Pricing Psychology in B2B: Anchors, Rounding, and Bundles, What Research Shows

Does pricing psychology apply to business customers too?

In consumer markets, pricing psychology is everywhere: 9.99 euros instead of 10 euros, crossed-out prices, value packs. Many B2B owners consider this sales theater that does not work on professional buyers. Others copy the tricks into their quotes without checking. Both attitudes usually rest on assumptions.

The guiding question of this assessment is: which pricing psychology effects are documented, and which of them also apply when business customers buy? To answer it, we first clarify the terms, then introduce the mental model of anchoring and adjustment, review the findings on anchors, price endings, and bundles, weigh two views, and finally derive rules for your own quotes.

Pricing psychology is not a trick if the customer is allowed to see through it and the price is still right.

Terms: reference price, anchor, price threshold, bundle

Research on behavioral pricing studies how people perceive and process prices, instead of assuming that they compare every price soberly with its benefit. Koschate-Fischer and Wüllner (2017) show in a review how much this field has grown and point out at the same time that it studies consumers almost exclusively.

A reference price is the comparison value a buyer measures a price against: last time's price, a competitor's offer, or a figure mentioned in the conversation. An anchor is a reference price that comes to mind first, by chance or by design. A price threshold is a point at which the evaluation of a price changes abruptly, for example at a round number. A bundle is an offer in which several products or services are sold together at one price. Stremersch and Tellis (2002) distinguish product bundles, in which the components are integrated into a new offering, from price bundles, in which separate offerings are simply cheaper when bought together.

The mental model: anchoring and adjustment

In 1974, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman described how people estimate unknown values. They start from an available number and adjust it, but usually too little. This procedure is called anchoring and adjustment. It is one of the shortcuts of fast thinking that the article Cognitive biases of business owners describes as System 1.

The model matters particularly for prices because hardly any customer knows the right price of a service. He estimates it. In the guide Negotiating as an owner, the consequence is called the anchoring effect: the first number in the room shapes what both sides then consider appropriate. The model explains why the order of figures in a quote matters, why precise numbers work differently from round ones, and why a bundle price changes the comparison with individual prices.

Anchors: what is documented

The main objection to anchors in B2B is that experts cannot be influenced. Northcraft and Neale (1987) tested exactly that. Students and real estate agents toured houses and estimated their value after receiving documents with listing prices of different heights. The estimates of both groups followed the given price. The study took place in a real, information-rich setting, not in the lab. Expertise did not protect against the anchor.

In negotiations, the effect has been measured well. The meta-analysis by Petrowsky, Boecker, Escher, and colleagues (2025), described in detail in the negotiation guide, analyzed 374 effects with a total of 16,334 participants. An ambitious first offer improved the outcome when an agreement was reached, but it reduced the likelihood of agreement and the other side's satisfaction.

The form of the anchor matters as well. Janiszewski and Uy (2008) showed in five studies that people adjust less far away from a precise anchor than from a rounded one. Their explanation: with a precise number such as 18,740, people think in finer steps than with 19,000. In a quote, this means that a precise sum derived in a traceable way gets negotiated down less than a round one.

Rounding and price endings: less certain than often claimed

Prices ending just below a round number, such as 9.99 euros, are considered a classic. But the evidence is mixed. Escher, Troll, Henjes, and Loschelder (2026) compared round prices, prices just below them, and precise prices such as 9.87 euros in two preregistered experiments with a total of 729 participants. Precise prices produced the most favorable price image and were most likely to be underestimated in recall, followed by prices just below the round number. But price endings did not reliably affect purchase intention or the impression of quality.

For business customers, there is hardly any research. Hamadi and Strudthoff (2016) studied the prices of a complex chemical product in B2B and found a strong concentration of certain price endings, similar to consumer markets. From this, they cautiously conclude that price thresholds might play a role there too. The study shows which endings suppliers choose, not how customers react to them.

My assessment: in B2B, a price ending in 99 looks more like a shop than like a specialist business. A precise price that follows from the calculation fits better because it looks calculated and actually is. Anyone who makes a price artificially precise without having calculated it that way, however, fails the honesty test from the article Persuasion without tricks: would the customer agree to the method if he knew how and why it is used?

Bundles and partitioned prices

Economically, a bundle pays off above all when customers value the individual components differently. The following worked example shows the basic idea with two customer groups that are willing to pay different amounts for maintenance and training.

In the example, with individual prices only one group buys the training at the high price. The bundle captures more willingness to pay from both groups because the different valuations balance each other out. Stremersch and Tellis (2002) name further conditions under which bundles make sense and stress that a mixed bundle, in which the components remain available individually, usually raises fewer legal and trust-related questions than a pure bundle, in which the components are only available together.

The counterpart to the bundle is the partitioned price, in which a total price is split into a base price and surcharges. Abraham and Hamilton (2018) presented a meta-analysis of 149 observations from 27 papers with a total of 12,878 participants. Partitioned prices were rated more favorably than all-inclusive prices when no total was stated, when the price level was higher, and when the surcharges were typical for the category. Unusual surcharges, by contrast, had an unfavorable effect. For a quote, this means: surcharges customers know from the industry, for example for travel, are unproblematic. Surcharges intended to make the price look smaller cost trust as soon as the customer adds up the total.

Two views: professional buyers or people with shortcuts

The first view considers pricing psychology in B2B largely ineffective. Buyers compare several offers, calculate total costs, and often decide in committees. The elaboration likelihood model explained in the article on persuasion supports this view: in important decisions, the route through arguments dominates. Then there is persuasion knowledge. Eisend and Tarrahi (2022) show in a meta-analysis of 171 data sets that customers recognize tactics and then rate the supplier less favorably.

The second view counters that buyers are also people who estimate under time pressure. Northcraft and Neale show that experts follow the anchor. And the meta-analysis on first offers shows that anchors work in negotiations, especially between professionals.

I consider both views justified and see the line in the question of whether an effect makes the decision easier or distorts it. An honest anchor, a traceably precise number, and a bundle that really helps customers make the decision easier. An artificial comparison price, a hidden fee, and a bundle that only makes comparison harder distort it. The former works even when the customer sees through it. The latter works only as long as he does not.

What is documented and what you can do in your quotes

The guide Good, better, best describes the compromise effect with three tiers. If you want to set different prices for different customers, the article Price differentiation provides the justification test. And if you want to prevent a good anchor from being lost in discounts, read the guide Controlling discounts.

• The quote shows the recommendation for the customer's situation first, not the cheapest variant.
• Calculated sums stay precise and are derived from components.
• There are no prices ending in 99 and no invented comparison prices.
• Bundles contain only components the customer actually needs, and the components are also available individually.
• Surcharges are customary in the industry, justified, and visible in the total.

Conclusion: what research shows

Which pricing psychology effects are documented, and which also apply to business customers? The anchor is well documented, and it works among experts and in negotiations too. Precise numbers strengthen it. Price endings just below round amounts are less well documented than guides claim and have hardly been studied in B2B. Bundles pay off when customers value the components differently, and partitioned prices only when the surcharges are customary and visible. The line to manipulation runs where an effect works only as long as the customer does not understand it.

Pricing psychology does not replace a good price. But it helps decide whether a good price is also perceived as one.