← Back to Concept Contrast

Concept Contrast Fable

Seat-based pricing and usage-based pricing

Conclusion first:Seat-based pricing charges per person—one account, one price; one more person means one more unit of revenue. Usage-based pricing charges for actual consumption—how many API calls, how much compute, how much storage. Which one you choose determines not only the format of your financial statements, but more importantly whether your product gets more people to log in or gets the people who log in to go deeper. Get the pricing direction wrong, and growth will not keep up with costs.

Seat-based pricing charges per person—one account, one price; one more person means one more unit of revenue. Usage-based pricing charges for actual consumption—how many API calls, how much compute, how much storage. Which one you choose determines not only the format of your financial statements, but more importantly whether your product gets more people to log in or gets the people who log in to go deeper. Get the pricing direction wrong, and growth will not keep up with costs.

Fable

The monthly pass system and per-pot pricing in the old teahouse

There was a century-old teahouse in town. At first it sold only monthly passes—two taels of silver a month, tea as you please. The more tea drinkers there were, the more the teahouse earned, and the shopkeeper loved the days when people lined up on the street to buy monthly passes. Going from five people to fifty, he did only two things: set out a few more tables and boil a few more kettles of water.

After the fiftieth tea customer, problems emerged. There was a merchant who came every morning to sit for an hour to discuss business, and an old gentleman who sat from opening to closing. For the same monthly ticket price, the old gentleman refilled eight times a day, while the merchant drank only one pot. The shopkeeper did not think much of it at first, but later the clerk found that the end-of-month tea purchasing accounts did not match—tea leaf usage had quadrupled, while the total number of monthly tickets had only more than doubled.

The shopkeeper consulted the accountant. The accountant said the monthly pass has a hidden bet: you bet that the tea-drinking crowd will average itself out—some drink more, some drink less, and on average costs stay manageable. But if a large number of heavy drinkers buy monthly passes in concentration, the books collapse. He did not recommend canceling the monthly pass, but suggested adding a per-pot payment channel.

As soon as per-pot pricing launched, the merchant was delighted—he drank only thirty pots a month, and instead of paying two taels before, he now paid only one and a half taels per pot. The old gentleman looked unhappy—he had to pay three or even four taels, and came angrily to argue with the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper was prepared, brought out ten years of records of the old gentleman's refills, and said, brother, you drink three times as much as others; the old monthly ticket was actually others subsidizing your tea money.

The old gentleman was unhappy but accepted it. He chose a monthly ticket raised to four taels, with an added benefit—he could bring two friends with no pot fee. The merchant was also happy; he chose pay-per-pot, but after thirty pots a month it automatically became a monthly subscription, and any further drinking incurred no extra charge. The teahouse's tea money finally matched the tea's level of consumption.

The cleverest part was that the shopkeeper hung two more signs at the counter. One said: if you are sure you will come every day, the monthly ticket is the most worry-free. The other said: if you are not sure how often you will come, paying by the pot is more cost-effective, and you do not have to worry about paying for nothing. The two kinds of people each looked at their own sign, and no longer fought.

By the end of the year, total tea revenue rose by twenty percent, because those who used to refill eight pots alone began paying the real price. The total number of tea customers dropped from fifty to forty-two, but the shopkeeper's smile was steadier than when there were fifty—every unit of revenue finally had a corresponding cost line.

Seat-based pricing

Charge by number of users; each additional user account adds revenue. Suitable for scenarios where product value expands with user coverage.

Usage-based pricing

Billing by the amount of resources actually used; revenue fluctuates with the customer's actual consumption. Suitable for scenarios with significant marginal costs and large usage differences.

Story Mapping

  • Monthly pass model (seat pricing): charge per person, keep the product cheap and spread it to more people
  • The old scholar and the merchant: when usage differs enormously, seat-based systems create subsidy problems
  • Pay by the pot (usage-based pricing): matches consumption precisely, but may scare off high-frequency customers
  • Coexistence of two signs: different customers choose different pricing models, and together they cover the full base

Applying it to Andy Ren Xu's project

First look at your marginal cost. AI invocation costs vary, and every extra call costs Token money—in this case usage-based pricing is safer than seat-based pricing, otherwise high-frequency customers will eat your gross margin. If your marginal cost is close to zero and product value increases as user coverage expands, seat-based pricing lets customers roll it out to as many people as possible. The most robust approach is to offer both options and let customers choose, while you continuously validate the gross margin of both lines against actual costs.

京ICP备2026014272号