WHAT THESE MEASUREMENTS ARE FOR
Two budget pots. One has a strategy.
Media budgets are managed and attributed. Deal funding is spread flat. Top sellers, gut feeling, last year's plan. The money is comparable in size. The evidence behind it is not.
STATUS QUO — SPLIT EVENLY: EVERY CATEGORY GETS THE SAME
WITH THESE NUMBERS — SPLIT BY IMPACT: MORE WHERE PRICE MOVES RANK
- Fragrances (women)
- Eye creams
- Fragrances (men)
- Face serums
- Face moisturisers
- Face sunscreen
- Face cleansers
- Conditioner
- Beard oils
- Hair oils
- Shampoo
- Hand soaps
Left: a deal budget spread evenly across the twelve measured categories. Right: the same budget, weighted by each category's measured rank response to a price cut. The weights are the published point values from the Q3 2026 Quarterly. This shows the allocation logic, not a forecast. Media spend has a yardstick per euro; this is the equivalent yardstick for deal funding. Reading the point values side by side, a euro on the strongest shelf buys about six times the measured rank response of a euro on the weakest. Indexed: 1.00× is what the flat split buys in measured rank response; the weighted split buys the computed multiple of it, which is arithmetic on the published point values, assuming response scales with funding within the measured ranges.
If one of these is on your desk, the reports speak to it.
01 · THE ANNUAL DEAL-FUNDING PLAN
A six-figure funding pot across dozens of brands, and the split is last year's plus gut feeling.
- MEASURED
- Cut response per category, 0.19 to 1.11 across the twelve measured. Each report carries the band behind its number.
- YOU DECIDE
- Weight funding by measured response instead of spreading it flat, before the next event, not after it.
02 · THE COST-INCREASE STANDOFF
Finance wants the increase passed on. Sales fears the rank loss. Both argue from instinct.
- MEASURED
- In nine of the twelve categories, increases demonstrably cost less visibility than cuts of the same size gain.
- YOU DECIDE
- Sequence the pass-through: which category first, which can wait, and what rank cost to expect.
03 · THE PROMO-DEPTH DEBATE
The deal is set. The argument is 15% or 25%, and every point deeper is margin gone.
MILD AND MEDIUM CUTS BUY THE SAME. ONLY DEEP CUTS BUY MORE.
- MEASURED
- In conditioner, cuts of 5–15% and 15–25% bought about the same rank improvement. Past the flat point, depth bought nothing. Across the series, token cuts of 5–15% bought roughly half the effect of a meaningful cut.
- YOU DECIDE
- Set a floor and a ceiling per category. Same visibility, more margin.
04 · THE LAUNCH-PRICE GAMBLE
A new product enters a shelf you don't know. Too high and it's invisible. Too low and the price is anchored.
NEWCOMERS WON IN SEVERAL BANDS, NEVER OFTEN ENOUGH TO CALL IT A DOOR
No corridor: no price band in this category met the entry criteria, so none is marked recommended.
- MEASURED
- Entry corridors per category: where newcomers actually land, and where they survive. Including the honest case where a shelf has no viable door.
- YOU DECIDE
- Pick a launch corridor with entrant evidence behind it instead of a round number.
Before the list is set
Weighting the budget is the second decision. The first one is which products go on the deal list at all, and it has the larger lever. In most planning rounds the top sellers win, because they promise the safest revenue. The measurements say that logic is incomplete: whether a discount buys visibility depends less on the product than on the shelf it sits on.
01Does the category respond at all?
In women's fragrances a discount moves the ranking almost one for one. In hand soaps about a fifth of that arrives. A top seller on an unresponsive shelf is a worse deal candidate than the number four on a responsive one.
02Is the product in the tier where price works?
Wherever a segment difference could be demonstrated, the cheapest third responded least. In men's fragrances the same discount buys two and a half times as much in the premium tier as in the budget tier. Funding the cheap volume lines first means funding the weakest part of the portfolio.
03Is this a shelf to sit out?
In hand soaps even a deep cut moves almost nothing. A deal there costs funding and margin without visibility coming back. Not participating is a legitimate recommendation, even though it is rarely the one that gets made.
Select where price works, then set the depth at which it works. The same funding buys measurably more, and what is saved stays margin.
QUESTIONS READERS ASK
How do you pick the categories?
One market area per quarter, measured category by category with the same frozen protocol. Q3 2026 was Beauty & Personal Care on amazon.de. The next collection is announced on the Quarterly page.
Why only amazon.de?
Because that is where the series starts, not where it ends. One marketplace, one protocol, one control logic. That is what makes twelve categories readable side by side. The method itself is not tied to Germany: the same protocol can measure any Amazon marketplace. When the series expands, each marketplace gets its own series with its own controls, not a footnote in this one.
Did you change any prices to get these numbers?
No. All measured events are price moves that sellers and vendors made on their own. I observe them and compare each one against category controls. No experiments, no interventions, no live listings touched.
What does the 'reliable' tag mean?
The estimate passed every quality gate (enough events, enough products, a converged reference), and its 90% band stays clearly away from zero. When a band includes zero, the report says 'not demonstrable' and makes no directional claim.
Why do you publish failed measurements?
Because a series that only shows its hits is advertising. Categories that fail the gates go on the 'measured, not published' list by name. You should know what I could not measure, not just what I could.
How current are the numbers?
Each report states its measurement date and the window it covers. Elasticities drift slowly, and re-measurements are part of the series. When a number is superseded, the newer report says so.
Do these numbers apply to my products?
They are category benchmarks, measured across the curated set, and your own ASINs can sit above or below them. The reports tell you how your shelf behaves; they do not claim to know your P&L.
Can I cite the numbers?
Yes, with source and date: 'Marketplace Economics, [category], amazon.de, [date]'. Always cite the band with the point value, because a number without its range says more than I measured.
One more thing, stated plainly: the same instrument can be pointed at a specific portfolio, privately, under contract, and kept strictly separate from this publication. How that works, and how I keep the two apart, is on the About page.
→ About this publication