Ironclad’s Post

New!! "5 Things That Are Actually Working and 5 Things That Aren’t in B2B SaaS AI with Ironclad’s CEO and a16z" Ironclad CEO and co-founder Jason Boehmig joined Seema Amble, Partner at Andreessen Horowitz at SaaStr Annual to share their observations on what's currently working – and what's not quite there yet – for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in SaaS. With Ironclad's journey from an AI-first concept in 2014 to a Series E+ company and a16z's extensive portfolio view, their insights offer a valuable perspective on the current state of AI in SaaS.

This is an excellent article by Kyle Poyar, highlighting the shift in SaaS pricing models due to AI. Traditional annual recurring revenue (ARR) models are being replaced by value-based pricing, where customers pay for the work delivered by AI, such as per task or conversation. After years of obfuscated pricing models, I think it is encouraging that SaaS pricing is becoming more dynamic, transparent and closely tied to customer value. I have always been a fan of this approach. Link to article here: https://lnkd.in/grRTq6AA

Outcome based pricing is beginning to surface. Intercom and how it prices the Fin AI Agent is a popular example. For outcome based pricing to really take off we will need to solve for attribution. The techniques and data to do this are increasingly available. #pricing #SaaS #outcomebasedpricing #AI

🚀Join us with orq.ai this Thursday at Microsoft's "Navigating AI adoption for B2B SaaS companies" on the 29th of May to get real-life insights into how to adopt and scale AI within your SaaS organization. Register here: https://aka.ms/scalinglab #generativeai #genai #scaleup #llm #llmops

I wish I only had to pay for software when it delivered results. But the reality is that success-based pricing won't work for 90% of *today's* products. Here's why ⤵ Intercom's AI pricing went viral last year. They were charging $0.99 per AI-driven resolution. This model changes the relationship between customer and vendor: 👉 There's zero risk to trying out a new product 👉 The more you use the product, the more ROI you generate 👉 The vendor becomes 100% focused on delivering outcomes 👉 The vendor can get big $$$ since the upside is uncapped The issue is attribution. You want the customer to get a fantastic outcome -- and you want them to recognize that your product powered that outcome. As soon as you start charging for success, the customer begins to rethink the results. -- Did your product really drive the outcome? -- Or did they drive the outcome (with a small assist from the product)? If your product relies on people to change their behavior in order to generate ROI, then success-based pricing could set you (way) back. If your product does the work itself, owning the service end-to-end, that opens up new monetization possibilities. My eyes are on this next wave of SaaS: "Services as a Software" 🍿 — 🎁 I share the latest insights into SaaS growth & pricing via my newsletter, Growth Unhinged. Follow along: https://lnkd.in/exTbjKaM #saas #ai #monetization #pricing

Great insights as usual from Kyle Poyar. Attribution is difficult if the application (or services) doesn’t cover the full workflow loop. If success must be quantifiable (and hence monetizable) then needing to share that attribution will always leads to some level of uncertainty. But is outcome based pricing forever going to be relegated to the niche in SaaS? I am not so sure. Newer, more capable AI utilizing Agentic workflows and memories are certainly pointing to some very intriguing possibility… WDYT?

Warm outbound will be key to an org's success in 2025. When Kathryn Hurley and the ChartMogul asked for SaaS predictions for next year, that's the first thing that came to mind for me. With so much inbox, voicemail, and LI clutter via bulk cold, automated outbound, getting a prospect's attention is as challenging as ever. AI and proliferation of GTM tools make it easier than ever to find your former closed lost opps, power users, and champions to get an intro at their new org. Some great other insights here: https://lnkd.in/eTMWTVud

AI will open new markets previously deemed too “small” to support a large VSaaS company - by increasing LTV (Life Time Value) per customer (through replacing labor with software) and reducing CAC (through leveraging AI-driven sales and marketing tools).

🏁 Wrapping up a fantastic conference with the Ask-AI team! Big thanks to Josh Solomon, Ben Nachmani, and the entire crew (special shoutout to Mike Rodgers) for making our booth a success. There’s a lot of AI out there, but at Ask-AI, we know you don’t need to partner with 10 different AI vendors. Instead, we focus on delivering one reliable platform that truly drives ROI. Thanks to everyone who stopped by, specially shout out to Lihod Rachmilevitch and Gadi Vered to coming to present how they drove 9X ROI with Ask-AI — let's change B2B SaaS! #AI #NoSaaS #VendorConsolidation #FutureofWork

I'm curious to see how AI will impact SaaS pricing models. Here’s what I’m reading and hearing: - AI is shifting SaaS pricing from ARR to usage-based models. - Companies now charge for outcomes, not just access. - It could bring more volatility, variable margins, and seasonal revenue. 𝐸𝑥𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠: 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑜𝑚 & 𝑍𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑘 : 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐴𝐼 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑦 : 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑛: 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 Here's why I think it's wrong: 1️⃣ Most Credit-Based systems aren’t truly Pay-As-You-Go They are packages you pay for. For example, Clay has fixed packages, and Imagen requires a minimum monthly fee. → Businesses need cash predictability, hence packages. 2️⃣ Seat-based predictability isn't gone Intercom and Zendesk added more revenue by charging per AI-solved issues. They anticipated slower seat growth now AI can handle much of the grunt work. Yet they still charge per seat. → Their pricing model faces challenges, but AI requests are as predictable as the number of seats per ICP. I wouldn't be surprised to see SaaS packaging AI requests to make revenue more predictable and reduce friction for buyers (pay-per-use is complex to understand for buyers with uncertain costs). Curious about what you guys think & changes you’ve implemented? Thanks, Kyle Poyar, for opening up the discussion!