Wondering if anyone has seen a good ROI layout to pass the 'yes, we can earmark budget for this' phase... as in, not at detailed proposal/pricing phase We also want to use this "ball park pricing" phase to test new packaging ideas for early feedback. Context: Deal sizes $50-$300k ARR e.g. --- 1. Situation - why it matters 2.Current setup today • what it costs • how its done (summary) • risks + implications of current mode 3. Proposed Solution - what it costs - how its done (optional) - UPSIDE: Budget Savings, efficiencies, improved X & risks reduced

For those of you with experience using credit based price models, I'm curious what you're perspective is on how packaging fits into the broader monetization strategy. I ask because if you're using a credit based price model, you presumably have a lot of flexibility with monetizing the usage of various areas of your solution. In that world, limiting access to features through packaging doesn't seem like it really has a place. I'd much rather focus on giving my customers access to all the features they need and encouraging adoption/usage to drive up credit consumption. Am I thinking about this correctly? Thanks! Steve

Hi everyone, since I feel like tiered pricing usually gets most of the attention I'm seeking clarity for mono-platform pricing on a few points: 1. Our offering includes both a service component (content maintenance and delivery) and a SaaS platform. In a mono-platform model, how should we structure these elements? Should the service be an add-on, or part of the core platform? Currently, we have: - A core platform flat fee - One-time setup payments per new device - Usage-based pricing above 10,000 monthly knowledge calls 2. How would one go about creating a pricing ladder? Or does that not apply for this pricing model. It seems to me like it’s most applicable to tiers. For context: our solution targets enterprises and aims to prevent customer support requests for physical devices and technical issues. Any insights or examples of successful mono-platform pricing strategies in the enterprise space would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I work in a CaaS (Communication-as-a-Service) firm offering communication APIs for SMS, Video, Voice, etc. For some of these APIs we offer usage-based pricing. We are mainly a sales-led organization with AMs in each region targeting and acquiring local and international customers. Problem and impact: one the APIs is in a highly competitive, mature stage. We offer Sales several tiers of pre-approved prices per volume thresholds to increase deal velocity. Impact: - Sales quoting highest volume threshold to unlock best price off list price - Feedback from Sales about lowest price: we are not competitive anymore in some markets, hence higher escalation because pre approved prices are not realistic. - Revenue goals not met because potential volume was unrealistic. Question: how to better design a better pre approved pricing framework for usage based model? Aim for simplicity and keep it as is with more realistic volumes and prices? Offer more tiers and price ranges? Different framework?

In a GBB editions packaging model, one thing that I have come across quite a bit is having the number of users that each edition can support be restrcted, e.g.: - Good: max users allowed 5 - Better: max users allowed 10 - Best: unlimited users Note that these are not included users, they still have to be bought at whatever scale metric/tiering you might be using. The premise is that we thus avoid having a customer that should fall into a higher edition purchase a lower edition. I have a few issues with htis approach: It is that this is a sort of artificial fence between editions that has nothing to do with the value delivered. We are effectively forcing, rather than shepherding the customer into buying a specific edition, at best resulting in some bad feelings. In reality, sales conversations often end up discussing these limits with customers when they could be spending that time closing the deal. The better way to address this is obviously to create fences based on features. The value should come from using the product's features, not a tax for being a more efficiently run business that results in you needing less users. I bring this up here because Sales often like this approach of restricting users, and it's surprisingly difficult to get them off that horse. Has anyone had the same experience I have, and how have you worked with Sales to enable/coach them to change their way of thinking? Do you have circumstances where the artifical restrictions of users available per edition is an appropriate ringfence to differentiate between editions?