Test willingness to pay before launching with proven pricing research methodologies. Combine Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, and behavioral techniques to find your optimal price point. Use when: **After solution validation** to test willingness to pay; **Before launch** to set initial pricing; **Pricing changes** to test new price points; **New segments** to understand price sensitivity by segment; **Competitive positioning** to price against alternatives
npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill pricing-validation
> Test willingness to pay before launching with proven pricing research methodologies. Combine Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger, and behavioral techniques to find your optimal price point.
| Aspect | Details |
|--------|---------|
| Source | Van Westendorp PSM (1976), Gabor-Granger method, behavioral economics |
| Core Principle | "People can't accurately predict what they'd pay. Use structured methods to triangulate, and verify with real purchasing behavior." |
| Why This Matters | Pricing wrong costs you customers (too high) or money (too low). Every 1% improvement in price has 11% profit impact on average. |
| Claude Does | You Decide |
|-------------|------------|
| Structures analysis frameworks | Strategic priorities |
| Synthesizes market data | Competitive positioning |
| Identifies opportunities | Resource allocation |
| Creates strategic options | Final strategy selection |
| Suggests implementation approaches | Execution decisions |
I want to find the optimal price range for [product].
Run me through Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter.
Provide the questions and analysis framework.
I'm considering pricing at [$X, $Y, $Z].
Help me design a Gabor-Granger test to measure demand at each price.
I want to validate my $99/month pricing without asking "would you pay?"
What behavioral and indirect methods can I use?
## Pricing Research Methods
### Method Selection Guide
| Method | Best For | Sample Size | Complexity |
|--------|----------|-------------|------------|
| Van Westendorp PSM | Finding price range | 100-200+ | Medium |
| Gabor-Granger | Testing specific prices | 50-100 | Low |
| Conjoint Analysis | Feature/price trade-offs | 200+ | High |
| A/B Testing | Final validation | 500+ visitors | Medium |
| Behavioral Signals | Qualitative insights | 10-30 | Low |
### When to Use Each
**Van Westendorp (Price Sensitivity Meter):**
- You don't know where to start
- Want to find acceptable price range
- Have access to survey respondents
**Gabor-Granger:**
- You have candidate price points
- Want to test specific prices
- Need demand curve
**Conjoint Analysis:**
- Multiple features and price levels
- Need to understand trade-offs
- Have resources for complex analysis
**A/B Testing:**
- Already have traffic/users
- Testing final price decisions
- Want real conversion data
**Behavioral Signals:**
- Early stage, small sample
- Qualitative validation
- Can't run formal surveys
## Van Westendorp PSM
### The Four Questions
Ask respondents all four questions about the product:
1. **TOO EXPENSIVE:**
"At what price would you consider this product to be so expensive
that you would not consider buying it?"
2. **TOO CHEAP:**
"At what price would you consider this product to be priced so low
that you would question its quality?"
3. **EXPENSIVE BUT WORTH IT:**
"At what price would you consider this product starting to get expensive—
it's not out of the question, but you'd have to think about buying it?"
4. **GOOD VALUE:**
"At what price would you consider this product to be a bargain—
a great buy for the money?"
### Analysis
Plot cumulative distribution curves for each response:
- "Too Expensive" (cumulative from low to high)
- "Too Cheap" (cumulative from high to low)
- "Expensive" (cumulative from low to high)
- "Good Value" (cumulative from high to low)
### Key Price Points
| Point | Definition | Meaning |
|-------|------------|---------|
| **PMC** (Point of Marginal Cheapness) | Where "Too Cheap" intersects "Expensive" | Below this, quality concerns emerge |
| **PME** (Point of Marginal Expensiveness) | Where "Too Expensive" intersects "Good Value" | Above this, significant resistance |
| **OPP** (Optimal Price Point) | Where "Too Expensive" intersects "Too Cheap" | Best price for adoption |
| **IDP** (Indifference Price Point) | Where "Expensive" intersects "Good Value" | What people expect to pay |
### Acceptable Price Range
PMC to PME = your acceptable pricing range
### Interpretation Guide
**Narrow range (PMC close to PME):**
- Price sensitive market
- Commodity perceptions
- Strong competitor reference prices
**Wide range (PMC far from PME):**
- Price flexibility
- Differentiated product
- Segmentation opportunity
## Gabor-Granger Price Testing
### How It Works
Show product, then ask purchase intent at specific price points.
Start high or low, adjust based on response.
### Question Format
**Monadic (one price per person):**
Show each respondent only ONE price:
"Would you buy this product at $X?"
- Definitely would buy
- Probably would buy
- Might or might not buy
- Probably would not buy
- Definitely would not buy
**Sequential (multiple prices per person):**
If "Yes" → show higher price
If "No" → show lower price
Continue until you find their threshold
### Analysis
**Purchase Intent Translation:**
| Response | Probability |
|----------|-------------|
| Definitely | 90% |
| Probably | 70% |
| Might | 30% |
| Probably not | 10% |
| Definitely not | 0% |
**Demand Curve:**
| Price | Purchase Intent | Weighted % | Expected Revenue |
|-------|-----------------|------------|------------------|
| $49 | 80% | 68% | $49 × 68% = $33.32 |
| $79 | 60% | 48% | $79 × 48% = $37.92 |
| $99 | 40% | 32% | $99 × 32% = $31.68 |
| $149 | 20% | 14% | $149 × 14% = $20.86 |
**Optimal Price:** $79 (highest expected revenue)
### Sample Size Requirements
- 30-50 per price point (monadic)
- 50-100 total (sequential)
- Segment analysis requires more
## Pricing Validation Without Asking About Price
### Why Indirect Methods Matter
- People overestimate willingness to pay when hypothetical
- Real behavior differs from stated intent
- Indirect signals often more reliable
### Method 1: Reference Price Anchoring
**Questions to ask:**
- "What are you currently spending on [similar product/solution]?"
- "What's the most you've ever paid for [category]?"
- "What would you expect this to cost based on similar products?"
**Analysis:**
If they're spending $100/month on alternatives, $150 might be possible.
If they've never paid >$50 for similar, $200 is risky.
### Method 2: Value Quantification
**Questions to ask:**
- "How much time does this problem cost you per week?"
- "What's the cost of this problem not being solved?"
- "If this saved you X hours/week, what's that worth?"
**Analysis:**
If problem costs them $500/month in time, $100/month solution seems cheap.
Price relative to quantified value, not arbitrary numbers.
### Method 3: Trade-off Questions
**Instead of:** "Would you pay $X?"
**Ask:** "Which would you choose?"
- Option A: $79/month with features X, Y, Z
- Option B: $49/month with features X, Y only
- Option C: Free with feature X only
**Analysis:**
Distribution reveals price sensitivity and feature value.
### Method 4: Commitment Testing
**Real commitment signals:**
- "Would you put $50 down as a deposit for early access?"
- "Would you sign a letter of intent at $X?"
- "Would you pay for a paid pilot at $X/month?"
**Analysis:**
Real money > stated intent.
Even small commitment = strong signal.
### Method 5: Negotiation Simulation
**Questions to ask:**
- "If this was $X, would you push back? At what price would you push back?"
- "What price would make this an easy decision?"
- "What price would require significant justification internally?"
**Analysis:**
- "Easy decision" price = conservative but low-friction
- "Push back" price = ceiling
## Pricing Analysis Framework
### Data Synthesis
| Method | Finding | Confidence |
|--------|---------|------------|
| Van Westendorp | Range: $X - $Y, OPP: $Z | High/Med/Low |
| Gabor-Granger | Optimal: $X | High/Med/Low |
| Reference prices | Currently paying $X | High/Med/Low |
| Value quantification | Problem worth $X/month | High/Med/Low |
| Commitments | X people committed at $Y | High/Med/Low |
### Triangulation
**Look for convergence:**
- If Van Westendorp OPP = $89
- And Gabor-Granger optimal = $79
- And reference prices = $50-100
→ Price in $79-99 range is validated
**Red flags:**
- Wide divergence between methods
- Reference prices far below target
- No commitments at target price
### Price Setting Decision
| Factor | Weight | Your Finding | Score |
|--------|--------|--------------|-------|
| Research-based optimal | 30% | | |
| Competitive positioning | 25% | | |
| Value quantification | 25% | | |
| Commitment signals | 20% | | |
### Pricing Model Validation
Also validate the MODEL, not just the price:
- Subscription vs. one-time
- Per user vs. flat rate
- Monthly vs. annual
- Usage-based vs. fixed
**Questions to test model:**
- "How do you typically pay for software like this?"
- "Would you prefer monthly or annual billing?"
- "Does per-user pricing make sense for your team?"
### Risk Assessment
| Price Point | Upside | Downside | Risk Level |
|-------------|--------|----------|------------|
| $79 (low) | Faster adoption | Leave money on table | Low |
| $99 (mid) | Balanced | May need to discount | Medium |
| $129 (high) | Max revenue | Slower adoption | High |
**Recommendation format:**
"Launch at $[X] based on [evidence]. Plan to test $[Y] with segment [Z] within 90 days."
Input:
> "I'm launching a project management tool for marketing teams. I'm thinking $49/user/month. How do I validate this?"
Output:
Step 1: Reference Price Research
In customer interviews, ask:
Common findings in this space:
Initial insight: $49/user is 2-3x competitors. Need strong differentiation story.
Step 2: Van Westendorp Survey
Survey 100+ target customers:
"Imagine a project management tool designed specifically for marketing teams with campaign calendars, creative workflows, and ROI tracking."
Step 3: Value Quantification
In interviews, calculate value:
Value ratio: 10:1 → Price has room to increase
Step 4: Commitment Test
"We're launching soon. For $199 annual prepay (40% off), you'd get lifetime early-adopter pricing and input on the roadmap. Would you be interested?"
Track:
| Method | Finding |
|--------|---------|
| Reference prices | Competitors: $10-30/user. Yours needs differentiation story. |
| Van Westendorp | Range: $29-79. OPP: $49. IDP: $39. |
| Value quantification | 10:1 value ratio at $49. Room for higher. |
| Commitment test | 4 of 10 prepaid at $199 ($50/user equiv) |
Launch at $39/user/month (annual: $29/user)
Rationale:
Pricing tiers:
Test plan:
Input:
> "I'm launching a $150/week meal prep delivery service. Is this validated? My interviews showed people spend $100/week on groceries."
Output:
Current spending: $100/week on groceries
Your price: $150/week
Gap: 50% increase from their reference price
This is a significant psychological hurdle. You're not competing with meal prep—you're competing with groceries.
Wrong frame: "$150/week for food"
Right frame: "$150/week for healthy eating + 5 hours of your time back"
Value calculation:
Price vs. Value: $150 for $200+ value = fair
Question 1: Reference pricing
"How much do you spend on food per week, including groceries and takeout?"
→ Most spend $150-250 when you include dining out
Question 2: Time value
"How much is an hour of your time worth?"
"Would you pay $30 to get an hour back?"
→ If yes, you have room at $150
Question 3: Commitment test
"We're doing a 2-week trial at $125/week (no commitment after). Would you try it?"
→ Conversion rate = validation signal
Test three prices:
Survey 30+ in each condition.
Expected finding hypothesis:
| Price | Intent | Weighted Demand |
|-------|--------|-----------------|
| $99 | 60% | 48% |
| $125 | 45% | 34% |
| $150 | 30% | 22% |
Revenue optimization:
If this pattern holds → Price at $99-125, not $150.
Strong validation for $150:
Weak validation:
Start at $125/week with trial offer
Input:
> "I'm selling to enterprises at $50K/year. How do I validate pricing when the buyer isn't the user?"
Output:
Step 1: User Value Validation
With end users, validate:
They become internal champions who sell to buyers.
Step 2: Buyer Price Validation
With budget holders, ask:
Step 3: Procurement Reality Check
Anchor to cost, not features:
"Your team spends 20 hours/week on this process. At $100/hour loaded cost, that's $100K/year. This tool cuts that by 50%, saving $50K and freeing your team for higher-value work. The investment is $50K/year."
ROI story: 100% ROI in year 1.
| Commitment Level | What You Ask | Validation Strength |
|------------------|--------------|---------------------|
| Interest | "Can we demo to your team?" | Weak |
| Champion | "Would you advocate internally?" | Medium |
| Pilot | "Would you run a paid pilot?" | Strong |
| LOI | "Would you sign letter of intent?" | Strong |
| Prepay | "Would you prepay Q1?" | Very Strong |
Validated if:
Not validated if:
Don't ask: "Would you pay $50K?"
Instead: "Based on the value we discussed, we're thinking $50K/year. What's your reaction?"
Listen for:
## Pricing Validation Plan
**Product:** _______________
**Target price:** _______________
**Launch date:** _______________
### Methods to Use
- [ ] Van Westendorp PSM (n=100+)
- [ ] Gabor-Granger (n=50+)
- [ ] Reference price research
- [ ] Value quantification
- [ ] Commitment testing
- [ ] A/B testing (if traffic available)
### Timeline
- Week 1-2: Customer interviews (reference prices, value)
- Week 3-4: Survey (Van Westendorp/Gabor-Granger)
- Week 5: Analysis and decision
- Week 6: Commitment testing
### Decision Criteria
Price validated if:
- Within Van Westendorp acceptable range
- Gabor-Granger shows >30% intent
- Reference prices support
- 3+ commitments obtained
## Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Survey
**Product Description:**
[Clear description of product and value proposition]
**Screening:**
1. Are you a [target customer]? Y/N
2. Do you currently experience [problem]? Y/N
**Price Questions:**
Q1: At what price would you consider [product] to be so expensive
that you would NOT consider buying it?
$_______________
Q2: At what price would you consider [product] to be priced so low
that you would question its quality?
$_______________
Q3: At what price would you consider [product] starting to get expensive—
it's not out of the question, but you'd have to think about buying it?
$_______________
Q4: At what price would you consider [product] to be a bargain—
a great buy for the money?
$_______________
**Additional Context:**
Q5: What do you currently pay for [similar/alternative]?
$_______________
Q6: What would you expect a product like this to cost?
$_______________
name: pricing-validation
category: validation
subcategory: pricing-research
version: 1.0
author: MKTG Skills
source_expert: Van Westendorp, Gabor-Granger
source_work: Price Sensitivity Meter, Price Management
difficulty: intermediate
estimated_value: $5,000 pricing research project
tags: [pricing, validation, research, Van-Westendorp, willingness-to-pay, YC]
created: 2026-01-25
updated: 2026-01-25
A set of resources to help me write all kinds of internal communications, using the formats that my company likes to use. Claude should use this skill whenever asked to write some sort of internal communications (status reports, leadership updates, 3P updates, company newsletters, FAQs, incident reports, project updates, etc.).
Extracts and analyzes competitors' ads from ad libraries (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) to understand what messaging, problems, and creative approaches are working. Helps inspire and improve your own ad campaigns.
Identifies high-quality leads for your product or service by analyzing your business, searching for target companies, and providing actionable contact strategies. Perfect for sales, business development, and marketing professionals.
Analyzes your recent Claude Code chat history to identify coding patterns, development gaps, and areas for improvement, curates relevant learning resources from HackerNews, and automatically sends a personalized growth report to your Slack DMs.
Complete App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching, optimizing, and tracking mobile app performance on Apple App Store and Google Play Store
NGS analysis toolkit. BAM to bigWig conversion, QC (correlation, PCA, fingerprints), heatmaps/profiles (TSS, peaks), for ChIP-seq, RNA-seq, ATAC-seq visualization.
Materials science toolkit. Crystal structures (CIF, POSCAR), phase diagrams, band structure, DOS, Materials Project integration, format conversion, for computational materials science.
Transforms vague UI ideas into polished, Stitch-optimized prompts. Enhances specificity, adds UI/UX keywords, injects design system context, and structures output for better generation results.
Take guia-matthieu/pricing-validation from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.