Monday, July 31, 2023

Is Usage Pricing Right for You?

There is currently a lot of buzz around usage-based pricing (also known as consumption pricing), particularly in the SaaS industry. This heightened interest has been largely fueled by the remarkable success of companies like AWS, Snowflake, and Stripe, which have thrived using this pricing model. As a result, many SaaS companies – and their investors - now view usage-based pricing as a key factor for achieving success in the market. 

However, it's essential to recognize that while usage-based pricing has proven highly effective for certain businesses, it may not be the optimal choice for all. Some companies may find greater success with a fixed-price subscription model, while others might benefit from a combination of both usage and recurring pricing options. In some cases, the pricing model may not significantly impact the overall performance of the business. An example when we compare Apple TV, which charges per movie (usage pricing), and Netflix, which employs a flat monthly fee (subscription pricing). Both companies have achieved considerable success despite adopting different pricing strategies.  

Examining trends in various industries sheds further light on the matter. For instance, the telecommunications sector has transitioned from usage-based pricing to flat fee models. Remember the days when phone bills were determined by the number of minutes called? Of course, they still use usage pricing in many areas, such as international calls but such calls are now more and more conducted via much cheaper online video calling. For telcos, usage pricing is not the future, it’s the past. And if anyone has a black belt in pricing, it’s the telcos! 

Still, many SaaS companies continue to explore the potential of usage pricing. The allure of this approach lies in its ability to directly align value with costs, potentially appealing to customers and vendors alike. So, let’s look at various factors to consider before deciding to go all AWS with your pricing: 


1. Does usage align with the value delivered? 

AWS employs usage pricing out of necessity. Their services cater to application developers, each with a unique use case offering different value while representing different workload on AWS. Given the diverse range of applications and their varying reliance on different AWS services, the company has no choice but counting tasks, jobs, containers, gigabytes, and API calls to accurately measure usage and bill accordingly. That’s common to many infrastructure software companies, including Snowflake and Stripe1. 


For software designed as a business application, it’s usually easier to tie pricing to the delivered business value and the most common metric for a business is the number of employees (users). The most notorious example of this approach is Salesforce, the godfather of SaaS, which successfully employs user count as its primary metric. For other companies, metrics such as the count of vehicles or number of sites may be suitable, depending on the software's functionality. If this metric aligns with the value the software delivers, businesses can implement a flat monthly price, charging for each unit regardless of usage frequency. There is a lot to like about that! 


Some business applications have the option to adopt usage-based metrics like the number of contracts, invoices, miles driven, or revenue under management for their pricing models. In some scenarios, that kind of pricing may better align with the value they deliver for every customer. Before jumping into usage-based pricing, figure out the metric that best aligns with your value and structure the pricing accordingly.  


2. Do you like the predictability of recurring revenue? 

One of the main reasons companies prefer the flat subscription model is its predictability. CFOs appreciate the reliability of recurring revenue because it keeps coming in quarter after quarter, as long as you keep your churn rates under control. The recurring models were the big winners of the pandemic, as the subscribers – consumers and businesses alike – remained loyal to their subscriptions even through the times of economic uncertainty. 


The problem with usage-based pricing models is that they are not recurring. When customers consume, they pay you, and all is great. When usage slows, your revenue dwindles. Take Uber as an example, a company that purely charges based on usage. As the picture shows, their quarterly revenue is quite bumpy: up and down with consumption. 



Compare that to Netflix with its flat recurring subscription model during the same time period, and you get the idea. 



Now, some usage is more predictable than others. Storage, as measured by gigabytes or terabytes consumed, will be less volatile than transactions. Storage is cumulative; it never goes down. Even in tough times, customers generate data, and they are unlikely to delete any. Storage is a metric that effectively only goes up; sometimes faster and sometimes slower, but it always keeps growing. That’s why usage works so well for companies like Snowflake. On the other hand, other types of usage such as transactions, miles, or contracts can fluctuate dramatically.


3. How do your customers budget? 

Nobody likes a surprise bill. Your energy bill probably stays within a certain range every month, but when you receive a higher than usual bill, you take notice – and you are unhappy. Customers appreciate predictable spending, and a consumption model works well only if it is predictable. Unpredictable consumption fees are only acceptable if they are negligible, and the customer doesn't bother to care about the amount.  


This aspect is particularly relevant when selling enterprise technology. Enterprises have budgets set for the year and any significant overspending or underspending can be challenging, especially for your champion within the account. That's where the predictability of the flat fee model shines. When dealing with a usage model, enterprise customers prefer to lock in a committed amount of usage at a predictable cost to budget for it. That helps the budgeting, but this type of drawdown model adds a significant amount of billing complexity and frequently leads to customer satisfaction issues when they run into overages. 


If you have an enterprise product, consider how your pricing will fit the customers' budgeting process. 


4. Do your customers see the value in usage pricing? 

Usage pricing sounds like a very fair model, where the customer pays for what has been used. It seems to work quite well for many consumer applications, especially where the metric reflects two key factors: 

1. The perceived value the offering delivers 

2. The perceived cost  


A good example is the pricing for Uber, which is primarily based on the distance traveled. The value perception is obvious – it's more valuable to travel 50 miles than to travel 5 miles. Moreover, most consumers understand that Uber’s cost is based on the cost of fuel, the vehicle depreciation, and the driver’s time. Charging for mileage is a reasonable proxy for all that.  


However, it is a little more difficult to justify usage pricing in the payments industry, where credit card companies have been pricing based on a percentage of the payment amount. The value seems aligned, but only up to a certain point. After that, the fee becomes too large. A 3% fee on a $10,000 payment is $300, and at that point, you may prefer to be paid by a check or debit. That’s why we rarely see credit cards used for large amounts. 


On top of that, the cost perception does not add up. The payment amount is just a number in a computer, and the credit card company's cost is the same to process a $10 payment as it is to process a $10,000 payment. That is why the payments industry remains unsettled, with new payment methods (and even currencies) popping up all the time.  


5. Does your usage pricing inhibit usage? 

When you charge for usage, your customers become more aware of their usage behavior. Everything is fine as long as the cost is negligible, but the moment it becomes a budget item, your customers will adjust their behavior to optimize their spending. Enterprises will literarily incentivize their employees to reduce their usage. That is probably not what you want. You want them to use your product a lot, as long as you get compensated for the increased cost that results from increased usage.  


Imagine if Spotify charged users for every song they play. Some customers would just play fewer songs or dust off the radio while others might find ways to circumvent the limitations. That is not the behavior you would want, and this is precisely why the Spotify flat fee model became so successful - and completely disrupted the music industry. 


If you want your product to succeed, you need customers to use it. A lot. Your pricing should not stand in the way of adoption. That means that it needs to be either: 

1. Negligible compared to the customer's buying power. A $3.99 price to rent a movie is negligible for most Apple TV customers while $19.99 is perhaps too expensive. Or,  

2. Valuable compared to the alternative. Uber's usage charges may not be negligible, but they are quite valuable when compared to the cost of a traditional taxi or limousine services. 


Usage pricing can lower the barrier to adoption for new customers, as it allows them to try the product without committing to a fixed fee. However, as their usage grows, so do the charges. If your pricing isn't comparatively valuable and/or negligible, it may discourage usage. When implementing usage pricing, it is crucial to ensure that the pricing structure encourages customers to adopt and use the product. 


6. Can you measure the usage? 

If you charge customers based on a usage metric, they will want to be able to validate the accuracy of your metering. When you get a higher than usual phone bill, you want to see what caused the spike. Similarly, if your pricing is based on a percentage of transaction amount (e.g., payments, billing, invoicing), customers will want to compare your charge with their books. If those numbers do not match, they will start asking difficult questions. 


To accurately meter the usage and handle customers' questions, you will need to build the right instrumentation into your product. Adding such instrumentation is not trivial – we are talking about productized code that provides accurate counters and can be exposed to your customers via a self-service portal. That logic needs to be secure, auditable, and maintained just like any other product functionality. And unlike other product features, you probably won't be able to charge for this one. 


More importantly, you will need to deal with customer service scenarios such as credits, refunds, errors, disputes, promotions, proration, service freezes, vacation holds, etc. Those capabilities need to be built, and your customer service team will need to be large enough to handle any such inquiries. Deploying usage pricing comes at a cost. Counting users is much easier. 


7. Are you ready for variable considerations? 

Recurring revenue models come with a fair amount of accounting complexity – from quoting to billing to revenue recognition. Quoting becomes challenging for the Sales teams as they must help customers estimate their usage and spending commitments. Revenue recognition is pretty complex for your accounting team even with the flat subscription model. In the simplest form, you may be billing your subscribers annually upfront, but you can only recognize 1/12th of the revenue after each month upon service delivery. 


Usage pricing can require much more complex accounting. It may force you to adopt variable considerations, which will add significant accounting complexity, especially when there is a fair amount of fluctuation in usage between each revenue period. Your auditor may require you to estimate your revenue in advance of each period and then reconcile it with actual revenue. This accounting complexity will add additional pressure and cost on your accounting team. 


8. Have you considered a mixed model? 

Do you really want to adopt usage pricing? Obviously, it is the right model for many products, and for some, it may be the only feasible model. All the points mentioned above are not intended to discourage you from doing the right thing. However, there are many factors to consider before embarking on that journey. 


That said, your pricing does not need to be an either-or decision. We see the emergence of mixed models that combine a monthly flat fee with some additional charges to account for usage. For instance, Apple and Disney+ offer access to some of their content for a flat monthly fee, yet they charge a usage premium for premium content, such as new releases. The advantage of such mixed models is more predictability, better value alignment, and hopefully higher revenues. However, it also adds more complexity to the pricing structure and its operationalization. 


There are many possibilities out there. Choose wisely! 


Saturday, July 8, 2023

The Importance of Killer Apps

Photo: Apple, Inc.
Every platform requires applications to be considered a true platform, even if it manifests other typical platform characteristics such as shared technology services, customization capabilities, and APIs. However, it is often the presence of a specific application that unlocks new possibilities for users, ultimately driving the platform's widespread adoption and commercial success. This particular application, commonly known as the "killer app," enables users to accomplish tasks or engage in activities that were previously inaccessible or limited. The introduction of such an application propels the platform to new heights, capturing the attention and enthusiasm of users and cementing its position in the market. The concept of a killer app is widely acknowledged and represents a critical factor in the success of any platform. 

Throughout the history of technology, there have been several noteworthy killer apps that have shaped their respective platforms. In the case of PCs, the spreadsheet application, represented by VisiCalc and Lotus 1-2-3, revolutionized business operations, while home banking (Quicken) brought PCs into households. Additionally, the Internet browser (Netscape Navigator) transformed information access and online interaction on a PC. These killer apps not only fueled adoption but also introduced new possibilities and use cases, solidifying their platforms' success and highlighting the pivotal role of killer apps in technology evolution. 


For smartphones, email emerged as the undeniable business killer app, propelling Blackberry to great success. However, when Apple unveiled the iPhone, they had a broader consumer market in mind. Surprisingly, email was not initially a priority for the iPhone, as evident from President Obama's preference for Blackberry due to its perceived security. Instead, the iPhone's killer app quickly became its camera, captivating users with its superior quality and ease of use. This was closely followed by the rise of social media platforms, enabling users to connect and share their lives in unprecedented ways. Navigation apps, like Maps and ride-hailing, further solidified the iPhone's status as a must-have device. The presence of multiple killer apps played a vital role in the unparalleled success of smartphones, transforming them into indispensable devices for a wide range of users. 


The killer app for the iPad, or tablets in general, may not be as apparent as in other platforms. Note-taking, while not the most exciting app, has arguably emerged as a significant killer app for tablets. Content consumption, such as watching movies or reading magazines, is also very popular but does not qualify as a killer app since these activities can be accomplished without tablets. While it's true that tablets offer a more enjoyable movie-watching experience compared to smartphones, that is not why most people buy them. Other use cases for tablets are specialized for specific industries like warehousing, field service, or artistic applications. These applications, although valuable, lack the broad appeal of a definitive killer app, which explains why tablets have not achieved the same ubiquity as smartphones. 


The killer app for the Apple Watch, in addition to its primary timekeeping function, is undoubtedly health and fitness tracking. I must admit that I am pleasantly surprised by the Apple Watch's tremendous popularity, driven by its emphasis on health. Despite the notion that step counting had lost its allure during the Fitbit craze a decade ago, Apple has managed to strike a chord with consumers. The Apple Watch's extensive health features, such as heart rate monitoring, activity tracking, and personalized workout guidance, have resonated deeply. Apple's ability to identify and fulfill the needs of consumers has solidified its position in the market, leading to the Apple Watch's resounding success. 


Killer apps are not exclusive to hardware platforms; they are also prevalent in software platforms. A prime example is the killer app for Blockchain, which is cryptocurrency. However, it is disheartening to observe that cryptocurrency has primarily fueled speculative investing rather than addressing tangible issues. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that we will see the emergence of a new killer app for Blockchain, potentially in areas such as copyright enforcement or contract management. This would enable Blockchain technology to fulfill its true potential by solving real-world problems and making a substantial impact. 


Another software platform, content management, has long relied on compliance as its killer app, capturing a significant customer base. However, as compliance is only critical to specific market segments such as financial services, government, and life sciences, content management platforms are now striving to convince customers that collaboration is the new killer app. Unfortunately, many customers so far have failed to recognize the distinct benefits offered by a content management platform compared to a simple shared folder. The lack of differentiation impedes their ability to accomplish tasks that were previously inaccessible or limited. As the industry evolves, the rise of generative AI introduces intriguing possibilities. It remains to be seen whether personal productivity will emerge as the ultimate killer app, driving the transformation of content management platforms and enabling users to achieve new levels of productivity and efficiency. 


Speaking of generative AI, the current wave of excitement and experimentation is on the verge of giving way to tangible applications that customers are willing to pay for. Numerous application vendors are hastily incorporating generative AI into their solutions. However, the monetization of these capabilities remains unclear. The customers’ willingness to pay for the ability to enhance the quality of their writing might be questionable. Yet it is imperative for vendors to find effective ways to monetize generative AI since running large language models (LLMs) comes with substantial costs. Therefore, vendors have to identify compelling use cases and value propositions that showcase the true potential of generative AI while ensuring its monetization. 


The search for the killer app in spatial computing, the latest emerging platform, is only beginning. It is evident that we have not discovered one yet, which might explain why Meta has faced challenges in making significant progress with their VR headset. The possibility of the metaverse being a killer app exists, although we are likely far from the immersive virtual worlds depicted in books like "Ready Player One" and "Snow Crash”. Gaming could potentially become the killer app, but that would essentially relegate a VR headset to an accessory for existing gaming rigs, not a platform. Entertainment, while intriguing, raises questions about how appealing it would be to immerse oneself in a Taylor Swift concert or the next Jack Ryan episode. Undoubtedly, spatial computing holds promise in immersive training applications, but these specialized use cases may not qualify as killer apps due to their limited reach. Currently, we do not know what application will emerge as the definitive killer app for spatial computing. Nevertheless, considering Apple's impressive track record, it is reasonable to expect that they will eventually uncover a groundbreaking application that propels the adoption and success of spatial computing. 


The provided examples clearly demonstrate the vital role that killer apps play in driving the success and adoption of platforms, be it in hardware or software. These apps have the remarkable ability to unlock new possibilities and engage users in ways that were previously unimaginable. They serve as powerful catalysts, propelling the platform into new markets and ensuring its strategic significance and commercial success. From spreadsheets revolutionizing business operations to email becoming a cornerstone of communication, and from cameras transforming mobile photography to health tracking empowering individuals to monitor their well-being, killer apps have consistently fueled the popularity and widespread adoption of PCs, smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches. Their impact is undeniable, and they serve as compelling evidence of the pivotal role played by killer apps in driving the success of platforms. 


The pursuit of a killer app often proves elusive for many platforms, and the lack of killer apps can hinder their progress. Some apps fail to deliver compelling value compared to more affordable alternatives, while others may even lead the platform astray. It is crucial for platform leaders to consider their killer apps as integral to their overall strategy, despite the challenge of identifying and fostering them. Often, these killer apps are developed by 3rd parties, adding complexity to the equation. Nonetheless, the emergence and success of a killer app ultimately shape the success of the platform.  

 

Notes: