A pricing rise in a price-sensitive category
A own-brand coffee roaster sells 1.2 million units a year at £4.20, with a 32% gross margin. Green bean costs have risen 22% and are expected to stay elevated. The finance director proposes passing the full cost increase through, taking the retail price to £4.95. The marketing team's panel data shows a price elasticity of −1.8 in this category, and two competitor own-brand lines sit at £4.10 and £4.30. The roaster has strong distribution in 340 stores but low brand awareness (11%). A premium variant at £6.50 sells 90,000 units and has a loyal following. Retailers are pressing for promotional support and have threatened delisting if the brand becomes uncompetitive.
1. Evaluate the full pass-through proposal using the elasticity data. What are the commercial risks and alternatives?
Read the worked answer
Model the full pass-through first. A rise from £4.20 to £4.95 is +17.9%. At elasticity −1.8, volume falls roughly 32%, from 1.2m to about 816,000 units. Revenue moves from £5.04m to about £4.04m - a fall of around £1m. Even with better unit margin, contribution is likely to fall, because the volume loss is severe.
Risks:
- Price gap versus competitors. At £4.95 the brand sits 15–20% above the £4.10 and £4.30 lines. With only 11% awareness, there is little brand equity to justify the premium. Shoppers will switch.
- Retailer response. Retailers already pressing for promotional support may delist a slow-moving line, removing distribution - the brand's main asset.
- Elasticity caveat. Panel elasticity of −1.8 is an average; own-brand coffee may be more elastic at the value end and less so among loyal buyers. The estimate should be treated as directional, not precise.
Alternatives to test:
- Partial pass-through, e.g. to £4.55, absorbing some cost via reformulation or pack-size change.
- Shrinkflation - same price, slightly smaller pack - which is less visible but risks customer backlash if noticed.
- Mix shift: promote the £6.50 premium variant, where margin and loyalty are stronger, to protect total contribution.
- Negotiate green bean contracts or blend cheaper origins to reduce the cost base.
- Fund targeted promotion with retailer support rather than a blanket price cut.
Recommendation: partial pass-through plus mix shift, with weekly tracking of volume and distribution.
2. How should the premium variant and the core line be managed differently in this decision?
Read the worked answer
They have different elasticities and different strategic roles, so a single price move is wrong.
Premium variant (£6.50, 90,000 units):
- Its buyers are loyal and less price-sensitive. A cost-driven rise here is more defensible, and the absolute margin per unit is larger.
- It carries the brand's quality signal. Raising its price may even reinforce positioning, provided it stays within reach of premium competitors.
- It is small in volume, so it cannot absorb the cost increase alone - but it can protect contribution and fund the core line's partial pass-through.
Core line (£4.20, 1.2m units):
- Highly elastic and directly compared with £4.10/£4.30 competitors. This is where delisting risk sits.
- Its role is distribution and penetration, not margin. Protecting volume here protects shelf space, which in turn supports the premium line.
So the management logic is:
- Hold or partly raise the core price to defend distribution.
- Take more of the cost increase on the premium variant, where elasticity is lower.
- Cross-subsidise: premium contribution offsets core-line margin compression.
- Invest in awareness (currently 11%) so that future price rises have equity to lean on - this is the underlying strategic problem.
I would also check whether the premium buyers overlap with core buyers. If they are largely the same households, raising the premium price may push them to trade down rather than pay, which weakens the cross-subsidy logic. That overlap should be confirmed from loyalty-card data before committing.