Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Drawing on Dan Ariely's "Predictably Irrational," per-seat pricing succeeded because it feels psychologically fair. Customers are more willing to pay for perceived effort or scale (more employees = more cost) than for brutally efficient outcomes, as illustrated by the locksmith paradox.

Related Insights

Atlassian's CEO argues against the death of per-seat pricing. He states that customers dislike the unpredictability of consumption models, and value-based models are too hard to measure accurately. This practical friction ensures simpler, predictable pricing will persist.

Traditional SaaS companies are trapped by their per-seat pricing model. Their own AI agents, if successful, would reduce the number of human seats needed, cannibalizing their core revenue. AI-native startups exploit this by using value-based pricing (e.g., tasks completed), aligning their success with customer automation goals.

In categories like customer support, where AI can handle the vast majority of queries, charging per human agent ('per seat') no longer makes sense. The business model is shifting to be outcome-based, where customers pay for the value delivered, such as per ticket resolved or per successful interaction.

The dominant per-user-per-month SaaS business model is becoming obsolete for AI-native companies. The new standard is consumption or outcome-based pricing. Customers will pay for the specific task an AI completes or the value it generates, not for a seat license, fundamentally changing how software is sold.

The traditional per-seat SaaS model is losing relevance. As AI allows for the completion of discrete workflows, customers expect to pay for the outcome ('do this thing for me'), not for access. This per-task model is a significant competitive advantage against legacy players.

AI tools aren't just making employees more efficient; they are replacing human labor. This allows software companies to move from cheap per-seat pricing to a new model based on outcomes, like charging per support ticket resolved, capturing a much larger share of the value.

An overlooked benefit of per-seat pricing (e.g., Workday) is predictability for the vendor's sales team. Sales leaders can accurately forecast deal sizes based on a prospect's public employee count, making it far easier to scale a sales organization efficiently compared to unpredictable consumption models.

AI is moving beyond enhancing worker productivity to completing entire projects, like drug discovery or engineering designs. This shift means software will be priced like a services business, based on the value of the outcome delivered, not the number of users with access.

AI startups often use traditional per-seat pricing to simplify purchasing for enterprise buyers. The CEO of Legora admits this is suboptimal for the vendor, as high LLM costs from power users can destroy margins. The shift to a more logical consumption-based model is currently blocked by the buyer's operational readiness, not the vendor's preference.

The push for AI-driven efficiency means many companies are past 'peak employee.' This creates a scenario analogous to a country with a declining population, where the total number of available seats is in permanent decline, making per-seat pricing a fundamentally flawed long-term business model.