The Value Stick: where each trend touches your results

A test is missing between the trend and the decision

The scene repeats after every industry trade show, every conference, every annual report. The team comes back with twelve relevant themes, all of them true, and the question nobody can answer is which of them goes into the budget.

An intermediate test is missing. Something that takes in a trend on one side and returns, on the other, an answer about money. Without it, prioritization ends up decided by whoever argued best in the meeting.

Four points, not twelve themes

The most useful model for this is the Value Stick, proposed by Felix Oberholzer-Gee, a Harvard professor, in Better, Simpler Strategy. It reduces strategy to a vertical bar with four marks.

At the top is willingness to pay (WTP): the most a customer would agree to spend. Just below it, the price the company actually charges, and the distance between the two is the value the customer keeps. Further down is the cost of producing, and the distance between price and cost is the margin. At the bottom is willingness to sell (WTS): the least that suppliers and employees would accept to keep delivering, and the distance between cost and that minimum is the value they keep.

The thesis is that there are only two honest ways to create value: pull the top mark up, or push the bottom mark down. Everything else is a transfer of value between the parties, not creation.

The practical use is that any trend can be put to the same question: which of the four marks does this move, in which direction, and by how much?

Pulling the top mark up

Willingness to pay rises when the buying experience improves, when the offer adjusts to the specific customer, and when there is a bond that price alone does not buy.

That is what sits behind stores that stopped being points of sale and became destinations, with workshops, assembly and demonstration. It is what sits behind recommendations built from real behavior rather than from a demographic segment. And it is what sits behind consistency between what a brand says and what it does, in a market where inconsistency is detected within hours.

The check question is uncomfortable and useful: if a competitor copies your price tomorrow, does the customer still have a reason to stay?

Moving price without eroding value

Price is the easiest mark to move and the easiest to ruin.

Dynamic pricing works when the customer understands the logic. It stops working when it looks like manipulation, and the line between those two perceptions is narrower than the algorithm assumes.

Recurring promotion has a worse and slower effect: it retrains the customer never to buy at full price. After a few quarters, the company no longer has a price, it has a calendar. The useful discount is the targeted one, applied to the people who actually decide because of it rather than handed to those who would have bought anyway.

Lowering cost without cutting blind

Cost comes down in two very different ways. One eliminates waste: better demand forecasting, less idle inventory, a shorter route, a process without rework. The other eliminates capacity, and it tends to show up in the next quarter’s results and disappear from them two years later.

The first sustains margin. The second borrows margin from the future.

The bottom mark is the most forgotten

Willingness to sell is the part of the model that almost never enters the strategy discussion, and it is where a good share of durable advantage sits.

A supplier that prefers working with you accepts terms it would not give someone else, not out of generosity, but because predictability, payment on time and steady volume are worth money to it. A team that wants to be there produces more at the same cost and leaves less often, which eliminates the invisible expense of rehiring and retraining.

Squeezing suppliers and your team lowers cost in the month and raises willingness to sell over the year. It is a transfer of value disguised as efficiency.

How to use this as a filter

Faced with the list of trends, each item gets four questions and a rough score, zero to three, on each mark: does this raise willingness to pay? Does it allow a better price? Does it reduce real cost? Does it improve the relationship with suppliers or with the team?

Whatever moves none of the four is interesting, not strategic. Worth tracking, not worth budget.

Whatever moves two or more, in a consistent direction, is a candidate for priority, and the conversation stops being about which theme is more modern and becomes about which one moves the stick further.

Where the model does not help

It is worth saying where it fails, because every model fails somewhere.

The Value Stick is bad at evaluating long-horizon bets with uncertain returns. An emerging technology that could redefine the industry in seven years scores low on all four marks today, and this filter would discard it. For that kind of decision the criterion is a different one: the cost of entering now compared with the cost of entering late.

The Value Stick organizes the fight over resources among comparable things. It does not replace the decision to set aside part of the budget for things that are not yet comparable to anything.

See all insights