apr, 2023
Telfar Clemens, the mind behind hit clothing brand Telfar, recently made headlines announcing a new ‘dynamic pricing’ strategy that flies in the face of traditional fashion pricing, charging less for more popular items. Should other businesses follow suit and discount more when demand is high? From the article, “there will be a dynamic pricing tool on the website that ensures the most popular, fastest-selling products are cheaper. The whole experience is designed to flip the script on the fashion industry, where brands tend to charge more for popular items. And it reinforces Clemens’ mission of making his products affordable, so they are accessible to anybody who wants them.” Different, eh? To be clear, this is dynamic pricing, but it’s unconventional dynamic pricing. A conventional dynamic pricing model for fashion would suggest that price would go up as demand goes up (so long as supply stayed consistent). Telfar are flipping it, and raising supply and lowering prices when the demand increases. This aligns with their operations – more demand means materials will be ordered in higher quantities. That unlocks volume discounts, so unit costs go down, and savings can be passed on to the customer. Neat. I want to like this because (a) it’s really interesting and potentially disruptive, and (b) it’s anchored around a social conscience, and there’s not enough of that in pricing. My problem with it? I just can’t see it working. What’s the problem? Luxury goods – and fashionable clothes are luxury goods to an extent – are an interesting case because they can have negative price elasticity. This means that demand increases as the price increases, because then the goods are seen as more exclusive and therefore more desirable. In other words, when fewer people can afford a specific garment, people want it more because now having it makes them “special.” A kind of wearable status symbol. So, given that frame, Telfar’s strategy is a bit counterintuitive. They want to reduce the price of popular items so more people can afford to buy them. It remains to be seen how that is going to mess with customers’ perception of the value of those garments. Can you imagine? “I bought this, but now everyone has it. And they paid less for it than me(!) So, do I still want it as much?” Unless you’re under the age of ten or trying to blend in, people tend not to want to wear exactly the same clothes as other people. It can be embarrassing to turn up to an event in the same outfit as someone else. The phrase “b*tch stole my look!” is going to be on everybody’s lips if that look is more available the more that other people “steal” it. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if I purchase something that nobody else does, under Telfar’s model I will pay a high price for it. But then I also know that nobody else wanted it, so do I get the same sense of esteem from being the sole purchaser? It’s not that only I could afford it, or that it was limited in quantity and I was one of the lucky ones that found it. It’s that only I wanted it. The only thing that says about me is that I have non-mainstream tastes. Some people might want that (e.g., to be cool, edgy and unconventional, perhaps), but then if everyone is looking for unique clothing items hoping that other people don’t like them, then many people will buy them for that reason. And then they’ll go down in price! Final thoughts I challenge Clemens’ notion that fashion pricing is illogical. It’s extremely logical, because it involves aligning pricing to broad perceptions of value. If you turn the model on its head, as in this case, you end up getting stuck odd circular arguments (as I did) because it pulls away from buyer behavior, and it’s illogical  It’s a great pricing strategy for grabbing attention, but I’d be surprised if it is successful. I’m all for fashion being unconventionally dynamic. But any dynamic pricing for fashion should remain conventional.
SHOW MORE
Share by: