Thursday · CFO + Head of Product
Favor the usage add-on
Keep Team at $12 per seat; charge for heavier usage.
Approve B’s direction and a six-week billing build, subject to the economics. Approve final pricing and customer notice separately.
TEAM PLAN / PRICING REVIEW / A: $15 per seat · B: usage add-on · C: wait six months
Concentrated costs call for a targeted response
Storage and AI usage drove most of the decline. Team serves 4,100 paying workspaces averaging nine seats.
Rank margin recovery first, customer exposure second, speed third: costs are uneven.
Each option wins on a different criterion
| Criterion, in order | A · $15 per seat | B · usage add-on | C · wait six months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Margin recovery | Broad revenue lift | Targets heavy usage | No pricing relief |
| Customer exposure | All workspaces | ~12% affected¹ | No price change |
| Build time | One week | Six weeks | No billing change |
| Best argument | Fast, simple recovery | Preserves $12 base | Avoids disruption |
¹ Finance estimate. Margin outcomes depend on retention and usage; none is a forecast.
A offers a fast, broad revenue lift
Illustrations use 4,100 workspaces × nine seats; attrition assumes equal average seats. The 2023 increase from $10 to $12 lost 6% of workspaces within three months. That history is a risk signal, not a prediction.
B links added charges to heavier usage
Recommended direction
Keep the $12 base price.
Finance estimates ~492 workspaces affected (12%).
Revenue and margin lift are unquantified. Direction approval excludes final storage charging terms.
C preserves stability while margin pressure continues
Six months at this gap: about $239.1k.
Constant revenue and margins assumed; this is a reference gap, not savings any option guarantees. C avoids pricing disruption and allows more usage evidence, but offers no pricing response for six months.
Customer notice adds time beyond the billing build
*Assumes notice follows build readiness and approval starts work. If valid notice runs concurrently, theoretical minimums are A: 30 days; B: 42 days. C revisits in six months.
Price certainty matters to two major Team customers
- Interpretation
- These requests signal price-certainty concerns, not proven churn.
- Mitigation
- Show usage and estimated charges before notice to reduce surprise.
- Decision
- Will annual locks cover the base price, usage charges, or both? Sales needs a consistent promise.
B trades speed and simplicity for cost alignment
- Strongest objection
- A is faster and simpler; B’s margin benefit is unquantified.
- Evidence gate
- Compare modeled gross margin and affected-customer bills before final pricing approval.
- Reversal
- B’s build cost is sunk; removing charges later requires communication.
- Fallback
- Favor A if B’s economics disappoint; favor C if disruption dominates.
CFO and Product: approve B’s direction on Thursday
- Authorize
- Will you approve B’s direction and the six-week billing build to target usage costs?
- Limit
- This does not approve final rates, customer notice, annual locks, or a budget amount.
- Accountability
- Who will own the economic model and rollout so final approval has one accountable lead?
Finance estimates 12% affected; all other inputs are internal Team pricing and usage figures. Calculations are illustrative.