3 ms·
Sounds useful. Not sure I’d trade a 1% reduction in revenue across the board for this though.
by cdolan 4y ago
Sounds useful. Not sure I’d trade a 1% reduction in revenue across the board for this though.
- twosdai 4y agoFor transparency, we're at an early stage and its much more useful for us to have more clients using and working with the software. Reporting bugs, telling us what they need etc... We're definitely open to negotiating on price, and we don't want it to be a blocker for people to use the platform. That being said we still want to charge something to indicate a level of seriousness to the use. For some context on how we arrived to the figure the ~1% figure is in the low end ballpark for how much we saw companies spend internally on their billing systems built in house, and its slightly higher but still in the same range as other billing providers.
- danielmarkbruce 4y agoJust my 2 cents - don't reduce the price. If someone isn't getting enough value out of it they likely aren't the right customer and might pull you all over the place with requests. If someone is running $100m through your system they are going to call to negotiate anyway, you don't have to advertise it.
- Temporary_31337 4y agoYeah, it's probably not a good fit if a customer for usage based pricing doesn't want to pay usage based pricing themselves ;)
- ignoramous 4y agoSpot on. I'm sure the YC group partners have told them as much: https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/why-does-your-company-deserve-more-money/ https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/why-does-your-company-deser... https://blog.ycombinator.com/users-you-dont-want/ https://blog.ycombinator.com/users-you-dont-want/ Though, I understand the apprehension behind having to pay 1% of the revenue. It is a psychological thing mostly (in a way, the potential costs seem bottomless like with card payments, even though 1% is actually a super-good deal for small tech shops).