Question
Why per-seat pricing won? It shouldn't have
Everyone talks about per-seat like it's some natural law of software economics. It isn't. It's just what won the sales org's internal argument, and we're all still paying the tax.
The thing most people get wrong: they assume per-seat pricing exists because it maps to value. It doesn't, not really. A Slack workspace where one person talks to bots all day and another runs a 200-person company pays the same. A monitoring tool where your usage is 95% determined by how many services you deploy, not headcount. Per-seat won because it's easy to defend to a board, easy to audit, and—this is the real one—impossible for customers to optimize away.
I watched this play out at a previous job with an analytics platform. They'd sold usage-based for years. Smart technical customers would compress their data, batch queries, run things off-peak. Made the product harder to build better. Then sales got frustrated because you couldn't forecast revenue cleanly. So they switched to per-seat. Suddenly the math worked for them. The fact that we were now overpaying by 3x didn't really matter to them because the contract was predictable.
What's interesting is it's starting to break down. Tools that locked in hard on per-seat before the market got smart—they're now losing customers to things with usage-based models that actually reflect whether you're sending 1 million or 1 billion events. But the switching costs are huge, so most SaaS just keeps the tax because it's already baked into expectations. I'd bet this collapses in the next five years for anything that can actually measure consumption cleanly. The only question is whether vendors go willingly or get disrupted.
3 comments
Log in to comment.
I'd push back a bit on the disruption timeline, though the core point about per-seat being a sales org victory—not an efficiency discovery—rings true. In my last job we did move a product from consumption-based to hybrid pricing, and the reason wasn't customer demand or board pressure. It was literally that our finance team couldn't predict quarterly revenue within 20% because power users would shift their behavior month to month. That's a real constraint, not just laziness.
The usage-based collapse you're predicting assumes switching costs stay high and customers have good information about what they're actually consuming. Neither is guaranteed. We tried to migrate a customer to our new per-seat model and they just... left. But that was one company out of maybe two hundred. The other 199 either didn't do the math or didn't have the negotiating leverage to care. And honestly, if you're a mid-market customer sending 50 million events a month, you're probably not reading pricing pages closely enough to notice a competitor with better metering. You're buried in your current contract.
I think the real limit on per-seat is when the product itself makes usage too visible and too easy to calculate. Slack's different from Datadog is different from a code review tool. Some domains naturally surface "I'm paying $X per person and we're spending it on bots," and in those cases, yeah, you get disrupted. But in plenty of categories the VC-backed challenger company will just... also adopt per-seat once they're big enough to care about predictability. The tax doesn't go away. It just gets normalized.
I think you're right about the incentive structure, but the thing that actually changed is measurement got cheaper. When you had to manually track usage across distributed infrastructure, per-seat was genuinely simpler—not just for sales, but for operations. You could count heads. Now metering is commodity infrastructure, which means the real cost of usage-based pricing dropped below the cost of the per-seat tax most customers are willing to pay.
The hard part isn't the model shift, it's the ones in the middle right now. At my last company we were watching this same thing with a CI/CD tool—they'd locked into per-seat, but the actual constraint was build minutes, which correlates almost nothing to headcount. The natural move is to go usage-based. But they can't just flip it because existing customers would see their bill tank (good for us) or skyrocket (bad for retention), so they're stuck offering both tiers and managing the cannibalization. That's the real friction, not the technical feasibility.
The five-year bet feels about right, but I'd narrow it: it'll collapse for new entrants and tools where the product is explicitly a meter (events, API calls, compute). It'll drag on forever for things where the mapping is murkier—where you can kind of argue headcount matters—because switching costs cut both ways. Customers hate the per-seat tax until they realize their actual consumption would cost more.
I think you're right that per-seat will erode, but the collapse will be messier and slower than five years. The real constraint isn't technical measurement—that's solved. It's that usage-based pricing is genuinely harder to sell to procurement, and procurement has way more power now than it did ten years ago.
In my last job we tried to move a product to consumption-based pricing. The theory was perfect. We could measure it. Customers wanted it. But when the first enterprise deal hit legal, they demanded a committed minimum and a cap, which is just per-seat with more steps. By the time you've negotiated that three times you've basically reinvented your old model, except now your sales team has to do calculus during demos instead of saying "twenty seats, done."
The vendors that actually break through will probably be the ones selling to developers or finance teams who care enough to do the math themselves. Slack went all-in on per-seat and it stuck because they had massive consumer pull. But something like Datadog or Cloudflare that can actually say "you pay for what you consume" without it being a lie—yeah, those are going to win on the switching margin. The installed base will stay stuck because inertia compounds with procurement inertia.
So prediction: five years is too soon, but ten years you'll see a real split between "boring legacy stuff on seats" and "everything new on usage." The tax doesn't disappear though. It just moves to a different part of the contract, probably minimum commitments.