Elastic Demand: Why Price Sensitivity Is a Marketing Problem

Elastic demand describes how much the quantity demanded for a product changes in response to a change in price. When demand is highly elastic, a small price increase causes a significant drop in sales. When demand is inelastic, buyers keep purchasing regardless of price movement. Understanding where your product sits on that spectrum, and what marketing can do to shift it, is one of the most commercially useful things a senior marketer can do.

Most marketing teams treat price sensitivity as a finance problem. It is not. It is a perception problem, and perception is marketing’s territory.

What Does Elastic Demand Actually Mean for Marketers?

Price elasticity of demand is a concept borrowed from economics, but it has direct, practical implications for how you build and position a brand. The formal definition is straightforward: elasticity measures the percentage change in quantity demanded divided by the percentage change in price. If a 10% price increase causes a 20% drop in sales, demand is elastic. If the same price increase causes only a 3% drop, demand is inelastic.

For most consumer goods and many B2B services, demand sits somewhere in the middle. The question is what moves it in either direction, and that is where marketing becomes commercially critical.

Commodities tend to have highly elastic demand because buyers perceive no meaningful difference between suppliers. If one petrol station raises its price by 5p per litre, drivers will go to the next one. There is no brand story strong enough to override a visible, immediate price differential when the product is functionally identical. That is the commodity trap, and it is not inevitable. It is usually the result of marketing that never built a reason to prefer.

Contrast that with a brand like Apple. The iPhone is not the cheapest smartphone. It is not always the most technically advanced. But Apple has built a perception of ecosystem, identity, and quality so deeply embedded in its buyer base that price increases do not produce the kind of demand collapse you would expect from a pure economics model. That is inelastic demand, engineered through years of consistent brand investment.

Marketing does not get enough credit for this. The conversation in most boardrooms focuses on short-term revenue and return on ad spend. But the more durable commercial contribution of good marketing is the slow, compounding work of making customers less price-sensitive over time.

If you are interested in how demand economics connects to broader go-to-market decisions, the thinking on go-to-market and growth strategy at The Marketing Juice explores how pricing, positioning, and audience development work together as a system rather than as separate disciplines.

Why Marketing Teams Rarely Think About Elasticity

I spent a significant part of my career running performance marketing operations, and I can tell you with some confidence that elasticity rarely came up. We talked about cost per acquisition, return on ad spend, conversion rates, and customer lifetime value. All useful metrics. But none of them tell you whether the demand you are capturing is price-sensitive or not, or what it would take to make it less so.

This is a structural problem in how marketing is organised and measured. Performance channels are optimised for short-term conversion, which means they are optimised for capturing people who have already decided to buy. Those buyers are often comparison shopping. They are, by definition, price-aware. The channel itself selects for elastic demand.

When I was growing an agency from around 20 people to close to 100, one of the clearest commercial lessons was that clients who came to us through referral or reputation were far less price-sensitive than clients who came through a pitch process. The pitch process created a competitive dynamic that drove down margin. Reputation created a preference that made price a secondary consideration. We were selling the same service in both cases. The demand elasticity was completely different.

That pattern holds across almost every category I have worked in. How a customer finds you shapes how price-sensitive they are. And how price-sensitive they are shapes your margin, your growth trajectory, and your ability to invest in the business. This is not abstract economics. It is the engine of commercial sustainability.

The challenge is that building inelastic demand requires investment in brand, positioning, and category perception, work that is harder to attribute and slower to show results than paid search or retargeting. Most marketing teams are not incentivised to do it, and most finance directors are not patient enough to fund it. So the work does not get done, and businesses end up competing on price by default rather than by design.

What Makes Demand More or Less Elastic?

Understanding the factors that drive elasticity gives you a framework for where marketing effort is most likely to shift the needle. There are five worth examining in detail.

Availability of substitutes

The more alternatives a buyer perceives, the more elastic demand becomes. This is why category positioning matters so much. If a buyer sees your product as one of several interchangeable options, they will be price-sensitive. If they see it as the only credible option for their specific situation, they will not.

Marketing’s job here is to define the category in a way that makes substitution feel like a downgrade. That is not spin. It is genuine differentiation, communicated clearly. The brands that do this well have usually done the hard work of understanding what their customers actually value, not what the product team thinks they value.

Proportion of income or budget

Buyers are generally more price-sensitive when a purchase represents a significant share of their budget. A 10% price increase on a box of cereal barely registers. The same increase on a software platform that costs a business £200,000 a year will get scrutinised carefully. This is why enterprise sales cycles involve so much justification work, and why B2B marketing needs to build a stronger commercial case than B2C marketing typically does.

The implication for marketers is that the ROI narrative matters more as deal size increases. If you cannot help a buyer justify the price internally, you will lose on price. That is not a pricing problem. It is a content and positioning problem.

Necessity versus discretionary purchase

Essential products tend to have inelastic demand because buyers have limited choice. Discretionary products are more elastic because buyers can defer or substitute. But necessity is partly a perception, not just a function. Marketing can shift where a product sits on that spectrum by making it feel essential rather than optional.

I have seen this play out in categories ranging from insurance to software to food. The brands that frame their product as a default, a standard, something everyone serious uses, tend to face less price resistance than brands that position themselves as an option. Category leadership is partly about making your product feel necessary even when it is not strictly so.

Brand strength and perceived quality

This is the most direct marketing lever on elasticity. A strong brand creates a perception premium that insulates a product from price competition. Buyers who trust a brand, identify with it, or believe it delivers reliably better outcomes will accept a higher price before switching. That premium is not infinite, but it is real, and it compounds over time.

BCG’s research on brand strategy and go-to-market alignment makes the case that brand investment and commercial strategy need to work together, not in parallel silos. That alignment is exactly what reduces elasticity over time. When brand and commercial strategy pull in different directions, you end up with a strong creative reputation and a weak pricing position, which is a frustrating and surprisingly common outcome.

Time horizon

Demand tends to be less elastic in the short term and more elastic over time. A buyer locked into a contract or dependent on a platform will absorb a price increase in the short term. Over a longer horizon, they will find alternatives. This is why retention marketing matters. Keeping customers embedded, engaged, and satisfied is a form of elasticity management. The moment a customer starts actively looking at alternatives, you have already lost some of your pricing power.

The Brand Investment Case, Made in Elasticity Terms

One of the most persistent arguments in marketing is between brand investment and performance investment. It is a false binary, but it persists because the two types of spend have very different time horizons and attribution profiles. Performance spend shows results quickly. Brand spend shows results slowly, and often in ways that are hard to measure directly.

Framing brand investment through the lens of elasticity makes the commercial case more clearly than most brand arguments do. If brand investment reduces price sensitivity by even a small percentage across a large customer base, the margin impact is significant. A business that can sustain a 5% price premium over its competitors, without losing meaningful volume, is a structurally more profitable business than one that cannot. That premium is the return on brand investment, even if it never shows up in a last-click attribution report.

When I was judging the Effie Awards, the campaigns that stood out commercially were not always the ones with the most impressive creative. They were the ones where the brand work had clearly shifted how buyers perceived the category, and in doing so, had given the business room to price with more confidence. That is the commercial value of brand. It is not soft. It is structural.

The problem is that most businesses measure brand investment against short-term sales metrics, which is like measuring the value of a foundation by how quickly it produces a roof. The metrics are wrong for the question being asked. Brand investment should be measured against pricing resilience, competitive win rates, and customer retention, not against last quarter’s conversion rate.

How Performance Marketing Interacts With Elasticity

Performance marketing is good at capturing demand that already exists. It is less good at creating demand, and it is largely neutral on elasticity. Paid search puts you in front of someone who is already looking. That is valuable. But it does not tell you whether that person is comparing prices or has already decided they want you specifically.

The distinction matters more than most performance teams acknowledge. If a buyer arrives at your site through branded search, they are demonstrating preference. They are less elastic. If they arrive through a generic category search, they are likely comparison shopping. They are more elastic. The same channel, very different demand profiles.

Earlier in my career I put too much weight on lower-funnel performance metrics. The numbers looked good. Cost per acquisition was efficient. Return on ad spend was strong. But looking back, a significant portion of what we were crediting to performance activity was demand that would have converted anyway. The people who were going to buy regardless of whether we ran a retargeting campaign or not. Capturing that demand efficiently is worth doing, but it is not the same as creating it, and it does not move elasticity.

Growth, real growth, requires reaching people who were not already going to buy from you. That means working further up the funnel, building awareness and preference before purchase intent exists. That is where elasticity gets shaped. By the time someone is in a purchase comparison, their price sensitivity is largely set. The window for influencing it has mostly closed.

Tools like those discussed in Semrush’s breakdown of growth hacking examples show how some brands have grown quickly by creating new demand rather than just optimising existing conversion. The pattern is consistent: sustainable growth comes from expanding the addressable audience, not just improving the efficiency of capturing the audience you already have.

Pricing Strategy Is Downstream of Marketing Strategy

There is a common assumption that pricing is a finance or commercial function and marketing’s job is to sell at whatever price has been set. That assumption costs businesses money. Pricing and marketing strategy are deeply interdependent, and the elasticity of demand is the connective tissue between them.

If marketing has done its job well, the business has pricing latitude. It can charge more than competitors without losing disproportionate volume. It can absorb cost increases without immediately passing them on in ways that damage demand. It can introduce premium tiers and expect a meaningful portion of customers to trade up. None of that is possible if marketing has failed to build differentiation and preference.

Conversely, if a business is stuck competing on price, that is often a signal that marketing has not built sufficient perceived value. The finance team did not create that problem. The commercial team did not create it. Marketing created it, or failed to prevent it, and marketing needs to solve it. That is an uncomfortable framing for some marketing leaders, but it is the commercially honest one.

I have worked with businesses that were genuinely convinced their pricing problem was a sales problem or a market problem. In most cases, it was a positioning problem. The product was good. The price was fair. But the marketing had never built a clear enough reason to prefer, so buyers defaulted to price as their decision criterion. Fixing the positioning did not happen overnight, but when it did, the pricing conversation changed completely.

Elastic Demand in B2B: A Different but Related Problem

B2B demand elasticity works differently from consumer demand, but the underlying principles are the same. B2B buyers are generally more rational and more process-driven in their purchasing decisions. They have procurement functions, evaluation criteria, and approval processes. But they are still human beings making judgements under uncertainty, and brand perception still influences those judgements.

In B2B, inelastic demand is often built through reputation, case studies, and thought leadership rather than through mass brand advertising. A professional services firm that is known for a specific type of work, in a specific sector, with a track record of results, can charge significantly more than a generalist competitor. That premium is not arbitrary. It reflects a genuine reduction in perceived risk for the buyer, which is the B2B equivalent of brand trust.

Forrester’s analysis of go-to-market challenges in healthcare illustrates how even in highly regulated, highly rational buying environments, perceived value and positioning shape commercial outcomes. The buyers are sophisticated. The stakes are high. And yet differentiation still matters, sometimes more so, because the cost of a wrong decision is severe and buyers are willing to pay for confidence.

The practical implication for B2B marketers is that content, expertise, and category authority are not nice-to-haves. They are elasticity-reduction tools. Every piece of genuinely useful content that demonstrates deep expertise makes your buyers slightly less likely to make their decision purely on price. That is a commercial outcome, even if it never shows up in a lead attribution report.

Category Creation as an Extreme Elasticity Strategy

If reducing elasticity is the goal, the most powerful version of that strategy is category creation: positioning your product as the definition of a new category rather than a competitor within an existing one. When you create a category, you eliminate substitutes by definition. There is no alternative to the thing you invented, at least initially. Demand for your product and demand for the category are the same thing.

This is not a strategy available to most businesses most of the time. True category creation is rare, and it requires both genuine product innovation and significant marketing investment to educate a market. But the principle behind it, reducing the set of perceived substitutes, is available at smaller scale to almost any business.

A regional accountancy firm cannot create a new category of accounting. But it can position itself as the specialist for a specific type of client in a specific situation, and in doing so, make itself the only credible option for that segment. The substitutes still exist technically, but the buyer’s perception is that switching would mean accepting something less suited to their needs. That is a form of category creation at the segment level, and it is a realistic marketing objective for businesses that will never be global brands.

The growth hacking literature on CrazyEgg touches on how some of the fastest-growing businesses have used positioning and category framing to create demand rather than just compete for it. The mechanics vary, but the underlying logic is consistent: if you can define the problem in a way that makes your solution the natural answer, you reduce the comparison set and reduce price sensitivity simultaneously.

Measuring the Impact of Elasticity-Reduction Work

This is where the conversation gets difficult, because the metrics that matter most for elasticity are not the ones most marketing teams report on. Conversion rates, cost per acquisition, and return on ad spend are all measures of efficiency within existing demand. They do not tell you whether that demand is becoming more or less price-sensitive over time.

There are proxy measures worth tracking. Branded search volume is one. When more buyers search for you by name rather than by category, it signals growing preference and lower elasticity. Price realisation, the average price achieved relative to list price or relative to competitors, is another. If your average transaction value is growing without a corresponding drop in volume, your elasticity is improving. Customer retention and expansion revenue are also useful signals. Customers who stay and grow with you are demonstrating that your value proposition is holding up against competitive alternatives.

None of these metrics are perfect. All of them are influenced by factors beyond marketing. But taken together, they give a more honest picture of whether marketing is building commercial resilience or just processing existing demand more efficiently. The distinction is not academic. It is the difference between marketing that creates value and marketing that reports on value it did not create.

Understanding how elasticity connects to your broader growth model is worth spending time on. The frameworks covered across The Marketing Juice’s go-to-market and growth strategy hub address how pricing, positioning, and audience development interact over time, and why optimising any one of them in isolation tends to produce disappointing results.

Practical Steps for Marketers Who Want to Shift Elasticity

Most of what moves demand elasticity is not a campaign. It is a sustained, consistent set of choices about how you position, what you communicate, and where you invest. That said, there are specific areas where deliberate effort tends to produce results.

The first is sharpening differentiation. Not the vague, aspirational kind that ends up in brand guidelines and nowhere else, but the specific, concrete kind that gives buyers a clear reason to prefer you over alternatives. This requires honest assessment of what you actually do better, and the discipline to build all your communication around it rather than trying to be everything to everyone.

The second is investing in the upper funnel. Reaching people before they are in active purchase mode is how you shape perception before price becomes the primary lens. This is where brand advertising, thought leadership, content, and PR do their most important work. It is also where most performance-oriented marketing teams underinvest, because the results are slower and harder to attribute.

The third is building category authority. Publishing genuinely useful thinking, taking clear positions, and being associated with expertise in your area all contribute to a perception of leadership that reduces substitutability. Buyers who see you as the authority in a space are less likely to treat you as interchangeable with competitors.

The fourth is managing the customer experience after the sale. Retention is elasticity management. Customers who have had a consistently good experience are more likely to absorb price increases and less likely to actively seek alternatives. The post-purchase relationship is not separate from marketing strategy. It is part of it.

Hotjar’s work on growth loops and customer feedback highlights how understanding what customers actually value, rather than what you assume they value, is foundational to building the kind of product and experience that sustains loyalty. That kind of insight work is not glamorous, but it is commercially consequential.

The fifth is pricing with confidence. Businesses that consistently discount signal to the market that their list price is not real, which erodes the perceived value that reduces elasticity in the first place. Pricing discipline is a form of brand management. It communicates that you believe your product is worth what you charge, and that belief, communicated consistently, shapes buyer perception over time.

The Honest Conversation About Commoditisation

Some categories commoditise regardless of marketing effort. When the underlying product is genuinely undifferentiated and buyers have easy access to alternatives and transparent price comparison, elasticity will be high and there is a limit to what marketing can do about it. Pretending otherwise is not helpful.

But commoditisation is often a choice that businesses make incrementally, usually through underinvestment in differentiation and brand over time. I have watched businesses in genuinely differentiated categories allow their positioning to erode through years of cost-cutting and short-term thinking, until they find themselves competing on price in a market they used to own. The commoditisation did not happen to them. They allowed it to happen by failing to maintain the marketing investment that sustained their premium.

The recovery from that position is slow and expensive. It requires rebuilding perceptions that have been allowed to weaken, often against competitors who have moved into the space you vacated. It is possible, but it takes longer and costs more than maintaining the position would have done. That is the real cost of treating brand investment as discretionary.

Later’s thinking on go-to-market campaigns that convert points to how even tactical campaign work can be structured to build preference rather than just drive short-term conversion. The two are not mutually exclusive. But they require different thinking about what success looks like, and that thinking has to start at the strategy level before it gets to execution.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions