I think you may be talking about two slightly different things. Land and expand in the sense of "land a small, right-sized solution for one group within a larg

I think you may be talking about two slightly different things. Land and expand in the sense of "land a small, right-sized solution for one group within a large company, then leverage that successful deployment to expedite expansion to other groups, and maybe eventually convert to an enterprise agreement" is great, and often the only way to get in the door at a large org. From the org's perspective, being able to adopt an "existing" solution/provider is often much faster and can even skip some RFP processes. I don't think anyone is saying this is bad. Land and expand can also mean "deliberately undersell/underbid on a large RFP, take an initial loss, then as soon as the customer's locked in slap them with large change orders and annual increases". I don't think I need to elaborate on why this is scummy. The article isn't very clear about which scenario it's advocating. In the simple case of per-seat licensing, I've seen it both ways. From the customer's perspective: If we're looking to buy your product, and say hey, this has some long-term upside, we think it might be used by 500 people within two years, but our initial group is 20 - that's an undersell of sorts. Typically the concessions we would be asking there are less around unit license cost and more around waiving migration/setup charges or sometimes even negotiating a new license category/SKU. (Hey we use 50 seats right now, we'd like to buy 200 more but they're only going to use this one new side feature you implemented, let's find a discounted rate to only license that feature. It's an ethical undersell because it was done with the customer fully aware.) But I've also seen some groups get stuck with the reverse. Sales promised them that oh yeah, this tier will work for you, and then hit them with massive usage-based overages. That's "land and expand" too, but it's scummy.