given the total value created by cooperation, how do we split it fairly? ... how should the extra 7 (25 - 10 - 8) be split?
Your SaaS product saves a prospect $25K per month. A competitor saves them $10K. Your next-best client would net you $8K. You could price anywhere from $8K to $15K and both sides would still say yes - but that $7K range is an $84K annual swing on your P&L. Where you land depends on how the surplus gets split.
Surplus is the value that only exists because two specific parties cooperate - calculated as total Value Creation minus the sum of both parties' Outside Options. It is the only portion of any deal that is actually negotiable, and every Pricing decision is implicitly a decision about how to split it.
Surplus is the extra value that only exists because two specific parties chose to work together.
Start with three numbers:
Surplus = Total Value - Buyer's Outside Option - Seller's Outside Option
If working together creates $25K/month in value, the Buyer's next-best alternative delivers $10K, and your next-best use of that capacity nets you $8K:
Surplus = $25K - $10K - $8K = $7K/month
That $7K doesn't belong to either side by default. It's the gain that neither party can capture alone - the reason both are at the table instead of taking their Outside Options. Every Pricing decision is implicitly a decision about how to divide this number.
Surplus is the actual negotiable space in any deal. Everything else is already spoken for by Outside Options.
When you set a price, you're choosing where to land inside the surplus. Price too close to the Buyer's Outside Option and you've given away most of it - your Revenue looks fine but you left Profit on the table. Price too close to your own Outside Option and the Buyer gets a great deal at your expense.
This hits the P&L directly:
Most operators price from Cost Structure ("our costs plus a margin") or intuition ("what feels right"). Surplus thinking replaces both with a precise frame: what is the total value, what are the Outside Options, and how much of the difference are you capturing?
Every deal has a range of acceptable prices defined by surplus:
Using our example: floor = $8K (your Outside Option), ceiling = $15K ($25K total value minus the Buyer's $10K Outside Option). The $7K between them is surplus.
Surplus gets split through several forces:
1. Competition. If three vendors can deliver similar value, the Buyer's Outside Option rises (their next-best alternative improves), which shrinks surplus. More competition means less to fight over.
2. Information. If the Buyer doesn't know their own Outside Option well, they may accept a worse split. If you don't know yours, same problem in reverse. Informational Advantage directly affects surplus capture.
3. Anchoring. The first number on the table pulls the split toward it. Whoever names a price first shapes the Bargaining - even when both sides know the surplus exists.
4. Implementation Cost of switching. Once a deal is in place, Outside Options shift. If the Buyer faces $5K/month in Implementation Cost to migrate to a competitor, their effective Outside Option drops by $5K - and the surplus you can capture on renewal grows by the same amount.
5. Shapley value. A formal rule from Game Theory that says each party should receive surplus proportional to their marginal contribution. In a two-party deal, this simplifies to an even split - each side gets their Outside Option plus half the surplus.
Run surplus analysis whenever you're in a situation where two parties share value:
You sell a workflow automation tool. When a prospect uses your product, the total value created - their operational savings net of your delivery costs - is $25K/month. The Buyer's best alternative (a competitor) delivers them $10K/month in net value. Your best alternative use of that capacity nets you $8K/month serving a different client.
Surplus = $25K - $10K - $8K = $7K/month ($84K/year).
If you set price P, the Buyer's share = $25K - P (must be ≥ $10K, so P ≤ $15K). Your share = P (must be ≥ $8K). The feasible range is $8K to $15K.
Even split at $11.5K/month: you get $11.5K, which is $3.5K above your $8K Outside Option. Buyer gets $25K - $11.5K = $13.5K, which is $3.5K above their $10K Outside Option. Each side captures half the surplus.
Aggressive price at $14K/month: you capture $6K of the $7K surplus. Buyer gets $11K - barely better than their Outside Option. Sustainable only if you have strong Competitive Advantage or if the Buyer faces high Implementation Cost to switch later.
Competitive pressure shift: a new entrant offers the Buyer $12K/month in value. Buyer's Outside Option rises from $10K to $12K. New surplus = $25K - $12K - $8K = $5K. Your ceiling drops from $15K to $13K. That one competitor just cost you $24K/year in captured surplus.
Insight: The price is not determined by your costs or by some standard multiple. It's determined by surplus - and your share of it depends on how strong both Outside Options are. Investing in differentiation grows the total pie. Competitors shrink the portion you can keep.
You're hiring a senior engineer. Working together, you and this candidate create $22K/month in measurable value (Revenue from features shipped, Throughput gains, incidents prevented). The candidate's best competing offer is $14K/month in Total Compensation (their Outside Option). If you don't hire this person, your next-best candidate would net you $5K/month in value after paying their salary (your Outside Option).
Total value of cooperation = $22K/month.
Candidate's Outside Option = $14K/month. Your Outside Option = $5K/month.
Surplus = $22K - $14K - $5K = $3K/month ($36K/year).
Salary floor = $14K (below this, candidate takes the other offer). Salary ceiling = $22K - $5K = $17K (above this, you're better off hiring the alternative).
Shapley value split: offer $15.5K/month. Candidate gets $1.5K above their competing offer. You net $22K - $15.5K = $6.5K, which is $1.5K above your $5K Outside Option. Each side gets half the surplus.
Lowball at $14.5K: you capture $2.5K of the $3K surplus. The candidate barely beats their competing offer and has little reason to prefer your company - expect a lower Close Rate on the offer.
Insight: Salary Bargaining is surplus splitting in disguise. The candidate's competing offer and the value of your next-best hire define the range. Offering exactly the competing offer ($14K) captures all surplus for you but gives the candidate zero incentive to choose you. Most hiring managers set salaries from Budget constraints rather than surplus analysis - and then wonder why offers don't close.
Surplus = Total Value Created - Buyer's Outside Option - Seller's Outside Option. It's the only portion of the deal that is actually negotiable - everything else is already claimed by Outside Options.
Your price should land deliberately inside the surplus range. Where it lands depends on competition, Informational Advantage, Anchoring, and the Implementation Cost of switching - not on your Cost Structure alone.
When surplus shrinks (because Outside Options improve for either side), deals get harder and Profit per deal compresses. When surplus grows (because you create more Value Creation or competitors weaken), you have room to capture more. Track what moves the surplus, not just what moves the price.
Confusing total Value Creation with surplus. If your product creates $25K in value but the Buyer's Outside Option is $20K, surplus is only $5K minus your Outside Option - not $25K. Pricing as if you created $25K of unique value will lose the deal because the Buyer has a near-equivalent alternative.
Assuming surplus splits 50/50 by default. The Shapley value even-split is a fairness benchmark, not a law of nature. In practice, the party with better Outside Options, stronger Informational Advantage, or less urgency captures a larger share. If you walk into a negotiation expecting an even split, you're leaving the other side's Bargaining power unexamined.
You run a consulting firm. A client engagement creates $40K/month in total value. The client's next-best option (a competing firm) delivers $28K/month. Your next-best use of the team's time nets $9K/month from another client. What is the surplus? What is the range of feasible monthly fees?
Hint: Surplus = total value minus both Outside Options. The fee floor is your Outside Option. The fee ceiling is total value minus the Buyer's Outside Option.
Surplus = $40K - $28K - $9K = $3K/month. Fee floor = $9K/month (your Outside Option). Fee ceiling = $40K - $28K = $12K/month (above this, client takes the competitor). Feasible range: $9K to $12K/month. Even Shapley value split: fee = $10.5K, giving each side $1.5K above their Outside Option.
You're renewing a SaaS contract. At the initial sale, surplus was $7K/month with a ceiling of $15K. Now the client would face $15K total in Implementation Cost to migrate to a competitor (spread over a 12-month contract), but a new competitor has also entered the market offering $2K/month more value than the old alternative. How has the surplus changed? Did the renewal help or hurt you?
Hint: Implementation Cost to switch effectively lowers the Buyer's Outside Option (they'd pay to leave). A stronger competitor raises it. Calculate the net effect on the Buyer's Outside Option, then recompute surplus.
Implementation Cost of $15K over 12 months = $1.25K/month reduction to the Buyer's effective Outside Option. The new competitor raises the Buyer's Outside Option by $2K/month. Net shift: the Buyer's Outside Option rises by $2K - $1.25K = $0.75K/month. Original surplus = $7K. New surplus = $7K - $0.75K = $6.25K/month. The new competitor hurt you more than the Implementation Cost helped. Your pricing ceiling dropped from $15K to $14.25K. Renewal lost you surplus - you need to either create more Value Creation or increase the Implementation Cost of switching (deeper integration, more Tribal Knowledge embedded in your product).
Two divisions in your company want to share a data platform. Division A gets $30K/month in value from it; Division B gets $20K/month. Building separate platforms costs A $18K/month and B $14K/month. The shared platform costs $22K/month total. How should the $22K/month in cost be split using surplus analysis?
Hint: Each division's Outside Option is going alone. Calculate each division's net value from going alone, then compute total surplus from cooperation, then apply Shapley value (even split of surplus in the two-party case).
Outside Options: A goes alone → $30K value - $18K cost = $12K net. B goes alone → $20K value - $14K cost = $6K net. Cooperation: total value = $30K + $20K = $50K, total cost = $22K, net = $28K. Surplus = $28K - $12K - $6K = $10K/month. Shapley value even split: each division gets $5K above their Outside Option. A should net $12K + $5K = $17K → A pays $30K - $17K = $13K/month. B should net $6K + $5K = $11K → B pays $20K - $11K = $9K/month. Sanity check: $13K + $9K = $22K. A pays 59%, B pays 41%. This is not proportional to value ($30K vs $20K would be 60/40) or to standalone cost ($18K vs $14K would be 56/44). It's fair by surplus analysis because it gives each party equal benefit from cooperating versus going alone.
Surplus sits directly on top of two concepts you already know. Value Creation tells you the total size of the pie - the measurable delta delivered by cooperation. Outside Option tells you how much of that pie is already claimed before anyone negotiates - the floor each party walks in with. Surplus is the remainder: the portion that only exists because these specific parties work together. Going forward, surplus connects to Bargaining (the process by which surplus gets split in practice), Shapley value (a principled fairness rule for multi-party surplus division), Anchoring (a tactic for pulling the split in your direction), and Pricing broadly (where surplus decisions materialize on the P&L). Every Pricing model you'll encounter - Subscription Pricing, auction, Competitive Pricing - is ultimately a mechanism for determining who captures how much surplus.
Disclaimer: This content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or financial product. You should consult a qualified financial advisor, tax professional, or attorney before making financial decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The author is not a registered investment advisor, broker-dealer, or financial planner.