How Chili Piper and Confluence Are Evolving Toward Outcome-Based Pricing

Plus: Updates from Zapier, Mixpanel, and Whimsical.

Welcome back to Good Better Best!

Today, we’re breaking down how Chili Piper and Confluence are moving towards outcome-based pricing within their existing seat-based model.

We’re also introducing a new section called Expert Opinion, where Ulrik from Willingness to Pay will share thoughts on some of the most common questions in SaaS pricing and packaging. If you have a question — send it my way, and we might include it in the coming weeks.

First, some of the most interesting updates we saw on PricingSaaS this week.

---

📰 Pricing News & Updates

• Zapier tweaked features and usage limits across paid plans.

• Mixpanel removed price points.

• Podium removed price points.

• Alchemy added Support Response Times for each plan.

• Nanonets moved away from tiers.

• Whimsical added a plan.

---

---

Today’s Post is brought to you by Metronome

Metronome is the usage-based billing platform that helps SaaS companies turn billing from bottleneck to growth lever. They help companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Databricks launch new products and pricing, connect billing to the product experience, and act on real-time usage and revenue data.

CEO Scott Woody also hosts Unpack Pricing, a podcast where executives, pricing leaders, and operators deconstruct the complex world of SaaS pricing strategies.

Recent guests include: VP of Product Management @ Twilio, VP of Pricing Strategy @ Hubspot, Co-founder and CEO @ Cockroach Labs, and more.

---

🧱 How to Build towards Outcome-Based Pricing

Earlier this week, I shared 5 pricing trends I’ll be watching in 2025 (check them out here). The one that’s received the most pushback is that seat-based pricing isn’t dead, and is actually ripe for creativity.

This intersects with another thought I’ve been having — that companies will gradually shift towards outcome-based pricing — not flip a switch.

The combined take in a nutshell:

Don't blow up your seat-based model overnight.

Instead, methodically expand what your ‘seat’ can do.

In the last week, I’ve seen two examples of this strategy at work.

First, Chili Piper introduced two new add-ons.

• Concierge Live: Qualifies leads and connects with prospects on a phone call.

• Handoff Live: Instantly makes the SDR to AE handoff.

Chili Piper is still charging “per user per month",” but these add-ons help remove work from each user’s plate by actually tackling jobs.

They also help increase ARPA and ARPU. Both add-ons require a minimum platform fee of $1,000 per month, and Concierge Live costs an additional $10 per user/mo.

Another example is Confluence, which introduced Automation Rule Run limits to each plan last month.

According to the Confluence website:

Automation removes the need to perform manual, repetitive tasks by allowing your teams to automate their processes and workflows. With our simple rule builder, you can configure powerful automation rules to handle even the most complex scenarios.

Sounds a lot like outcomes to me! In essence, automation rules take simple, manual tasks off a user’s plate. Similar to what Chili Piper is doing with it’s add-ons.

While they both ladder up to a seat-based model, both products are getting closer to doing real “work” for users. What I like about this strategy is that it introduces outcomes to customers in bite-sized pieces rather than a dramatic overhaul.

One way to think of it is like Tesla.

They didn't start with full self-driving - they began with ‘autopilot’ and gradually added capabilities. Each enhancement moves us further from ‘paying for a car’ toward ‘paying for autonomous transport.’

And at an incremental pace, the progression feels natural.

---

---

🎯 Expert Opinion

Many people believe that simple pricing is crucial for SaaS success, but I call this the "Simplicity Cult of SaaS Pricing." The truth is, simplicity in pricing is not as important as many believe, especially as your product becomes more complex.

Case in point: there are zero examples of profitable, publicly traded B2B SaaS companies with truly simple pricing models.

Instead of aiming for simplicity, you should focus on making your pricing easy to sell, which is not the same thing. A simple pricing model might be fine for a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), but for anything more complex, it's likely to be too limiting.

Here's what I've learned about complexity in pricing:

• Pricing models should do two things: (1) determine what a customer pays based on what they buy, and (2) structure how that price differs from customer to customer.

• Simple models like a fixed price per user are easy to understand but not effective at discriminating between different types of customers, while capturing value appropriately. A simple model overvalues the calculation of price for an individual customer, while undervaluing the need to discriminate between customers.

• Complexity is a tool that allows you to price discriminate between different customers. A larger Annual Contract Value (ACV) often calls for more complexity. While a simple model may be appropriate for an MVP, more complex offerings require more sophisticated pricing structures.

• The key is to balance the ease of selling with the need to capture the value of your product across different customer segments.

The real money isn't in the price point, but in the pricing structure. A good pricing structure allows you to discriminate between different customers, and that’s why complexity is a virtue.

For example, adding a flat fee to a per-user model can make the pricing more attractive to larger customers while being more expensive for smaller customers; it's a form of complexity that can be quite useful.

So, don't get caught up in the idea that your pricing must be simple. Instead, design a pricing model that is easy to sell and that effectively captures value from your diverse customer base.

There are 4 simple questions I use to cut through complexity and design pricing models that work. Check them out in the video below.

---

Thanks for tuning in and see you next week!

Have thoughts on this post? I’d love to hear them.