| Course | MT219 Marketing |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Pricing comparison |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT219 Unit 5
$2.25 a Tablet Against $2.15 a Bottle: A Unit 5 Pricing Comparison for a Cleaning Tablet Brand
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT219: Marketing
Unit 5 Pricing Comparison
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Brightdrop Home, the competing products and every price are composite and illustrative; prices are typical shelf and online prices of the kind a student would record; the sources cited are real.
The Claim Being Tested
Brightdrop Home's ads say that buyers "save money by not paying to ship water." The claim implies that its tablets cost less than the sprays they replace. This comparison tests it the way a careful buyer would experience it at the shelf or on a phone screen: in cost per bottle of usable spray and in what a household actually spends in a year.
Cost per Sixteen Ounces
Every option is converted to the cost of sixteen ounces of ready-to-use spray, the size of Brightdrop's bottle.
A Brightdrop tablet costs [$2.25] bought singly or [$1.91] on subscription, and each tablet makes one bottle. A leading national-brand all-purpose spray costs [$4.29] for thirty-two ounces, or about [$2.15] per sixteen. The supermarket's store-brand spray costs about [$1.10] per sixteen ounces. A rival tablet brand costs [$2.00] per tablet, though it requires a subscription. White vinegar diluted half and half with tap water costs about [$0.30] per sixteen ounces.
On this measure Brightdrop's single tablet is the most expensive option except the national brand on subscription, and even its subscription price sits above the rival tablet and far above the store brand. Only against the national brand does Brightdrop's subscription come out ahead per bottle, by about [$0.24].
One Year for a Two-Bottle Household
A household that refills two bottles a month needs twenty-four bottles a year. Brightdrop's first year includes the [$18] starter kit, which holds three tablets, so the household buys twenty-one more. On subscription, the year costs [$18] plus 21 times [$1.91], or about [$58.11]. Buying single tablets, it costs about [$65.25].
The national-brand spray costs 24 times [$2.15], about [$51.48]. The store brand costs about [$26.40]. The rival tablet, with a [$12] starter kit holding two tablets, costs about [$56.00]. Vinegar costs under [$10], including a reusable spray bottle.
In year one, then, Brightdrop on subscription costs about [$6.63] more than the national-brand spray it most resembles, and more than twice the store brand.
In the first year, the brand that says it saves money costs more than the spray it is replacing.
Where the Money Goes
The reason is the starter kit. Three tablets bought singly would cost [$6.75], so the kit's price implies about [$11.25] for the bottle and trigger. That bottle lasts for years, and in year two the household pays only for tablets: 24 times [$1.91], or [$45.84], about [$5.64] less than the national brand.
So the savings claim is true, but only from the second year, only on subscription and only against a national brand. Against a store brand it is never true. Thaler (1985) showed that people place spending into separate mental accounts and judge each purchase against its own reference price. A buyer who sees an [$18] kit beside a [$4] spray is unlikely to calculate a two-year total; she compares the two prices on the screen.
What the Brand Is Really Charging For
If Brightdrop is not cheaper, its price must rest on something else. Kotler and Armstrong (2021) describe value-based pricing as setting price according to the buyer's perception of value rather than the seller's cost. The analysis of earlier units suggests three things buyers value: less plastic, less storage space and an attractive bottle. The price is a premium for those benefits, not a discount for shipping less water.
Monroe (2003) argued that buyers judge price relative to reference prices and that a claim inviting a comparison will be checked against the most obvious alternative. Brightdrop's savings claim invites the comparison it loses.
The Heavy-Use Household
The comparison changes for the heavy-use households chosen in Unit 3. At roughly a bottle a week, such a family uses forty-eight a year. On subscription that costs about [$91.68] after year one, against about [$102.96] for the national brand, a saving of about [$11]. But the subscription's six-pack size forces such a family to order every week and still pays [$1.91] a tablet. A larger pack at a lower unit price would turn the brand's weakest claim into its strongest for exactly the buyers it most needs. At [$1.59] a tablet in a thirty-tablet box, for example, the same family would spend about [$76] a year, roughly [$27] less than the national brand, and the brand could say so honestly.
Recommendation
Brightdrop should stop leading with a savings claim it cannot support in year one. It should either price a family box low enough to beat the national brand from the first order, or reframe its message around the benefits buyers actually pay for: less plastic, less space and a bottle worth keeping. If it keeps any savings language, it should state the condition plainly, for example savings compared with a leading national spray after the first year on subscription.
References
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2021). Principles of marketing (18th ed.). Pearson.
Monroe, K. B. (2003). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
The Purdue Global MT219 Unit 5 instructions
The fifth unit generally asks you to compare a product's price with its alternatives and identify the pricing strategy behind it. Most prompts want the alternatives a buyer would actually use, often wider than the product's own category, converted to a common unit so the comparison is fair. Show the calculations, at least in a table or short appendix, and state assumptions such as usage rate. Many sections also ask for a longer view, such as a year of use, since starter kits, subscriptions and refills change the total. Identify the strategy from the evidence, for example value-based, cost-plus or penetration pricing, rather than from the brand's own description. Test any price claim the brand makes, then say what the price should be. Four pages is usual, citing pricing sources and the course text in APA 7.
How the MT 219 Unit 5 example is put together
The comparison states the brand's savings claim and explains how it will be tested. A cost-per-sixteen-ounce section prices five alternatives and shows the subscription beating only the national brand, by about 24 cents. A one-year section adds the starter kit and totals each option for a household refilling twice a month, and the highlighted line states that the brand costs more than the spray it replaces in year one. The next section splits the kit into tablets and an implied bottle price, shows year two's lower total, and uses Thaler on mental accounting, with a margin note on why the split explains the result. Kotler and Armstrong's value-based pricing and Monroe's reference prices identify what the premium actually buys. The heavy-use household is then rerun, with a family box at $1.59 shown in a second note, and the recommendation restates the claim honestly.
Where the points sit in the MT219 Unit 5 rubric
Pricing comparisons in MT 219 are usually graded on fair comparison, correct arithmetic and the reasoning behind the strategy identified. Converting every option to the same unit is the first test, since comparing a tablet with a thirty-two-ounce bottle directly misleads. Including starter costs and refills in a yearly total shows understanding of how buyers actually pay. Graders reward analyses that test the brand's claims against the numbers rather than repeating them. Identifying the strategy from evidence, such as a premium paired with claimed benefits, demonstrates judgment. Behavioral pricing ideas, such as mental accounting or reference prices, earn credit when they explain how buyers will see the numbers. Recommendations should follow from the findings. Price sources need dates, and Thaler and Monroe should be cited where they explain buyer reactions.
MT219 Unit 5 help from the desk
Pricing papers commonly go wrong by comparing sticker prices without converting to a common unit. Another frequent mistake is leaving out starter kits, shipping or subscription discounts, which can reverse the result. Some writers accept a brand's savings claim without checking it. Others name a pricing strategy because the brand describes itself that way. Alternatives are often limited to the same category, missing cheaper substitutes buyers really use. Calculations are sometimes hidden, so graders cannot check them. Watch rounding in per-unit prices, which compounds over a year. If prices vary by store, state where and when you recorded them. Send us the product and the alternatives you want compared, and our writers can help convert the prices, build the yearly totals and test the claim.
Get an MT219 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Say which product your prompt names, or one you want priced, and enclose the Unit 5 instructions alongside the grading rubric. In 24-48h a free first custom sample arrives with every alternative converted to one unit of measure and the arithmetic shown. Recheck current prices for your own product on the day you submit. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT219 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT219 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT219 Unit 2: Buyer Behavior Analysis
- MT219 Unit 3: Segmentation Exercise
- MT219 Unit 4: Product Analysis
- MT219 Unit 6: Distribution Analysis
- MT219 Unit 7: Promotion Critique
- MT219 Unit 8: Advertising Evaluation
- MT219 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- MT219 Unit 10: Marketing Plan
- MT217 Unit 5: Annuity Calculations
- MT209 Unit 5: Cash Flow Projection
- MT207 Unit 5: Feasibility Study
- MT203 Unit 5: Employment Law Brief
MT219 Unit 5 questions, answered
Which alternatives count as real competitors on price?
Whatever the buyer would otherwise use to solve the same problem, which is often wider than the product category. For a cleaning tablet that includes conventional sprays, store brands and homemade mixtures. Asking what the buyer used before, and what they would return to if the price rose, usually produces the right list for this comparison.
Do I need to show the calculations?
Yes, at least in a table or a short appendix. Cost per unit, annual cost and payback periods are simple arithmetic, which is exactly why graders check them. State the assumption behind any usage rate, such as two bottles a month, because the conclusion often depends on it more than on the prices themselves.
How do I decide which pricing strategy the brand uses?
From the evidence rather than the brand's own description. Place the price against the alternatives first; a price near the leading brand paired with a claimed advantage suggests parity or value-based pricing, and one well above suggests premium. Use your course text's terms and quote the figures that justify the label you choose.
Where can I find a free MT219 Unit 5 sample paper?
A complete MT219 Unit 5 pricing comparison appears on this page. It converts five cleaning options to cost per sixteen ounces, totals a year of use, tests the brand's savings claim and recommends a family pack, with margin notes.
Why does the savings claim fail in the first year?
The $18 starter kit includes three tablets worth $6.75, so about $11.25 pays for the bottle. Spreading that over the first year pushes the total above the national spray; from year two the subscription is cheaper.