Login

#1

I’m trying to figure out if we should switch our B2B software from a flat annual fee to a model based on how much each client uses the platform. The main worry is that our heaviest users, who get the most value, might push back hard if their costs become directly tied to their activity, even though it seems fairer to us.

#2

We switched to usage-based pricing last year, and the heavy users blinked. They told us the cost could spike with growth, and procurement pushed back on the idea of paying more as they used it. We built a blended plan with a solid base and tiers, plus a cap for large accounts, and that softened the pushback. The month to month revenue got a little bumpy, though, and forecasting got messier.

#3

From a product angle, I saw usage-based pricing work only when you have clear value signals and simple meters. We ended up with a base seat price and per unit charges for certain actions. It helped align value, but the admin work to track usage and the back-and-forth with finance was real. Some teams reined in their usage to stay under the tier, which defeated part of the purpose.

#4

We did a small pilot with 3 heavy users and a couple mid-market ones. Churn among the top customers ticked up a bit, but some mid-market accounts stayed stable. We learned that the biggest risk isn't anger over price but lack of visible ROI in the first 90 days. We also found the billing complexity turned some buyers off in procurement conversations.

#5

Maybe the real problem isn't the price at all, but onboarding and proving ROI. If usage climbs but teams don't see incremental value, any pricing model will feel unfair. Is the pricing debate hiding deeper questions about value delivery and proof to buyers?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me