What can XaaS companies learn from Tesla’s Price Cuts?

May 15, 2023

Author

Santan Katragadda

Associate

Read Bio

Tesla’s recent price cuts have sent shockwaves through the automotive industry, but what can XaaS companies learn from this seemingly unrelated event? 


As it turns out, there’s a lot. Tesla’s pricing strategy can help XaaS companies gain valuable insights on how to use pricing as a powerful tool to execute broader corporate strategy. 

So…what happened? 


Tesla announced their 6th round of price cuts this year. Prices for their flagship Model S and best-selling Model Y have dropped 17% and 24% respectively from their highs in August 2022 (and yes, we’re still in an inflationary environment). 


Tesla’s price cuts impacted their earnings dramatically for the first time as gross margin dropped by 10% from the same quarter last year, down to 19.3% in Q1, 2023. Clearly, investors were spooked, as the stock dropped nearly 10% the day after earnings were released. 


However, by lowering the barrier-to-entry for customers, Tesla has been able to significantly drive volume as more customers were willing to pay. Last quarter, the Model Y became the best-selling vehicle in Europe and the best-selling non-pickup vehicle in the United States despite production and delivery challenges. 


What does Elon Musk want? 


Elon’s master plan is quite simple. He stated in the Tesla’s recent earnings call that “pushing for higher volumes and a larger fleet is the right choice here versus a lower volume and higher margin.” 


With these higher volumes, he plans to gain market share across regions in the near-term and eventually build profitability through up-sell pathways with Full-Self Driving (FSD) capabilities that are currently in beta testing and cost $99/mo. 


Now, this low-margin strategy certainly wasn’t Tesla’s approach initially as it became Wall Street’s “darling” with its exceptionally high gross margins of 25%+ in 2021 and 2022, which were well above industry averages of ~18%. 


However, with recent advances made in FSD and their significant advantage in speed to market over competitors, Tesla has shifted their strategy to make a more profound bet that FSD will impact profits significantly when launched. 


What can XaaS companies learn? 


A pricing strategy can act as the engine (or electric motor!) that drives a company’s broader strategic direction. By slashing prices, Tesla has made its objectives a reality and has been successful in driving significant volume in the near term. XaaS companies should consider pricing transformations as high priority initiatives to enable growth ambitions as they can help tell the story of the company’s vision to customers. 


Additionally, a “land and expand” pricing strategy, can be very useful when there are highly differentiated features (like FSD) that can drive revenue growth through upsell. By lowering the barrier-to-entry, XaaS companies can pull customers in with lower prices on more commoditized features, while enabling Net Revenue Retention (NRR) growth through product-led sales motions that result in natural upsell. 


However, B2B XaaS companies interested in driving volume with lower prices should be mindful that reducing list prices can signal a decrease in value to customers, even if features remain the same. To achieve the same outcome, it can be more effective to modify discounting policy instead. In Telsa’s case, discounts are rarely offered given their primarily online, self-serve sales motion. 

Lastly, pricing architecture is a key component of pricing strategy that can be changed over time. Tesla’s strategy of offering FSD at a flat rate per customer is a great way to bring people on board initially, however it does leave room for them to consider more value-based pricing approaches, like pricing by the mile, in the future. 


Only time will tell if Elon’s strategy for Telsa will pan out, but it’s a clear case study on how powerful pricing can be to execute a company’s vision. 

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.
16 Oct, 2023
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.
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: