Everything your SaaS company needs to know about willingness-to-pay

April 19, 2024
0 minute read

Pricing is one of the most underutilized levers SaaS companies have at their disposal to capture more value. We’ve written somewhat extensively on this topic in the past with the help of Monevate’s James Wilton. He identified key points in the pricing process where companies often leak value, meaning they unintentionally devalue their own product.


One of those points was the “willingness-to-pay” calculation. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) is, as the name suggests, the maximum amount of money your customers are willing to pay for a specific product or service. For a variety of reasons, this is a fairly difficult value to calculate. Thankfully, we’re happy to lend a hand.


What makes WTP so elusive?


Your customers aren’t a monolith. Extrinsic and intrinsic factors can lead to wide variations in WTP between individual customers. For reference, extrinsic factors are differences you can observe or verify. These are things like their age, gender, education, income, location, etc. Intrinsic factors are the opposite, these are internal characteristics like risk tolerance and passion that are less concrete yet just as influential.


Harvard has identified 14 core factors that can impact a customer’s willingness to pay.


  • Income
  • Geography
  • Weather
  • Age
  • Gender
  • Brand Loyalty
  • Service Levels
  • Advertising
  • Competing Products
  • Expectations
  • Legality
  • Packaging
  • Environmental/Social Impact
  • Necessity


These are all unique to the individual and, unfortunately, you may not have influence over all of these factors. As much as we’d all like to, we can’t make our product necessary for our clients, for instance.


How do I even calculate WTP?


If the thought of calculating WTP is starting to feel less like science and more like sociology—then you might be onto something. Determining your customer’s willingness to pay requires continuous market research, a concept pretty intimidating to many companies. 


Irrational Labs, a behavioral economics and consulting firm, found that, out of 60 software companies surveyed, half have never run a pricing study before and only a quarter have even A/B tested a pricing change. These, and other, companies had similar concerns.


  • Pricing changes can be risky, and charging different customers different prices can lead to blowback.
  • Testing multiple prices can be technically complex to implement and maintain.
  • WTP studies are hard to run! They require recruiting participants, writing the study, and analyzing the data.


These are valid concerns. It’s no wonder a company might be nervous. However, as we wrote in our Pricing and Packaging blog, a change as low as just a 1% improvement in pricing can increase your profits by up to 11%.


There are a few quantitative ways to determine WTP, but understand that this metric isn’t perfectly quantifiable. As mentioned above, over a dozen factors play into how much a particular customer may be willing to pay—meaning the actual price is only truly part of the equation. Your marketing and your competition equally impact your WTP.


That being said, we can still use well-researched methods to make an educated guess.


The Van Westendorp method, often called the “price sensitivity meter,” is perhaps the most well-known approach to calculating WTP. However, it probably isn’t the most accurate. There is very little research available to back-up its effectiveness, for one. However, it’s most redeeming quality is that it’s fairly simple to administer. Participants are asked just four direct, straightforward, easy to analyze questions.


  1. At what price would it be so low that you would start to question this product’s quality?
  2. At what price do you think this product is starting to be a bargain?
  3. At what price does this product begin to seem expensive?
  4. At what price is this product too expensive?


Since these are hypothetical questions, they are open to hypothetical bias. In this specific scenario, respondents often overestimate how much they’d actually spend.


The Gabor-Graner method, or multiple price list, improves upon the Van Westendorp method by eliminating the need to fabricate a price out of thin air. Instead, participants are given a list of price tags and are asked whether or not they would pay that amount.


This method has historically been preferred by researchers due to its simplicity and transparency. Unfortunately, new research shows that this method may actually lead to systematically lower WTP estimates.


Conjoint analysis sacrifices simplicity in the name of quality by breaking a product down into its components (features and prices), then combining those components into several configurations for the respondents to choose from. Researchers can then ascertain from the participant’s responses how each feature influences WTP.


Conjoint analysis is less of a strategy and more of an umbrella for a family of strategies. Qualtrics does a great job explaining a few of the many different types available in this blog post. The gist is that a conjoint analysis offers far more insight into consumer trade-off decisions at the cost of greater complexity.


How can I increase my WTP?


Suppose you’ve calculated the total amount your customers are willing to pay, and you’re not happy with what you’ve found. Can you change this number? Thankfully, yes.


Willingness to pay isn’t a static value. It is constantly in flux based on the metrics mentioned above, many of which you may have an influence over. WIth that in mind, there are a few clear-cut ways you can increase your WTP.


Increase brand awareness


Your brand is often just as important as, and sometimes even more important than, the product itself. Luxury brands are a great example of this. Consider two otherwise identical shirts, one sold by Gucci and the other sold by Old Navy—one of these is absolutely going to command a higher price than the other.


Clearly express your product’s value


If your product’s value isn’t clearly articulated to your customers, that will have a significant impact on your customer’s WTP. They need to see the full benefit of your product before they can hope to assign it a fair price. If your marketing doesn’t highlight the right features or benefits, then you can’t expect an appropriate WTP.


Consider influencer marketing


Influencer marketing is a great way to create an aura of popularity around your product, even if it doesn’t exist yet. Consumers often rely on the opinions of their peers to make purchasing decisions. This is another avenue towards strengthening your brand, an important lever in controlling your customer’s WTP.


Are you sensing a pattern in some of these methods? They all rely on the consumer’s perception of your product. While a customer’s willingness to pay is absolutely dependent upon material facts, it is also heavily influenced by more emotional concepts. How popular your product is, how premium it appears—these are all key factors you should attempt to influence.


Do you know how much your customers are willing to pay?


The amount your customers are willing to pay can reveal a lot about the health of your business and is an important factor in your overall pricing strategy. However, it isn’t the end-all-be-all for pricing. As we wrote in our Pricing and Packaging article, there are many routes available to capture more customer value.


In our virtual event “The Vertical SaaS Roadmap to Revenue Expansion” we sat down with pricing experts to explore a few of the ways SaaS companies can boost revenue with smarter pricing strategies. The complete session is available below.


Headshot of Shawn Davis

Content Writer, Duda

Denver-based writer with a passion for creating engaging, informative content. Loves running, cycling, coffee, and the New York Times' minigames.


Did you find this article interesting?


Thanks for the feedback!
By Shawn Davis April 1, 2026
Core Web Vitals aren't new, Google introduced them in 2020 and made them a ranking factor in 2021. But the questions keep coming, because the metrics keep changing and the stakes keep rising. Reddit's SEO communities were still debating their impact as recently as January 2026, and for good reason: most agencies still don't have a clear, repeatable way to measure, diagnose, and fix them for clients. This guide cuts through the noise. Here's what Core Web Vitals actually measure, what good scores look like today, and how to improve them—without needing a dedicated performance engineer on every project. What Core Web Vitals measure Google evaluates three user experience signals to determine whether a page feels fast, stable, and responsive: Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) measures how long it takes for the biggest visible element on a page — usually a hero image or headline — to load. Google considers anything under 2.5 seconds good. Above 4 seconds is poor. Interaction to Next Paint (INP) replaced First Input Delay (FID) in March 2024. Where FID measures the delay before a user's first click is registered, INP tracks the full responsiveness of every interaction across the page session. A good INP score is under 200 milliseconds. Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) measures visual stability — how much page elements unexpectedly move while content loads. A score below 0.1 is good. Higher scores signal that images, ads, or embeds are pushing content around after load, which frustrates users and tanks conversions. These three metrics are a subset of Google's broader Page Experience signals, which also include HTTPS, safe browsing, and mobile usability. Core Web Vitals are the ones you can most directly control and improve. Why your clients' scores may still be poor Core Web Vitals scores vary dramatically by platform, hosting, and how a site was built. Some of the most common culprits agencies encounter: Heavy above-the-fold content . A homepage with an autoplay video, a full-width image slider, and a chat widget loading simultaneously will fail LCP every time. The browser has to resolve all of those resources before it can paint the largest element. Unstable image dimensions . When an image loads without defined width and height attributes, the browser doesn't reserve space for it. It renders the surrounding text, then jumps it down when the image appears. That jump is CLS. Third-party scripts blocking the main thread . Analytics pixels, ad tags, and live chat tools run on the browser's main thread. When they stack up, every click and tap has to wait in line — driving INP scores up. A single slow third-party script can push an otherwise clean site into "needs improvement" territory. Too many web fonts . Each font family and weight is a separate network request. A page loading four font files before rendering any text will fail LCP, especially on mobile connections. Unoptimized images . JPEGs and PNGs served at full resolution, without compression or modern formats like WebP or AVIF, add unnecessary weight to every page load. How to measure them accurately There are two types of Core Web Vitals data you should be looking at for every client: Lab data comes from tools like Google PageSpeed Insights, Lighthouse, and WebPageTest. It simulates page loads in controlled conditions. Lab data is useful for diagnosing specific issues and testing fixes before you deploy them. Field data (also called Real User Monitoring, or RUM) comes from actual users visiting the site. Google collects this through the Chrome User Experience Report (CrUX) and surfaces it in Search Console and PageSpeed Insights. Field data is what Google actually uses as a ranking signal — and it often looks worse than lab data because it reflects real-world device and connection variability. If your client's site has enough traffic, you'll see field data in Search Console under Core Web Vitals. This is your baseline. Lab data helps you understand why the scores are what they are. For clients with low traffic who don't have enough field data to appear in CrUX, you'll be working primarily with lab scores. Set that expectation early so clients understand that improvements may not immediately show up in Search Console. Practical fixes that move the needle Fix LCP: get the hero image loading first The single most effective LCP improvement is adding fetchpriority="high" to the hero image tag. This tells the browser to prioritize that resource over everything else. If you're using a background CSS image for the hero, switch it to anelement — background images aren't discoverable by the browser's preload scanner. Also check whether your hosting serves images through a CDN with caching. Edge delivery dramatically reduces the time-to-first-byte, which feeds directly into LCP. Fix CLS: define dimensions for every media element Every image, video, and ad slot on the page needs explicit width and height attributes in the HTML. If you're using responsive CSS, you can still define the aspect ratio with aspect-ratio in CSS while leaving the actual size fluid. The key is giving the browser enough information to reserve space before the asset loads. Avoid inserting content above existing content after page load. This is common with cookie banners, sticky headers that change height, and dynamically loaded ad units. If you need to show these, anchor them to fixed positions so they don't push content around. Fix INP: reduce what's competing for the main thread Audit third-party scripts and defer or remove anything that isn't essential. Tools like WebPageTest's waterfall view or Chrome DevTools Performance panel show you exactly which scripts are blocking the main thread and for how long. Load chat widgets, analytics, and ad tags asynchronously and after the page's critical path has resolved. For most clients, moving non-essential scripts to load after the DOMContentLoaded event is a meaningful INP improvement with no visible impact on the user experience. For websites with heavy JavaScript — particularly those built on frameworks with large client-side bundles — consider breaking up long tasks into smaller chunks using the browser's Scheduler API or simply splitting components so the main thread isn't locked for more than 50 milliseconds at a stretch. What platforms handle automatically One of the practical advantages of building on a platform optimized for performance is that many of these fixes are applied by default. Duda, for example, automatically serves WebP images, lazy loads below-the-fold content, minifies CSS, and uses efficient cache policies for static assets. As of May 2025, 82% of sites built on Duda pass all three Core Web Vitals metrics — the highest recorded pass rate among major website platforms. That baseline matters when you're managing dozens or hundreds of client sites. It means you're starting each project close to or at a passing score, rather than diagnosing and patching a broken foundation. How much do Core Web Vitals actually affect rankings? Honestly, they're a tiebreaker — not a primary signal. Google has been clear that content quality and relevance still dominate ranking decisions. A well-optimized site with thin, irrelevant content won't outrank a content-rich competitor just because its CLS is 0.05. What Core Web Vitals do affect is the user experience that supports those rankings. Pages with poor LCP scores have measurably higher bounce rates. Sites with high CLS lose users mid-session. Those behavioral signals — time on page, return visits, conversions — are things search engines can observe and incorporate. The practical argument for fixing Core Web Vitals isn't just "because Google said so." It's that faster, more stable pages convert better. Every second of LCP improvement can reduce bounce rates by 15–20% depending on the industry and device mix. For client sites that monetize through leads or eCommerce, that's a revenue argument, not just an SEO argument. A repeatable process for agencies Audit every new site before launch. Run PageSpeed Insights and record LCP, INP, and CLS scores for both mobile and desktop. Flag anything in the "needs improvement" or "poor" range before the client sees the live site. Check Search Console monthly for existing clients. The Core Web Vitals report surfaces issues as they appear in field data. Catching a regression early — before it compounds — is significantly easier than explaining a traffic drop after the fact. Document what you've improved. Clients rarely see Core Web Vitals scores on their own. A monthly one-page performance summary showing before/after scores builds credibility and makes your technical work visible. Prioritize mobile. Google uses mobile-first indexing, and field data shows that mobile CWV scores are almost always worse than desktop. If you only have time to optimize one version, do mobile first. Core Web Vitals aren't a one-time fix. Platforms change, new scripts get added, campaigns bring in new widgets. Build the audit into your workflow and treat it like any other ongoing deliverable, and you'll stay ahead of the issues before they affect your clients' rankings. Duda's platform is built with Core Web Vitals performance in mind. Explore how it handles image optimization, script management, and site speed automatically — so your team spends less time debugging and more time building.
By Ilana Brudo March 31, 2026
Vertical SaaS must transition from tools to an AI-powered Vertical Operating System (vOS). Learn to leverage context, end tech sprawl, and maximize retention.
By Shawn Davis March 27, 2026
Automate client management, instant site generation, and data synchronization with an API-driven website builder to create a scalable growth engine for your SaaS platform.
Show More

Latest posts