Complementary Products

Complementary products are products that are typically used together, so that the use or purchase of one drives the use or purchase of the other. Their defining economic feature is that demand for one increases demand for the other (and a fall in one's price, by raising its sales, also raises the other's): printers and ink cartridges, razors and blades, game consoles and games, cars and fuel, smartphones and apps or accessories. Because they are consumed together, complementary products are linked in demand — a customer who buys one becomes a customer for the other. This is the opposite of substitute products, which compete for the same demand so that more of one means less of the other. Complements move together; substitutes move against each other. The relationship is defined by how the products are used and how their demands are linked, not by who makes them.

Complementary products matter because the demand link between them creates strategic opportunities that a single product, seen alone, would miss. When two products sell together, decisions about one — its price, its design, its distribution — ripple into the sales of the other. That opens the door to pricing and bundling strategies that exploit the link, and it changes how the products should be managed: not as independent items but as a connected system. The most famous example is the razor-and-blades model, in which one product is priced low (even at a loss) to drive sales of a profitable complement bought repeatedly. Recognizing which products are complements, and how strongly their demands are linked, is therefore a real source of strategic leverage in pricing, product design, and ecosystem building.

The demand link between complements supports two related strategies: bundling and razor-and-blades pricing. Bundling sells complementary products together as a package, often at a combined price, capturing the convenience customers value when products are used together and sometimes increasing total sales. Razor-and-blades pricing exploits the link differently: it prices one complement low — the razor, the printer, the console — to drive adoption, and earns its profit on the other complement that customers must keep buying — the blades, the ink, the games. The low-priced product is sometimes sold at or below cost precisely because it pulls through profitable, repeated sales of its complement. Both strategies treat the complements as a connected system rather than as independent products, and both depend on the demand link being real and strong enough to make the cross-subsidy or the bundle pay.

These strategies carry conditions and risks worth understanding. Razor-and-blades pricing works only if the company can capture the profitable complement sales it subsidized the first product to create — if customers can buy cheap third-party blades, ink, or games, the model breaks, which is why firms often try to lock the complement to their product. Bundling works when customers value the package and the convenience, but it can frustrate customers who want only part of the bundle. More broadly, managing complementary products means recognizing that the products are linked in demand and pricing them as a system: a decision that loses money on one product can be rational if it makes more on its complement. The strategic art is in seeing the whole linked system rather than optimizing each product in isolation, and in judging whether the demand link is strong and capturable enough to build a strategy on.

Managing complementary products well means recognizing the demand link between products used together and pricing, bundling, and designing them as a connected system rather than as independent items. It means deciding deliberately where to make money — on the primary product, on its complement, or across the bundle — and using strategies like bundling and razor-and-blades pricing where the demand link is strong and the profitable complement sales can actually be captured. It means watching whether the link holds (substitutable complements undermine cross-subsidy models) and whether customers value the bundle. It also means distinguishing complements from substitutes correctly, since the two call for opposite strategies. Done well, managing complements turns a demand relationship into pricing power and ecosystem strength that the products, managed separately, would never produce.

The failures are managing complementary products as if they were independent (and missing the pricing and bundling leverage the demand link offers), running a razor-and-blades model without being able to capture the profitable complement (so cheap third-party complements steal the profit), bundling products customers do not want bundled, and confusing complements with substitutes (and applying the wrong strategy entirely). The discipline is to see complementary products as a linked system — where demand for one raises demand for the other — and to price, bundle, and design across that link deliberately, capturing the complement profits that justify the strategy and respecting the conditions under which bundling and razor-and-blades pricing actually pay.

Complementary products — used together so demand for one raises demand for the other, like printers and ink — create bundling and razor-and-blades pricing strategies, the opposite of substitute products.

Etymology: source.

Search interest for this term over the last five years:

View interest-over-time on Google Trends →

Areas of marketing where complementary products is a core concern: