Price Anchoring and Gigabit Internet Access

You can assume many Internet service provider executives would argue that Google Fiber is priced too low. That would be a logical response by an incumbent to a disruptive price and value attack by a new competitor.

Google wanted to make a point by offering symmetrical gigabit Internet access for just $70 a month. In part, it wanted to prove that a brand new fiber to home network could be built to provide such connections, at unheard of prices, and still be a profitable venture, partly as a way of creating incentives for other ISPs to do so as well.

But some pricing specialists might argue Google Fiber's pricing was too low, and that other ISPs wishing to offer much faster Internet access should create their own much-faster services, but price a gigabit connection at higher levels, as much as $300, as many other ISPs have done.

The reason is price anchoring, the tendency buyers have to evaluate offers based in part on other information they have. For example, if a potential buyer learns that a “suggested” or “standard” price is $1,000, that buyer might be quite happy if the same product can be bought “on sale” for $500.

In similar fashion, buyers might conclude that a better immediate value proposition is a 300 Mbps access service, costing $150 a month, than a gigabit connection costing $300 a month.

Others might likewise conclude that a 150-Mbps service costing $75 also is something worth buying, especially if what they currently buy is a  20 Mbps connection for $50.

Whether it is too late for most ISPs to adjust is a reasonable question. Any ISP competing against Google Fiber is stuck: the market rate for symmetrical gigabit connections is $70 a month.

But in most markets, Google Fiber is not yet a product that can be purchased. So it might be possible, for some time, to offer a gigabit connection at prices high enough that most consumers wouldn’t buy them. But the anchoring effect will happen.

All of a sudden, a 500-Mbps service, at half the price of the gigabit connection, will seem more reasonable. Likewise, a 250-Mbps connection at a quarter of the price of the gigabit connection, will seem even more reasonable.

If the objective is to get customers to upgrade to 100 Mbps to 250 Mbps, setting a high price for a gigabit connection, and then essentially establishing a new mental image of what the value and price relationship is for services an order of magnitude faster than what most people buy, is possible.

That isn’t to argue for higher prices or lower prices, as a matter of course, but simply to point out that high posted prices sometimes can lead to higher perceived value, and higher purchasing, of other products whose value is anchored by the high value, high price of an anchor product.