Packaging Is More Than Pricing: Three Different Ways to Package an Offering

Introduction

When discussing products, services, and solutions, the word packaging is often used as if everyone understands what it means. In reality, different stakeholders mean different things when they talk about packaging.

A sales leader may think about commercial bundles and discount structures.

A product manager may think about predefined offering scopes.

A service business leader may think about combining products, services, software, and expertise into integrated customer solutions.

And all of them are correct. The problem is that we often mix these discussions together.

Through my experience in product management, service business development, and offering management, I have found it useful to think about offering packaging on three distinct levels:

  1. Commercial Packaging
  2. Scope Packaging
  3. Value Packaging

Understanding the difference helps organizations make better decisions about offering development, commercialization, and portfolio strategy.

Level 1: Commercial Packaging

Commercial packaging focuses on how the offering is bought.

The actual product or service may remain unchanged, but the commercial structure is designed to increase purchasing attractiveness, simplify procurement, or improve profitability.

Typical examples include:

  • Buy three, get one free
  • Subscription models
  • Volume discounts
  • Bundled pricing
  • Fixed-fee agreements
  • Loyalty programs

Many organizations start their packaging journey here because the implementation is relatively straightforward. Commercial packaging can generate immediate sales benefits and improve customer adoption. However, commercial packaging alone rarely creates sustainable differentiation. Competitors can usually copy pricing models faster than they can copy capabilities.

Strategic bundling research highlights that effective bundles create additional perceived customer value beyond simply grouping products together. Strategic bundling succeeds when customers experience a more complete solution rather than just a discounted collection of items. [verhaert.com], [bing.com]

Level 2: Scope Packaging

Scope packaging focuses on what the customer gets.

The objective is to create clarity, consistency, and scalability.

Anyone who has worked with large service organizations knows the challenge:

Sales teams want flexibility.

Customers want customization.

Operations want standardization.

Scope packaging is where these competing needs meet.

Common examples include:

  • Essential / Professional / Enterprise
  • Standard / Advanced / Premium
  • Assessment / Implementation / Support
  • Bronze / Silver / Gold

The goal is not to reduce customer value. The goal is to create repeatable delivery models that are easy to understand, sell, and deliver.

Good scope packaging creates transparency for customers and reduces internal complexity.

Poor scope packaging creates confusion, overlaps, and endless discussions about what is included and what is not.

Level 3: Value Packaging

The most strategic form of packaging is value packaging.

This is where organizations stop thinking about products and services as separate entities and start thinking about customer outcomes.

The question changes from: “What should we sell?”

to: “What outcome is the customer trying to achieve?”

Examples include:

  • Equipment + Maintenance
  • Spare Parts + Predictive Analytics
  • Training + Advisory Services
  • Product + Software + Lifecycle Agreement
  • Outcome-Based Service Contracts

Instead of buying multiple individual offerings, customers purchase a solution designed around their business objectives.

I would argue that value packaging is where the real strategic advantage exists.

Products can be copied. Services can be copied. Pricing models can be copied. Integrated customer value systems are significantly harder to replicate.

Why Portfolio Leaders Should Care?

This topic is not only relevant to product managers or commercial leaders. It is highly relevant for portfolio leaders. Many organizations govern products, services, software, and development initiatives in separate portfolios.

The customer, however, does not see separate portfolios. The customer sees a combined offering.

This creates an important portfolio management question:

Are we managing components, or are we managing customer value?

The future winners will likely be organizations that can manage portfolios across organizational boundaries and package capabilities around customer outcomes rather than internal structures.

Final Thoughts

When organizations talk about packaging, they often focus on pricing. When they mature, they focus on predefined scopes. When they become truly customer-centric, they focus on customer value.

Perhaps the most useful question for management teams is not:

“How should we package our products?”

But rather:

“How should we package value?”

Because ultimately customers seldom buy products. They buy the outcomes those products enable.

Further reading

Kohtamäki et al. (2019). Digital Servitization and Product-Service-Software Systems.

Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1999). New Product Portfolio Management: Practices and Performance.

ITIL 4 Service Offering Model (Goods + Access to Resources + Service Actions)

Harvard Business School

Strategic Bundling and Customer Value Creation

Why B2B Customer Journeys Belong on the Strategic Portfolio Agenda?

In many organizations, customer journey management (CJM) is still treated as a CX, service design, or marketing initiative. Journey maps are created, workshops are run, and insights are generated – yet impact at scale often remains limited.

One clear message from academic research and industrial case studies is this:

B2B customer journeys are not operational details.
They are strategic assets – and should be managed as such.

This post summarizes 10 key lessons learned from B2B customer journey research, drawing directly from MBA thesis work and recent literature, and translates them into strategic portfolio implications.

1. Customers don’t experience touchpoints – they experience journeys

Organizations often optimize individual interactions because they are measurable and owned by single functions. Customers, however, evaluate their experience cumulatively across the full journey.

Research shows that end‑to‑end journey satisfaction explains loyalty and growth better than isolated touchpoint KPIs. Improving one step does little if the journey breaks between steps.

Portfolio implication:
Strategic investments should be assessed based on journey impact, not local efficiency gains.

References: Rawson et al. (2013); Lemon & Verhoef (2016)

2. B2B journeys are long, complex, and non‑linear

B2B customer journeys differ fundamentally from consumer journeys. They typically:

  • span months or years
  • involve repeated lifecycle cycles (sales, delivery, service, renewal)
  • include multiple stakeholders interacting at different phases

Linear funnel thinking does not hold.

Portfolio implication:
Strategic portfolios must support lifecycle thinking, not one‑off project logic.

References: De Keyser et al. (2025); Homburg & Tischer (2023)

3. One weak stakeholder journey can derail the entire relationship

In B2B, “the customer” is rarely one person. If a single key role – for example procurement, finance, or operations – experiences friction, the overall relationship suffers, even if others are satisfied.

Portfolio implication:
Journey investments must explicitly address all critical personas, not just the most visible ones.

References: De Keyser et al. (2025); Pruitt & Adlin (2006)

4. Journey mapping reveals problems organizations don’t see

Journey mapping research repeatedly uncovers:

  • missing touchpoints
  • unplanned detours
  • handover failures between functions

Many of these issues remain invisible in traditional cost, productivity, or SLA metrics.

Portfolio implication:
Journey insights should inform where to invest, redesign, or stop initiatives, not just inspire workshops.

References: Halvorsrud et al. (2016); Følstad & Kvale (2018)

5. CJM works only when treated as an organizational capability

Successful companies treat CJM as a capability, not a project. Research identifies core dimensions such as:

  • value anchoring of interactions
  • consistency over time
  • cross‑functional integration
  • tailored control for different roles

These capabilities must be built and sustained.

Portfolio implication:
Some investments are capability‑building plays, not quick ROI cases – and should be evaluated accordingly.

Reference: Homburg & Tischer (2023)

6. Organizational silos are the number one obstacle

Most CJM initiatives fail not due to lack of tools, but due to:

  • fragmented ownership
  • disconnected data
  • local optimization incentives

Journeys cut across organizational boundaries by definition.

Portfolio implication:
Portfolio governance must address cross‑functional ownership, not reinforce silos.

References: Rawson et al. (2013); Dhebar (2013)

7. Leadership and governance determine success

CJM research consistently highlights the role of leadership. Without:

  • executive sponsorship
  • clear journey ownership
  • aligned metrics and incentives

journey initiatives stall or remain local experiments.

Portfolio implication:
Customer journeys are a leadership agenda item, comparable to major transformation themes.

References: Rawson et al. (2013); Homburg & Tischer (2023)

8. Data shows what happens – journeys explain why

Analytics identifies where customers drop off or struggle. Qualitative methods explain the reasons behind the numbers. Neither is sufficient alone.

The strongest CJM combines journey analytics with human‑centered insight.

Portfolio implication:
Investments in data platforms should be paired with investments in interpretation and sense‑making.

References: Halvorsrud et al. (2016); Davenport & Klahr (2018); Salminen et al. (2018)

9. Journey‑level metrics outperform touchpoint KPIs

Traditional KPIs often hide the real customer experience. Journey‑level measures, such as end‑to‑end satisfaction, are more predictive of churn, loyalty, and growth.

Portfolio implication:
Decision‑making should be informed by journey outcomes, not only functional metrics.

References: Rawson et al. (2013); Dixon et al. (2013)

10. CJM pays off – but it must be managed consciously

Research confirms that strong CJM capability improves customer loyalty and financial performance. At the same time, it can increase coordination effort and short‑term complexity.

The benefits are real – but not accidental.

Portfolio implication:
Customer journey investments need explicit prioritization, trade‑off decisions, and governance, like any strategic asset.

Reference: Homburg & Tischer (2023)

Final reflection

B2B customer journeys are not something to optimize at the edges. They are something to manage deliberately – at portfolio level.

When journeys are treated as strategic assets, organizations stop asking:

“How do we improve this touchpoint?”

And start asking:

“Which journeys matter most – and where should we invest, simplify, or stop investing?”

Selected references

  • Homburg, C., & Tischer, M. (2023). Customer journey management capability in business‑to‑business markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
  • De Keyser, A., et al. (2025). Understanding the B2B customer experience and journey. Journal of Business Research.
  • Rawson, A., Duncan, E., & Jones, C. (2013). The truth about customer experience. Harvard Business Review.
  • Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing.