Schematic

This framework/exercise is insanely useful to founders. 𝗪𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘀 '𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗮𝘆,' 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘀: - a vocabulary to talk with my market as objectively as possible about our pricing and our value - whether the market will pay for my product - which features are must-have vs. nice to have in the buying decision - which features are likely to be used all the time vs. used rarely - how the market wants me to package our offerings - the price points that the market would view as no-brainer vs. prohibitive. - other influences on my buyer's willingness to pay (e.g. their peers, etc) - how the market thinks about my product's price metric, e.g. the unit of value that is most intuitive to them as they grow with my product - how valuable my product is relative to other tools my customers are using 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀... - confidence in our product value - alignment between our product roadmap and our pricing roadmap - confidence in our pricing page - confidence in how we negotiate larger deals - confidence in how we communicate with investors about how we expect price points and ACV to evolve 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝟰 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘀: 1. Pre-product & want to test commercial viability of a product 2. Working to close design partners/early customers and need to determine price they are willing to pay 3. 6-12 months into a contract with a healthy customer to better understand our product's value 4. Ahead of a meaningful P&P change post product market fit. Attaching the template we use for our own willingness to pay conversations. Ping us if you want the google doc version.

We built a graphic about what Schematic does for our partnership with PricingSaaS. Since our product crosses categories, we listen closely to how our customers describe the value they receive from our product. Welcome feedback on how we're articulating the why and the what.

“The best software companies are constantly testing and evolving their pricing to align with the market and deliver more value.” — Adam Steinberg When Adam joined PartnerStack, one of the first major opportunities he identified was restructuring pricing and packaging to better match customer value. PartnerStack was in a unique position: 1/ It served both a SaaS subscription model (Partner Relationship Management) and a transactional model (managing partner payouts). 2/ This reality made it non-obvious what the most intuitive price metric should be. Key Takeaways from the Episode: 1️⃣ Align Pricing with Customer Value PartnerStack’s customers weren’t buying based on seats—they were buying based on partner programs. This insight shifted their pricing model from seat-based pricing to program-based pricing, which better matched how customers perceived value. “We didn’t want to cap seats because we want teams to be successful. But we knew that running multiple programs meant they were scaling, so we structured our pricing around that.” 2️⃣ Pricing Must Be a Constant Iteration, Not a One-Time Decision Rather than relying on gut instinct, PartnerStack implemented a structured pricing A/B testing framework. This allows them to experiment without putting the entire pipeline at risk. “Just like you A/B test your website, you should A/B test your pricing. We roll out pricing experiments to a subset of deals and analyze the impact before making broad changes.” 3️⃣ Pricing & Packaging Are Different—And Both Matter Pricing is how much customers pay, but packaging is how they think about what they’re getting. PartnerStack structured its packages to ensure clarity and scalability for customers. “If customers have tons of questions about your pricing, you’ve made it too complex. The best pricing models feel natural and easy to understand.” 4️⃣ Winning on Price vs. Winning on Product A company can compete by offering a lower price through operational efficiency or by commanding a premium through innovation and service. PartnerStack focuses on balancing both. “If you can build a more efficient business, you can build a more aggressive pricing structure. But some businesses win by pricing at a premium—there’s no single right answer.” 5️⃣ Cross-Functional Pricing Teams Are Key PartnerStack’s pricing committee includes RevOps, Product Marketing, Business Analytics, Product, and Sales Leadership. “If you make pricing decisions without input from sales or product, where would you be?”

“The best software companies are constantly testing and evolving their pricing to align with the market and deliver more value.” — Adam Steinberg When Adam Steinberg joined PartnerStack, one of the first major opportunities he identified was restructuring pricing and packaging to better match customer value. PartnerStack was in a unique position: 1/ It served both a SaaS subscription model (Partner Relationship Management) and a transactional model (managing partner payouts). 2/ This reality made it non-obvious what the most intuitive price metric should be. Key Takeaways from the Episode: 1️⃣ Align Pricing with Customer Value PartnerStack’s customers weren’t buying based on seats—they were buying based on partner programs. This insight shifted their pricing model from seat-based pricing to program-based pricing, which better matched how customers perceived value. “We didn’t want to cap seats because we want teams to be successful. But we knew that running multiple programs meant they were scaling, so we structured our pricing around that.” 2️⃣ Pricing Must Be a Constant Iteration, Not a One-Time Decision Rather than relying on gut instinct, PartnerStack implemented a structured pricing A/B testing framework. This allows them to experiment without putting the entire pipeline at risk. “Just like you A/B test your website, you should A/B test your pricing. We roll out pricing experiments to a subset of deals and analyze the impact before making broad changes.” 3️⃣ Pricing & Packaging Are Different—And Both Matter Pricing is how much customers pay, but packaging is how they think about what they’re getting. PartnerStack structured its packages to ensure clarity and scalability for customers. “If customers have tons of questions about your pricing, you’ve made it too complex. The best pricing models feel natural and easy to understand.” 4️⃣ Winning on Price vs. Winning on Product A company can compete by offering a lower price through operational efficiency or by commanding a premium through innovation and service. PartnerStack focuses on balancing both. “If you can build a more efficient business, you can build a more aggressive pricing structure. But some businesses win by pricing at a premium—there’s no single right answer.” 5️⃣ Cross-Functional Pricing Teams Are Key PartnerStack’s pricing committee includes RevOps, Product Marketing, Business Analytics, Product, and Sales Leadership. “If you make pricing decisions without input from sales or product, where would you be?” Adam is a serial founder with an incredible business mind, and this was one of my favorite conversations on Monetizing SaaS. Full episode in comments.

Last week, we released Part 1 of our two-part teardown on LaunchDarkly’s pricing page & overall purchasing experience. Key Observations from Part 1 ➡️ LaunchDarkly no longer charges per seat. They’ve switched to service connections and MAU-based pricing, moving closer to an infrastructure-like model. This aligns cost with actual usage but makes it harder to forecast pricing at a glance. ➡️ They’re optimizing for enterprise expansion. The introduction of the Guardian tier suggests they’re doubling down on compliance, observability, and risk mitigation for large-scale deployments. ➡️ Their pricing page is clear & functional—but could add storytelling. While the fundamentals are strong (clear tiers, FAQs, feature tables), it feels like there's opportunity to further leverage the pricing page as a brand asset. In this clip, Schematic co-founder/CTO Benjamin Papillon, talks about why their move from seats makes a lot of sense.

Billing UI should never be an afterthought. Good product engineers know that managing subscriptions, entitlements, and billing should deliver transparency and control to customers. Here's an example of an embedded plan management component—with complete subscription details, easy upgrades/downgrades, usage tracking, and invoicing history—using Schematic. Clean, embeddable components and flexible APIs that free up time for what matters: building & monetizing your product.

Founders, almost universally, undervalue their product early on—not because it isn’t valuable, but because in the early days, they just want someone, anyone, to pay them. Prakash Chandran, founder & CEO of Xano, admits he did this. At first, he was just happy to see revenue. But after running Xano for a few years, he realized: - They were likely undercharging for the value they provided - Some customers needed more flexible pricing based on use case, not just consumption - Pricing needed to support both PLG & a growing sales motion 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 🔹 Most founders price too low at first. "You're so desperate early on. You just want to see some sign of life. But then a year later, you realize you're massively undercharging." 🔹 PLG & enterprise sales require different pricing levers. Xano started with a self-serve model, but larger customers needed deployment flexibility and advanced features. That led them to add a sales motion. 🔹 Price sensitivity isn’t universal—it depends on use case. Xano originally priced on compute usage, but customers building AI apps, SaaS products, and enterprise tools all had different scaling needs. 🔹 Founders should run pricing experiments, not just pick a number. "For enterprise deals, I started testing different price points just to see what happened. Sometimes I’d 3x the price—and customers went for it." This episode is packed with pricing, monetization, and product-led growth insights for SaaS founders. Episode link in comments.

In over 60 podcasts over the last year on Monetizing SaaS, this moment with Matt Bradley, CEO at Super Dispatch, stands out as one of the clearest points of view about a company's pricing page and pricing philosophy.

Founders, almost universally, undervalue their product early on—not because it isn’t valuable, but because in the early days, they just want someone, anyone, to pay them. Prakash Chandran, founder & CEO of Xano, admits he did this. At first, he was just happy to see revenue. But after running Xano for a few years, he realized: ✅ They were likely undercharging for the value they provided ✅ Some customers needed more flexible pricing based on use case, not just consumption ✅ Pricing needed to support both PLG & a growing sales motion 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗢𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 🔹 Most founders price too low at first. "You're so desperate early on. You just want to see some sign of life. But then a year later, you realize you're massively undercharging." 🔹 PLG & enterprise sales require different pricing levers. Xano started with a self-serve model, but larger customers needed deployment flexibility and advanced features. That led them to add a sales motion. 🔹 Price sensitivity isn’t universal—it depends on use case. Xano originally priced on compute usage, but customers building AI apps, SaaS products, and enterprise tools all had different scaling needs. 🔹 Founders should run pricing experiments, not just pick a number. "For enterprise deals, I started testing different price points just to see what happened. Sometimes I’d 3x the price—and customers went for it." Prakash and I also discuss: - How no-code & AI are changing software development - Why pricing is a journey—not a one-time decision - The evolution of Xano’s pricing model This episode is packed with pricing, monetization, and product-led growth insights for SaaS founders. Episode link in comments.

Product leaders—how often do you measure the revenue impact of a new feature? New ARR, expansion, retention—are these outcomes regularly tied back to feature releases? I’ve noticed that, for a variety of reasons (training, tooling, authority), it’s harder than it should be for product teams to drive direct revenue growth in B2B SaaS. Does this match your experience? If so, what’s getting in the way?