Pricing Objection Handling: Proven Scripts That Move Deals Forward

"Your pricing is too high."

Every sales rep hears this. Most fumble the response. They defend pricing, they offer discounts, or they get defensive about value.

All wrong.

Price objections aren't really about price. They're about perceived value, budget constraints, competitive alternatives, or risk. The prospect who says "too expensive" is actually saying something else entirely.

Effective pricing objection handling doesn't defend your price. It uncovers what's really happening and addresses the underlying concern.

Here are proven scripts that work.

"You're more expensive than [Competitor]"

What they're really saying: "I've seen cheaper options and need to justify spending more with you."

Bad response: "Our product has more features and better support."

This is defensive and doesn't address their real question: why should I pay more?

Good response:

"You're right, our list price is higher than [Competitor]. Can I ask what you're comparing? Which of their tiers and which of ours?"

[Listen to their answer]

"Got it. So you're looking at their [Entry tier] versus our [Professional tier]. The difference is [specific capability they include, you include]. Most companies at your stage end up needing [that capability] within the first quarter. When you add that to [Competitor's] plan, you're at $[similar price].

The real question is whether [key differentiator] matters for how you work. Can I show you how that plays out in your specific use case?"

Why this works:

• Validates their observation (doesn't argue)
• Ensures apples-to-apples comparison
• Redirects to value, not price
• Asks permission to demonstrate value

"We don't have budget for this"

What they're really saying: Either "we haven't allocated budget for this category" or "we have budget but I'm not convinced it's worth it."

Bad response: "What if I gave you a discount?"

This assumes the problem is price, when it's often prioritization or value perception.

Good response:

"I understand. Help me understand the budget situation. Is it that: A) You don't have budget allocated for this category this year, or B) You have budget but you're not sure this is the best use of it?"

If A (no budget allocated):

"Got it. Most teams in your situation handle this one of two ways: either they reallocate from another line item that's underperforming, or they wait until next budget cycle. Given that you're currently spending [X hours/month] on [manual process our product eliminates], what's the cost of waiting until next year?"

If B (budget exists, but unclear if it's worth it):

"That makes sense. Let's make sure we're comparing the right things. You'd be spending $[our price], and in return you'd be [specific outcome - saving X hours, increasing Y conversion rate, reducing Z churn]. If we can prove those outcomes in a trial, would the budget conversation change?"

Why this works:

• Diagnoses the real issue (no budget vs. perceived value)
• Quantifies opportunity cost of waiting
• Offers proof mechanisms (trial, pilot) to reduce risk

"I need to see an ROI before I can justify this"

What they're really saying: "I need help building a business case to get internal buy-in."

Bad response: "Our typical customers see 300% ROI in the first year."

Generic ROI claims sound like marketing fluff.

Good response:

"Absolutely. Let's build that together. Walk me through what metrics you'd need to show to get this approved.

[Listen]

Okay, so you need to show [time savings / revenue impact / cost reduction]. Let me ask:

• What are you currently doing instead of using our product?
• How much time does that take per week?
• What's the loaded cost of that time?
• If you freed up that time, what would those people work on instead?

[Calculate together]

So we're looking at $[X] in current costs vs. $[our price], which is a $[difference] annual impact. Does that math work for your internal business case, or do we need to quantify additional benefits?"

Why this works:

• Partners with them on building the case
• Uses their numbers, not your claims
• Creates joint ownership of the business case
• Identifies what metrics actually matter to their organization

"Can you do better on price?"

What they're really saying: "I'm supposed to negotiate" or "I'm not sure I'm getting the best deal."

Bad response: Immediately offering a discount.

This signals your pricing isn't real and encourages more negotiation.

Good response:

"Let me ask—what would 'better' look like? Are you looking for a lower monthly cost, or is there a total budget number you need to hit?"

[Listen]

If they give specific number:

"I appreciate you sharing that. Let's see if we can make this work. The price we quoted is based on [annual payment / X users / specific tier]. If we adjusted [contract length / payment terms / scope], would that help hit your number?"

If they're just testing for discount:

"Our pricing is based on [value metric], and we price fairly for everyone. What I can do is make sure you're on the right plan for what you need. Walk me through your use case again—maybe there's a different configuration that works better."

Why this works:

• Doesn't give away margin unnecessarily
• Explores creative deal structures beyond price reduction
• Validates they're on the right plan (maybe they're actually over-buying)
• Maintains pricing integrity while showing flexibility

"We need to think about it"

What they're really saying: "I have an unspoken concern I haven't shared yet."

Bad response: "What questions can I answer?"

Too vague. They'll say "none, we just need time."

Good response:

"Of course. Can I ask—when you say you need to think about it, what specifically are you working through? Is it:

• Whether the product actually solves the problem?
• Whether now is the right timing?
• Whether you can get budget/approval?
• Something about our company or product that concerns you?

[Listen]

The reason I ask is that I want to make sure you have what you need to make a confident decision—even if that decision is 'not right now.' What would make the decision easier?"

Why this works:

• Surfaces hidden objections
• Shows you're okay with "no" if it's the right answer
• Gives them permission to share real concerns
• Often reveals simple objections you can address immediately

"Your contract terms are too restrictive"

What they're really saying: "I'm worried about lock-in or getting stuck if this doesn't work."

Bad response: "Everyone does annual contracts, that's industry standard."

This dismisses their concern instead of addressing it.

Good response:

"I get it. Which part of the contract feels restrictive to you—the length, the auto-renewal, the payment terms, or something else?

[Listen]

If it's contract length:

"Most of our customers do annual contracts because it takes 3-4 months to fully implement and see ROI, so monthly doesn't make sense. But I understand the risk concern. What if we included a performance clause: if you don't see [specific outcome] by month 6, you can exit the contract? That way you have downside protection while we have enough time to deliver results."

If it's auto-renewal:

"We can absolutely remove auto-renewal. The tradeoff is you'd get pricing for one year guaranteed, but renewal pricing would be at our then-current rates. If you're confident you'll want to continue, locking in longer-term pricing usually saves money."

Why this works:

• Identifies specific concern
• Offers creative risk-mitigation
• Explains tradeoffs honestly
• Shows flexibility without compromising business model

"I need approval from [executive] and they're going to ask why we're paying this much"

What they're really saying: "I need help selling this internally."

Bad response: "Just show them our feature list."

Features don't sell to executives. Outcomes do.

Good response:

"Let's make sure you have what you need for that conversation. When [executive] asks about price, what they're really asking is: 'Is this the best use of budget?' Here's how I'd frame it:

We're currently spending [X hours/month or $Y annually] on [current solution/process]. That's costing us [specific business impact—lost deals, slow time-to-market, high error rates].

We evaluated [other options] and chose [your product] because [specific differentiator that matters to their business]. For $[your price], we get [specific outcome] which means [revenue impact / cost savings / strategic value].

The alternative is continuing to [current state] which costs us $[opportunity cost] annually.

Would it help if I joined that conversation to answer questions? Or would you prefer a one-pager you can share that makes this case?"

Why this works:

• Provides executive-friendly framing
• Quantifies opportunity cost of status quo
• Offers tools to support their internal selling
• Positions you as partner, not vendor

The Objection Behind the Objection

Most price objections aren't really about price:

• "Too expensive" = "I don't see enough value"
• "Need to check budget" = "Not convinced this is a priority"
• "Competitor is cheaper" = "Help me justify paying more"
• "Need to think about it" = "I have concerns I haven't shared"

Your job isn't to defend pricing. It's to uncover what's really happening and address it.

Listen more than you talk. Ask questions before you explain. Validate concerns before you counter them.

That's how you move deals forward.