Winning more without cutting price

Win rates needed to improve. But discounts were eroding deal value.

A B2B SaaS company was losing too many competitive deals and relying heavily on discounting when opportunities became difficult. Its product marketing team needed to understand the competitor’s real pricing, the sales pitch prospects were hearing and whether the product lived up to its promises after purchase.

The challenge

Salespeople had some knowledge of the competitor, but much of it came from individual deals. It was inconsistent and based on hearsay. One prospect might report a low price, another might describe a premium proposal and a third might mention concessions that were never recorded. Without context on packaging, contract size, term length and negotiation, the figures were difficult to use.

This uncertainty encouraged defensive discounting. When the competitor appeared in a deal, representatives often assumed that price would decide the outcome. Discounts were offered before the team knew whether the competitor was genuinely cheaper or whether the buyer cared more about implementation, support, usability or another product issue.

The competitor’s sales pitch created a second problem. Product marketing knew the headline positioning but lacked detail on how the competitor ran discovery, framed the category, described the client and handled common objections. Sales needed to know which claims were persuasive and how to answer them with confidence.

The client also wanted to understand the customer experience after purchase. A strong demonstration could conceal implementation problems, missing capabilities or poor support. Internal teams could also underestimate genuine competitor strengths that customers valued. The research needed to establish both.

What we did

We investigated the competitor’s pricing across a range of deal types, using primary and public sources. The analysis covered packaging, license metrics, contract terms, implementation charges, add-ons, renewal changes and the movement between initial quote and agreed price. Each finding was recorded with its context so sales could distinguish a relevant comparison from an isolated number.

This work showed when the competitor tended to discount, what it appeared to protect during negotiations and which commercial terms created room for movement. We used the findings to develop pricing guidance for sales and deal-desk teams, including situations where the client could hold its price and areas where a different package or contract structure might be more effective.

We also reconstructed the competitor’s sales pitch. Research covered its discovery questions, demonstrations, core claims, proof points and descriptions of our client. We examined how the pitch changed by buyer type and which objections the competitor expected to encounter.

Prospect feedback helped us assess which parts of that pitch influenced decisions. Customer interviews then provided a view of the product after purchase. We asked what had worked well, what had disappointed, how implementation compared with expectations and whether the reasons for buying remained convincing several months later.

The findings identified gaps between the sales promise and the delivered experience, alongside strengths the client needed to take seriously. Product marketing used this evidence to sharpen positioning and remove weak claims that customers would not find credible.

We converted the research into sales-ready materials. These included pricing benchmarks, negotiation guidance, competitor talk tracks, objection responses and concise evidence on post-purchase customer experience. The material covered questions that arose in live deals.

Results

The client improved its competitive win rate while reducing average discounting. Salespeople had better evidence on when price was likely to matter and when a buyer’s decision was being driven by product, implementation or service concerns.

Pricing discussions became more disciplined. Representatives could challenge vague claims about a cheaper competitor, compare offers on equivalent terms and explain the cost of missing services or capabilities. They also had clearer boundaries for concessions and stronger reasons to defend the client’s price.

Product marketing improved the competitive narrative used across battlecards, training and campaign content. Messaging reflected what prospects heard during the competitor’s sales process and what customers experienced after signing. This made the client’s responses more specific and easier for salespeople to use.

The customer research also gave product teams a grounded view of where the competitor performed well and where it disappointed. That prevented the company from dismissing real strengths while directing attention to weaknesses that mattered to buyers.

The company developed a healthier approach to competitive selling. Sales won more often because they could address the full buying decision. Deal value improved because discounting was no longer the default response to competitive pressure.