Concept · Economics
Bundling
Why selling products together can earn more than selling them apart, and when the package starts working against the seller.

The package is the product.
To put Casablanca, Sergeant York and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre on its Washington, D.C. television station, WTOP had to license 99 films for $118,800. The films came in three tiers of 33, sorted by quality, and the price of the good ones included Gorilla Man, Kid Nightingale and Tear Gas Squad. The distributor, Associated Artists Productions, was one of six sued by the U.S. government for block booking. On November 5, 1962, the Supreme Court held the practice illegal. The Court’s reasoning left a puzzle that economists have argued over since: if the station wanted Casablanca, why did the distributor gain by attaching Gorilla Man?
Bundling sells two or more products together at one price, so the buyer judges the package instead of each part.
George Stigler answered the puzzle the next year. The trial court had said that forcing a station that wants Gone with the Wind to take Getting Gertie’s Garter exploits the fact that there is only one Gone with the Wind. Stigler replied that if the station values Gone with the Wind at $10,000 and the other film at nothing, the distributor can charge $10,000 for the first film alone. A worthless film adds nothing. The bundle pays only when buyers disagree about which film is worth more. In his example, exhibitor A values film X at $8,000 and film Y at $2,500, and exhibitor B values X at $7,000 and Y at $3,000. Priced separately, the best the distributor can do is $7,000 for X and $2,500 for Y, which collects $9,500 from each exhibitor, $19,000 in all. Priced as a pair at $10,000, both exhibitors buy, and the total is $20,000.
Bundling means selling two or more products together at one price. In a pure bundle, the package is the only way to buy. In a mixed bundle, the parts are also sold separately, and the package competes with them. Cross-selling is different: it invites a buyer to add an item, while a bundle makes the items a single purchase. Stigler’s example shows the mechanism. Exhibitors A and B rank the films in opposite order, so their valuations of the pair sit close together, at $10,500 and $10,000. The seller cannot know each buyer’s taste for each part, but can predict the value of the whole far more reliably.
Yannis Bakos and Erik Brynjolfsson generalized that point in 1999. When a bundle contains many goods, the law of large numbers pulls buyers’ total valuations toward the average, so the seller can set one price that most of them accept. The result holds when the marginal cost of a good the buyer does not use is close to zero, which describes films already made, software and streaming catalogs. It does not extend to most physical goods, because the cost of producing unused parts cancels the benefit. That is why the bundle is common in media and software and rare in physical goods.
The bundle also changes what the customer compares. On August 6, 2019, Disney said it would sell Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu with ads for $12.99 a month, against $17.97 if bought separately. The standard Netflix plan cost the same $12.99. A rival with one good product now has to beat a package, not a component.
Forms of bundling
The forms differ in how much choice the buyer keeps, and that choice determines both the economics and the legal exposure.
Pure bundleOnly the package is for sale; a buyer who wants one part pays for all
01
Only the package is for sale; a buyer who wants one part pays for all
Mixed bundleParts are sold apart and together, so the package must beat the sum for some buyers
02
Parts are sold apart and together, so the package must beat the sum for some buyers
Complementary bundleParts work better together, so the package sells a finished job
03
Parts work better together, so the package sells a finished job
A continuum, not a switch
A bundle is strongest when customers value the parts differently or the parts work better together, and weakest when the package is padding around the one component buyers want.
“More value together than apart.”
Why it matters
A bundle pays a seller in three separate ways, and the first one is Stigler’s. It captures more of what buyers are willing to pay when they disagree about the parts. The second is retention.
Each payoff is also a claim about the rival. A focused competitor can no longer win one part of the job. Slack, whose complaint led the Commission to open its investigation in July 2023, had to sell against a rival tool already included in the suite its customers used. This is why a bundle is a competitive weapon as well as a pricing device, and why regulators read it as one when the seller is dominant in the product that carries the package.
The practical test is what the typical buyer would purchase alone. If most buyers want one component and the rest is padding, the bundle raises the price of the part they want, and they will notice at renewal. If buyers value different components, or the parts work better together, the package can raise revenue and improve the customer’s outcome at once. The mixed bundle is the safer instrument because it lets the customer’s choices show the seller which case applies.
Be careful with the churn evidence. Iger’s comparison is between people who chose bundles and people who did not, and the two groups differ before any bundle exists. Disney gave no figures in that answer. Lower churn among bundle buyers may show that the bundle retains customers, or only that the most committed customers buy bundles. The two readings call for different decisions, and the data cannot yet separate them.
Real-world examples
The same concept shows up in different ways across industries.
Microsoft included Teams by default in Office 365 and Microsoft 365. The European Commission preliminarily found that this amounted to tying since at least…
Disney announced its three-service bundle at $12.99 in August 2019 and has kept building on it. On its November 2025 earnings call, Iger said…
Spotify added 15 hours a month of audiobooks to Premium in October 2023 and, in April 2024, classified its Premium plans as music-and-audiobook bundles,…
When it breaks
A bundle attached to market power invites a regulator. The Supreme Court held block booking illegal in 1962, on the ground that a distributor could not use the appeal of one copyrighted film to force another. Stigler’s critique of that reasoning did not change the outcome. The Teams case, six decades later, followed the same logic. The Commission’s commitments decision does not find an infringement, but it binds Microsoft for seven years, and it exists because the Commission found a dominant supplier distributing a second product through the first.
A bundle built for the seller’s cost rather than the buyer’s value draws a fight. Spotify also began selling a plan without audiobooks in the same month, which is the choice a mixed bundle exists to provide.
The economics are narrower than the theory suggests. In the Loew’s record, the same 85-film package sold for $700,000 in New York and $1,600 in Lake Charles, Louisiana, which contradicts the model in which one bundle price is charged across markets. Kenney and Klein made that objection to Stigler in 1983. And the Bakos and Brynjolfsson result depends on near-zero marginal cost. Where each unused part costs something to make or serve, the padding is not free, and the buyer knows it.
Key takeaways
- 01
Do customers value the components differently enough for a package to improve take-up or revenue? Compare a pure bundle, a mixed bundle and separate prices by segment.
- 02
What does each component cost to produce and serve, including for buyers who rarely use it? Keep standalone options where they reveal value or protect buyer choice.
- 03
Does the bundle improve the customer's job or mainly extend a dominant product's reach? Measure use and renewal by component and assess the competitive effect.
Sources
- United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U.S. 38 (1962) · U.S. Supreme Court, via Cornell Legal Information Institute, 1962-11-05. Opinion of Justice Goldberg; WTOP contract with Associated Artists Productions ($118,800 for 99 pictures); holding that the tying agreements are illegal; trial court’s Gone With The Wind example
- George J. Stigler, Concise Encyclopedia of Economics biography (summarizing “A Note on Block Booking”) · Econlib, 2008. Stigler’s $10,000 Gone with the Wind example and the exhibitor A and B numbers: $19,000 priced separately versus $20,000 as a bundle
- The Economics of Block Booking · Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26, no. 3 (Kenney and Klein), 1983-10. Section I; 85-film package priced at $700,000 in New York City and $1,600 in Lake Charles; account of Stigler’s price discrimination explanation
- Bundling Information Goods: Pricing, Profits, and Efficiency · Management Science, vol. 45, no. 12 (Bakos and Brynjolfsson), NYU Stern copy, 1999-12. Abstract and Section 1; predictive value of bundling, low marginal cost condition, results not extending to most physical goods
- Disney’s new streaming package with Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu is $12.99 a month · CNN Business, 2019-08-06. Bundle at $12.99 a month versus $17.97 à la carte; Netflix standard plan $12.99
- Q4 FY25 Earnings Conference Call transcript · The Walt Disney Company, 2025-11-13. Bob Iger’s answer to Ben Swinburne on bundle churn and the Trio bundle share of ESPN subscribers (about 80%)
- Commission accepts commitments offered by Microsoft to address competition concerns related to Teams · European Commission, 2025-09-12. IP/25/2048; preliminary findings, Statement of Objections of 25 June 2024, commitments, 50% price-difference increase, duration, complaints withdrawn
- Music Publishers file complaint with US Federal Trade Commission against Spotify over audiobook bundle · Music Business Worldwide, 2024-06-12. NMPA complaint, David Israelite’s remarks, Spotify’s response, October audiobook launch and April reclassification of Premium tiers as bundles
- Spotify Launches Basic Plan in U.S. That Excludes Audiobooks for $10.99 per Month · Variety, 2024-06-21. Basic plan at $10.99 versus Premium Individual at $11.99; 15 hours of audiobooks; mechanical royalty carveout for bundles; NMPA estimate of $150 million a year