Price Was Set Per Seat. Value Was Delivered Per Job.

A B2B software company with 84 accounts and ₹10.83 Cr of ARR asked for a pricing review before a funding round. The founders expected to be told to raise prices. That is not what the analysis said.

The finding

The product was priced per seat. Customers measured their own operation in jobs processed. Six years of seat discounting had pulled those two apart until the largest accounts — running 73% of all jobs — were paying ₹36 per job, while the smallest paid ₹89. The small accounts were subsidising the large ones and nobody had measured it.

The recommendation

A platform fee plus a declining usage rate, so price follows the value metric. The plan fees are deliberately not round numbers: each is set so the price curve is continuous at the boundary, because a cliff between plans is something customers will sit just the wrong side of, or split accounts to game.

Why it is defensible

Forty-seven of eighty-four accounts pay less, by an average of 27%. The increase falls almost entirely on twelve enterprise accounts that had been buying jobs at ₹36 while everyone else paid ₹77 to ₹89. That asymmetry is what makes the conversation survivable.

The migration is the deliverable

Ten accounts faced increases above 15%; the largest uncapped move was +115%. Delivered at once, that is not a pricing change, it is a simultaneous renegotiation with the accounts carrying 55% of revenue. Increases are capped at 25% per renewal and reductions land immediately. The cap costs roughly ₹1.6 Cr of ARR in year one. We recommend paying it.