pricing-validation — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited pricing-validation (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
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: 2026-01-25~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.