Hi all. I have a question about "pricing" that is not related to SaaS, but rather to transforming Professional Services into ARR. Two years ago we started an initial experiment: delivering live online training to IT professionals working in SMEs, using a membership-based approach. Our value proposition: - 8 courses scheduled throughout the year - Two yearly membership options for the customer: - 1) Membership for 1 participant: X€ - 2) Membership for up to 3 participants: 1.6 × X€ (It worked. And we were so happy that we (I) made the BIG mistake: not considering at all - for the second year - the physiological Churn Rate..) For next year, we want to apply the same business model to end-user training (Office M365 Apps). OUR PRODUCT: 8 courses scheduled in advance for all of 2026 OUR TARGET: small/micro companies (2 to 10 potential users) OUR COST STRUCTURE: main costs are fixed (trainer, organization), so the number of people per company in each class is not an issue. PRICING IDEA: offer customers a flat yearly price, divided into tiers that help maintain profitability. We are considering pricing per Company, based on the total number of attendees per course. For example: - 1–2 attendees - 2–5 attendees - 5–10 attendees - I would appreciate any suggestion on how to keep the pricing simple and fair for both sides I have already interviewed about 5 customers who are interested in the concept, but I have not shared any pricing with them yet. Do you thing that pricing per tier is the best options or do you think we have to think in a different way? Thanks in advance to all. Claudio

Howdy Pricing People 👋🏼 There's a fundamental tension in SaaS I can't stop thinking about: Every SaaS company wants an AI story right now. To have a credible AI story, people need to be using your AI features. If people are using your AI features at scale, your margins will take a hit. Nobody wants margin erosion because we're still valuing SaaS companies on metrics built for the previous generation. The short-term playbook says protect your margins. The long-term playbook says invest in AI or get left behind. They don't reconcile. I'm genuinely curious how you're all thinking about this: - What should SaaS companies be doing right now? - Seemingly everyone is turning to credits as a hedge to both tell the AI story and maintain margin control. Are there other strategies SaaS companies should consider? - Does something fundamental need to change in how we evaluate these businesses? Drop your thoughts below. I'll be digging into this in this week's newsletter, and would love to share perspectives from this group. 🫡 Rob

Hey all! I’m looking for a small/boutique SaaS pricing consultant who can serve as an external ear on a monetization strategy I’m finalizing for FY26. This isn’t a “teach us pricing” project. The tactical stuff (user testing, billing experiments, packaging variants) is already underway. What I need is someone who can help stress-test the big picture and sanity-check the architecture. Specifically looking for help with: 1. Coherence check: does the strategy work as a system? 2. Blind spots: assumptions, hidden risks, unintended effects. 3. Pattern benchmarking: how our model maps to modern PLG + AI monetization patterns. 4. Narrative review - does it scale cleanly to C-level/board and down to PMs? 5. Sequencing risks - where rollout timing could break. 6. Edge-case audit - usage/plan boundaries, adoption cliffs, etc. If you know someone who fits this profile, or you’ve worked with a boutique firm that leans strategic (not just packaging projects), I’d love recommendations. Thank you!

The majority of pricing pages make this mistake and it hurts revenue ⬇️ Instead of building affinity, they use their plan-tier subheader to give a generic product description. Under a “Pro” or “Growth” plan, you’ll see lines like: “Optimize operations with data and customizations” “Connect work across teams” “Build and manage automated AI-powered workflows” None of these help me quickly identify which plan is best for me. Your plan subheader should simplify the decision-making process. Companies like Notion, Shopify, Docusign and Asana do a great job of creating instant affinity: Shopify says, “For solo entrepreneurs.” Notion says, “For individuals to organize personal projects and life.” Straightforward. Asana’s Advanced plan reads: “For companies that need to manage a portfolio of work and goals across departments.” If you’re a team planning to use Asana across multiple departments, that line immediately guides you. But what’s the actual impact of these changes? In 2019, I was hired by a public company to optimize their pricing page. We ran numerous A/B tests, but one impactful change was strengthening the affinity in their plan subheader text. Overall conversions didn’t change meaningfully, but we did shift ~2% more conversions from lower-tier plans to the middle plan (our primary goal), which led to a substantial ARPU lift over the next few quarters.

Happy Friday, y'all! Wanted to share a trend we've been seeing in PricingSaaS and get feedback from this group. TLDR, we're seeing SaaS companies take baby steps towards outcome-based pricing. A few examples below: - Chili Piper introduced Add Ons that do work for SDRs and AEs - Confluence introduced Automation Rule run limits across all plans Both of these additions help do actual "work" for users, but are still offered within the structure of seat-based pricing. On first look, it seems like a more gradual way to shift into outcome-based pricing rather than ripping the band-aid off. Curious what others think?