Modern Strategies for B2B Pricing in SaaS with Roee Hartuv

Jesse Morris: Welcome to Revops Revolution where we focus on changing the game for driving revenue. In each episode, your host, Jesse Morris explores the different areas that affect change and drive revenue across your organization. If this is your first time joining us, please subscribe so you don't miss out on any future episode. Here's to the revolution. Welcome to another day of the revolution. My name is Jesse Morris, the host and today I'm excited to welcome a go to market leader and pricing strategist, Rory Hartuv. Welcome to the podcast. Glad to have you here man.

Roee Hartuv: Thank you. I'm glad to be here. Thanks.

Jesse Morris: Awesome. So Rowie specializes in pricing strategy and I was really excited to uh, welcome on. We haven't had anybody yet so far talking through pricing and I think it's one of the more important areas and also probably most under discussed areas within it. Uh, you've worked in revenue architecture for B2B SaaS companies, uh, and as an executive sales and customer success, um, you've led uh, the revenue architecture practice at Winning by Design, which I think a lot of us that listen to this probably know what that is. And you've also guided go to market transformation across a lot of different growth, um, stages of companies. So and then you're also writing a book which is super exciting, uh, and it's called I think the modern Go to market System. Is that right?

Roee Hartuv: Uh, that's um, preliminary name.

Jesse Morris: Preliminary name. All right. And all around pricing strategy, packaging, monetization, which is really exciting. So super excited. Thanks again for joining. Can you tell us maybe a little bit more about yourself? Maybe things I might have missed?

Roee Hartuv: Uh, yeah, I started off as uh, actually a solution engineer. Find myself uh, leading sales or sales cycles and being a salesperson myself, uh, always around software sales, climbing my way up. Uh, yeah, from individual contributor to a manager. Um, yeah, I've done that for 15 years selling software. Then Covid hit the last company I worked for, ran out of money and then I decided let's uh, try something new and become an advisor. So I took my experience and started to advise uh, scale ups on go to market strategies. And a year ago I decided that from all the different growth levers we have in go to market, improving, uh, the way we sell, adding tools, processes, etc. Pricing and packaging is probably the greatest ROI a company can invest in order to grow their revenue. So I've decided to focus only on pricing and packaging and that's what I do today.

Jesse Morris: That's awesome. And I can definitely see the need there. And I think I've Done. I don't know, maybe four repricings in the last 10 years. And ah, you and I talked about this before but it's such a big lift. So um, um, yeah, I think ultimately I'm excited today to get into some of these different topics because I think a lot of us struggle on this end of it and I think you know, part of it is you can make it as complicated as you want like all things and, and also you know, as we'll get into it, like it is a lift, you know, also then change systems around it as well and also understand impact and measure impact. So cool man. Well, let's dive in a little bit here. Um, so like when a SaaS company brings you in for pricing consultation, what's the most important and are not most important? Sorry, the most common misconception they have about their pricing and how does that misconception typically manifest in their go to market motion?

Roee Hartuv: Yeah, um, it's not when they bring me in, but I think the biggest misconception is that pricing is a one time thing. Right. And most companies out there, they define the pricing, the early days, okay, we have a product, we need to price it, look at competition, get pricing could be good or bad, but yeah, that's where they stay and they stay too long with that pricing, uh, until usually that at some point slows them down. And I think this is the biggest misconception and nowadays it's even there, there's a conversation there, a discussion around the pricing, whether we need to do more of agile kind of pricing, how much, uh, like how frequently do we need to change our pricing. And there are some opinions out there that it should be, yeah, every year you need to revisit your pricing and see where and how you can improve that. Now think of that, you launch your product, set the pricing uh, uh, up, uh, and then your product keeps on delivering, adding more features. Are you monetizing on the additional features that you constantly bring in and adding or you just giving more value without charging more for that? Your entire market is always uh, changing, right? You have competitors, new competitors, you have adjacent industry that provides similar solution or similar values. All that creates a very dynamic kind of environment which means that we need to constantly evaluate our pricing and packaging. Yeah, and the biggest problem is that who owns pricing? That's, that's a uh, question. Is it finance? Which is how traditionally companies used to do uh, pricing. Traditional, I mean like before SaaS like finance owned pricing, but now is it the sales team, the commercial team, uh, is it product Marketing product. So there's a lot of question marks

Jesse Morris: out there when you think about, you know, those two. So, so you said, hey, pricing is something that we should probably look at every year and then back to the ownership of pricing. You know, what is your view and take on the ownership side of things. Who do you think? Yeah, what have you seen work?

Roee Hartuv: Um, ideally you have product marketing that actually know how to do pricing and you know, in the uh, classical playbook, it's their job. And when we meet a team that knows how to do that or even just acknowledges that it's their responsibility, it's easier. However, it doesn't matter necessarily their advantages here and there, where it sits or uh, which department, as long as somebody knows that they're responsible for that. So sometimes I see finance team that lead this and it works great. Sometimes it sits in the commercial team. As long as somebody owns this, like that's 80% of the, of the. The problem solved.

Jesse Morris: That's interesting. And it not surprising I think like after working, I mean ultimately, right. It's, you know, if you're not clear on who owns it, you know, every. Not everybody can't own it or nobody owns it. Right. It's the whole concept behind that. So that makes a lot of sense when you've seen companies nail their pricing strategy but then completely botch the implementation. Like walk me through what separates successful pricing change from one that creates chaos versus, you know, actual value add.

Roee Hartuv: Yeah. So first of all, the number one indication is that, that a company is failing, uh, on execution is discounts like our projects, when if they fail, they fail because when we launch a new pricing and packaging, the salespeople, sales organization go back to old habits and just give away discounts because they lost trust in the process, they lost trust in the transformation. So this is what we usually see. And the way we solve this is mitigating the risk and solving the risk. Right. Because when you think of it, why do people lose trust is because hey, we can increase. It usually comes with increase of pricing. Let's be, uh, yeah, 99%. That's the outcome. Um, and we can't do this to our customers. Our competitors are always cheaper. Uh, we always gave discounts. It's unfair to our prospects, to our customers, whatever that might be. This is how that loss of trust. Now if we solve for risk, meaning that we gradually add m. Ah, more conviction in the pricing, meaning let's test it out on a small segment of the new business, maybe a small team with the new pricing, get conviction that yeah, there are customers or prospects out there that are accepting our new pricing and packaging and then migrated to the entire sales team. And every time we could say, hey, we have evidence that it's working. And then after we do that, take it and migrate to our existing customers, but don't do it to your all of your existing customers at once. Right. Look at who is more, less likely to churn and test it out, maybe on the smaller ACVs, less risk. Right. If we lose somebody, uh, that pays us 15k compared to somebody who pays 150k, then we're mitigating that risk and we build that trust as we go along. Now, obviously we want leadership back up and we want, um, and that's the classical change transformation within an organization. So. Yeah, but that's how we solve it. So discounts is the number one thing. Okay. We launched a new pricing and packaging, but discounts are back to old habits. Um, people lose trust and the way to mitigate that is to solve for the risk.

Jesse Morris: So that's huge. And I, you know, I think back, uh, two companies ago, I worked at, I was responsible for doing a big pricing project on all of their S and B customers. And you know, to your point, we started with our lower risk areas. We, you know, we built a model, I remember, around churn assumptions. And essentially we're like, okay, even if we, you know, triple churn essentially, there's still this pricing. Things still make sense. And in the Velocity, you know, segment, it made a lot of sense too because it wasn't profitable in a lot of those instances. And what was cool in that transformation is like the fact that we started with the sub segment of people, uh, you know, customers to start with it actually. And then we reran the model. Right. So we ran the program for two months, uh, you know, and then reran the model and we're like, actually we thought we were going to have 30, we modeled 35% churn. We ended up only having like 15% churn. That then built the trust with the S and B team to be like, oh, okay, this actually isn't as bad. This was actually more money than what we thought. And so to your point, like, you know, have to take. It was almost like being willing to take that instead of just being this. Whereas, like, I've had been another company where like, I rolled out pricing all at once. And you know, that did not go over nearly as well. What we ended up having to do there to build trust was actually put together this pricing one pager that showed like what, uh, like other deals in this similar size, what is the most we've ever sold them for? Which then also started making people think, oh, we've actually sold deals, you know, even though this is a, uh, enterprise customer or maybe an S and P customer, we've actually won deals that are a lot higher than this. So to your point, because. Because you're right, sales reps do get into that habit of discounting. Just back to whatever level you were at before. Right. It's like they don't even care about the list price or even the discount percentages. They just care about what the number is. And so how do you get to your point? Almost like retraining their brain into that.

Roee Hartuv: Yeah, but just a, um, quick tip, incentivize and whatever, whatever method you use, either the carrots or the sticks, but incentivize your sellers to sell on the new pricing list. Right. And then either give them an accelerator or kicker for every new deal that is closed with a new pricing list, or on the flip side, gate or create thresholds and in terms of how are they compensated. Yeah, but that's a quick tip to make sure that your team follows the instructions.

Jesse Morris: Yeah. The gates are an interesting thing. I played around a lot with approval processes and trying to find sweet spots. And, you know, part of the approval process analysis I've done has been all around, you know, how much should go to senior leadership, you know, executive leadership, etc, on down. When you think about, you know, you talked about building trust. I gave a couple of examples. You know, this pilot program and, you know, this kind of pricing cheat sheet. What other ways have you seen organizations build trust and pricing? And obviously accelerators could be. And maybe another one as well.

Roee Hartuv: Yeah. Uh, I think I mentioned that the biggest is leadership. Lead by example. And my job, when I come in, I focus on getting the trust of the leadership. And we have the heads of. And we have the regional managers. I need to win their hearts and minds in order for them to do the same with their team members. So I think that's the number one thing. And again, that that is not new. That is true for any organizational transformation project. There is. Right. But same. Same here.

Jesse Morris: When, you know, a lot of pricing advice I think most of us hear about is all around willingness to pay. Right. It's like very focused on what is. What is the client willing to pay. Um, but you have a different take on that. You know, what is. What do you feel like is maybe more of the important aspect of pricing.

Roee Hartuv: Yeah. So although our company's Name is willingness to pay. Um, there's a different approach and it all goes around value selling and value pricing. When you think of it, B2B is sold differently than B2C. Willingness to pays a lot about B2C. And we've all, um, know the techniques and how McDonald's gets you to buy the, um, the extra large meals, etc. There's a lot of truth in that in B2C. But B2B is bought differently. One of the things is B2B is not bought by a single person. There's no one decision maker, there is a committee that is involved. So willingness to pay could be different for different people. Depends on how they perceived the, uh, potential value or output they will get from using your product. We know that in B2B a lot of it is around negotiation. So even, even if you have a list price, in a lot of cases it is negotiated. So yeah, there's some, uh, wiggle room on every price. I'm not saying it's good, but that's the reality. And yeah, willingness to pay really changes again from the perception of what is the perceived value. And it changes from one person to the next in a buying committee. So all that tells us that willingness to pay is probably not the most, uh, important, um, factor and in B2B is to focus on the perceived value and the ROI, the return on investment. And if you sell well doing that, then probably you can influence the buyer's willingness to pay. So it's kind of different than B2B to B2C. That's, that's the entire point here.

Jesse Morris: So very much like, you know, you hear a lot about value selling, but the idea right, is you, uh, know, all tying back to, and part of that's, you know, good discovery and uncovering pains and all that, you know, stuff. But then also to your point, tying it back to almost outcomes.

Roee Hartuv: Right.

Jesse Morris: I think that piece is something we don't hear a lot about. Um, and so when you think about pricing around that, you know, what is a way in which you guys, if you, if you look at it through this lens, less about willingness to pay on B2B and more about, you know, value and solution. How does that change your pricing strategy? How do you use that mentality to then go drive your strategy?

Roee Hartuv: Yeah, so we call it a pricing and packaging project or transformation. But I think the real magic is in packaging and it's not pricing. So we say it's not how much you charge your customers, it's how you charge your customers. So there's so much value to expect or potential by just creating the right packages. And for years I've been going around ever since I became a uh, go to Market Advisor. Value selling, value selling. We should not focus on features, we should focus on values and outcomes and impacts. That's all true, but if you don't have the right packaging, the talk and are centered around the potential impact value then you could train and tell your salespeople to focus on the outcome but it doesn't really work out. You need to build packages around sometimes it's job to be done, the outcome that your customers users are expected to get. And once you do that, that basically open up opens the potential magic of value and then your team can value selling, you can price on value, etc. So it's packaging which is more important than the actual number associated to the actual metric.

Jesse Morris: So when you say packaging like that, uh, you know, actually weirdly enough I haven't heard that term thrown around a lot in B2B SaaS. I mean conceptually it makes sense but I don't hear that term thrown around a lot. What does that mean to you? Like you know, help, you know those that listening today probably similar to me and maybe not even, you know, I've got actually experience doing pricing, maybe a lot of people don't. But what does that mean? What is when you say packaging, what does that look like? How do you do that?

Roee Hartuv: Well, one type of packaging is a tiering, right? We've got good, better, best, right? Something flawed about the good better best that it's based on features and pre feature usage. So take the good better best and turn that around on the jobs to be done and the value that they actually provide. So let's say. I'm a manufacturing, uh, I'm selling a manufacturing product and that sits on your manufacturing line and creates some sort of insights and value etc. The traditional way of packaging or tiering is let's take 40% of our customers, put them under, bundle the features that they need, put it under the first tier, second tier, another 40 and 20% or 10% on the high level tier and basically try to capture each segment's willingness to pay and price differently. But if we price it around, package it around their jobs to be done. Let's say in that manufacturing example, the basic tier, if you just want real time information, you might have some companies, some users, some customers that just want that real time visualization. It's a basic package, a more advanced package, let's say maybe that's Advanced analytics. So you not only your job to be done is not only to monitor but also to uh, get insights and to make decision on top of that. And let's take the last packages, the more mature, advanced, bigger. Sometimes it goes along that uh, is uh, predictive, uh, maintenance using AI, etc. I don't know. That's uh, something very advanced that is built on the visualization, the analytics, but now helps you make decisions or make decision on your behalf. So this is packaging around values and not based on features.

Jesse Morris: And I really like that. I haven't, I haven't heard a lot about that approach. Obviously. You know, I'm used to the tier method and that's probably the most common I see. And I've also worked in partner ecosystems. So you're doing a lot around like you know the type of partner they are as well. So you've got different breakpoints, you know, for each one of those. But that's an interesting take of this idea of. Yeah, I mean again it, to your point, it is tying back into that value selling and just. But like directly versus this idea of feature rich, you know, concept very much around, you know, type. It's almost like buying Personas to a degree. Right. It's a little bit different take on it.

Roee Hartuv: Yeah. And, and then it allows your sales team, when they talk to prospects, know, offer different uh, values or different jobs to be done. And based on who they're talking to, they know, hey, you probably need uh, the most advanced package that we have because you're a very mature company, you have multiple sites and you need to, whatever that might be. And then I'm talking about the outcome. So if you buy this package, these are the outcomes. You have predictive maintenance and you've got all these um, good stuff that are for our more mature advanced uh, companies. But if you're just a simple company, you just want visualization. This is the package for you. And in order to achieve that job to be done, these are the features that we have inside that package. But the entire conversation is around that value.

Jesse Morris: That's awesome. When you are helping companies like actually implement pricing, you know, one of the biggest challenges I always saw was you know, measuring effectiveness, measuring the impact, you know, because part of the job, you know, is to try to model out potential impact of it. And you know, I, you know, and I've done those models, you're still making assumptions like it's very assumption heavy. You can, you can use historical data but you're still making assumptions ultimately around where things are at like, what are the signals that tell you whether a pricing model is working, say three to six months before it shows up in the numbers?

Roee Hartuv: Yeah, so there's a lot of m modeling in the design phase. Let's model if we increase it by 20%, if we package it like this or like that, and this is an add on or this is whatever that might be. So I agree there's a lot of modeling and assumptions. However, again, coming from general go to market advisory that I have multiple growth levers and let's train your team or let's implement this tool and this process which takes months to see any results and you cannot tie it back to the actual, uh, you know, what you set out to do in the beginning because there are so much, so many moving parts. Pricing and packaging is relatively simple. Let's launch the new pricing, let's see how many customers or new deals have been closed with the new pricing and let's compare what they would have paid in the old pricing and with the new pricing. Let's see how that affected churn or how that affected the close rate. But um, yeah, I see. I, I think this is a relatively, compared to all the other activities that we have, this is relatively easy to

Jesse Morris: calculate and I think that makes, makes a lot of sense. I guess one of the things that I would, would challenge on that is like, if you think about pricing in the sense of, you know, coming in and you know, potentially impacting, you know, the upper tier of your business, you know, how do you. Yeah, how do you over? I mean, again, that's a lot of risk, right? I mean, potentially you're talking for some of these companies, you know, millions, tens of millions of dollars and even smaller SaaS companies, I mean, you're still talking, it's still a revenue base, right? So how do you mitigate some of that risk then going into some of these projects?

Roee Hartuv: So again, we, we don't do everything at once. We segment it. We take it step by step. We can always stop and say, hey, listen, the market is not reacting. Our existing customers are not accepting our prices. So we build that confidence and we know it's right now we do lose customers when we move than existing customers, uh, and they churn when we move into new pricing. But I've never been in a situation that we weren't able to increase the total revenue. And in a lot of cases the company is actually happy that they flushed away those, uh, unprofitable accounts that were just paying the legacy price that they signed off five years ago. And we were never able to migrate them and now that we wanted to move them to the new pricing m, they churned and in a lot of cases, yeah, we didn't want them in the first place. So yes, we do lose customers. No we do not lose revenue. And yeah, there's always an um, upside of the, of the revenue.

Jesse Morris: I think that's well said and I think you know this is a challenge. I think something that you know, with, with proper enablement you can overcome. But yeah, this idea that I think people are so ingrained like churns bad and obviously in general it's not a good thing but at times, and this is something we had to do in that project I was talking about two companies ago on the S and P segment at times like you don't want to keep every customer, uh, which is, which is a really hard thing to wrap your head around and it's not that you don't want to serve, uh, and you know, work with people but at the same time like sometimes it's just not a good fit. And not a good fit could come from a myriad of different reasons. But being willing to you know, I think kind of look yourself in the mirror as a company and go, okay, you know, what is a good fit? Uh, and ensuring there's alignment around that it can be really helpful.

Roee Hartuv: Just to give you an example, I coached uh, uh, CS Leader Company at 20 million and their ACV used to be uh, under 10K. Now we've done a project with them and now their ACV is running at around 3:15 on average but they still have the legacy accounts that are paying 2k 2000. Now I had to coach the CS manager and to tell her listen, it's okay, we're going to lose those accounts and it's fine. And if you need, although we didn't mention that if you need to, that we together will go to the CEO and tell him in this case that the logo churn is going to increase. However, because we're confident in the new pricing, we're confident that the revenue, revenue uh not churn but attainment is going to increase like the revenue for existing when we complete this migration we will do that. So this is the kind of thinking that sometimes yeah there is healthy churn. We do not necessarily want all of those customers.

Jesse Morris: I'm going to shift gears a little bit to I think a uh, more popular and common pricing methodology all around usage based. This is something that my company is evaluating right now and I would say kind of pros and Cons on each side of it, you know, and you know, being an agentic AI company for us, like you know, it, there's a lot of attraction because that's how LLMs price and so trying to align with what they do. But I also have seen the other side of it, um, as far as just complexity around budgeting. And even this morning right before I hopped in this call, uh, one of my team, team members, employees messaged me. He's like hey, I just hit my usage limit for the month, uh, which is the 12th of November, uh, for one of the limbs. And so I had to go in and increase the, you know, and all that. And so now like once again I'm not in this budgeting capability. Right. I don't really know what it's going to be at. Ah. So I'm curious from your, like what is your perspective on usage based pricing and where do you think, you know, does it ever make sense? And if it does, in what instances, what are the things you have to have in place in order to actually make it make sense versus when should you not use it at all?

Roee Hartuv: Yeah, I don't know if I have a rule of thumb of when it's right and when it's wrong. I probably need to think about this. Um, a hundred dollars from uh, recurring revenue versus a hundred dollars from usage. It's the same amount of dollars, uh, and both are good for us. Right. Um, the thing is uh, in usage based, as you said, we uh, need to have some features uh, in place even in the product. I'm not even talking about the billing system and that's obvious. Right, but even then the product, as you said, we have to first of all be able to measure that. And I had uh, a company I'm still working with and they wanted to move into some sort of usage based. And we started to design that. But all of a sudden the product team, the R and D team came and said hey, like we don't have a way to measure that. That's great and it will take us six months to develop this capability. So I was like, okay, you don't even have a way to measure that. It's not a viable metric to focus on. So visibility, uh, so be able to measure that and then being able to visualize that both for you as the provider and also for your customers. As you said, your employee reached a limitation. We need to notify them, um, they need to be able to control. So exactly as they gave you the control, there's a limit. You set the limit at 12k I think you mentioned or 12 November, but you get the limit and you can open that and you need the entire backend how to bill uh, uh, based on that. So there's a lot of infrastructure that goes on and it's not necessarily possible or relevant for every type of customer. Now the downside as you mentioned, um, forecasting both for you as a user, like in a lot of cases you don't know how much you would need to use, you cannot forecast the, the potential costs. Also for a company as the CFOs out there and especially investors, they don't like usage because they cannot necessarily uh, forecast based on that. So that, that's the limitation uh, of that and there's the entire cost thing that we need to bear in mind. Software cost is practically zero. We know that that's the great thing about SaaS and especially using AI, which is the number one thing around usage. Everybody's talking about that that comes at a cost and the cost is not zero. So this is something that we need to get right. Yeah but actually that's true for usage and if we do it on license based.

Jesse Morris: Have you seen like a hybrid approach to this? You know one of like. I think yeah, mostly what I've seen at least is you kind of go users or usage that seems to be more common. Um, you know sometimes I've, I have seen like usage with almost like the modules like so you're buying you know, features if you will and then on top of that you're getting charged usage. So you might have your tiering packaging level but you know it's still usage based for lack of a better word but it comes with more feature functionality. Have you seen anything where it's almost a combination where you've really. And then you've seen it actually work well?

Roee Hartuv: Yeah, yeah, it does work and does work well and again it solves that forecasting problem for the seller. Yeah because you know that there's a certain baseline of uh, revenue that you're going to get every month or every year. Right. So that's the recurring element and that's how you mitigate your risk and you get a certain upside on the usage which allows that flexibility. Uh, so definitely that, that's a great way to do it. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a good thing. I, yeah, I think you seed based and usage like I would like a feature like a base level and you get certain um, as part of that base package you get a certain amount of uh, free or that includes a certain amount of tokens, API calls, whatever that might be. But then you start stacking different, uh, usage on top of that, which then

Jesse Morris: you potentially get into complexity and adding more friction to the buying process. Right. Which is one of the bigger challenges of like, how do you keep things simple ultimately. Right.

Roee Hartuv: All right. And here's the great part. Um, I don't think we should be simple necessarily. Right. And there's like a line between having a very simple, the most simple product there is, or packaging and pricing is we're selling one product includes everything. It's very simple. Creates a, uh, very uh, frictionless sales process. But on the other hand, very complex that we charge. Yeah. Every customer according to exactly what they're buying. Right. And you need to play around with this and rule of thumb, uh, roughly around the acv. So lower acv, you probably want a very simple solution.

Jesse Morris: Solution.

Roee Hartuv: Let's take Zoom that we're using right now.

Jesse Morris: Right.

Roee Hartuv: The cost is simple. It's like, I don't know, 20 bucks a user a month. Very simple. You get everything. Or maybe they added the AI part, but it's very simple. On the other hand, take aws, the cloud. We're talking for many companies, uh, hundreds of thousands, millions in dollars. But it's very complex. I don't know if you've ever logged into the AWS and try to configure what you want. It's very, very complex. So they added this complexity in order to be able to uh, price the different needs very differently. So there is like, it depends on where you play and we play around with it.

Jesse Morris: When you think about some of the companies you've seen over the years, is there any like radical pricing models or approaches you've seen work really well? Like anything that maybe like, you know, we talked a lot about, I would say some of the more common things today, but if you see anything like more out of the box. And how is that?

Roee Hartuv: I just saw a post yesterday around FIN AI, that's intercom and intercom, uh, for our listeners. There was a lot of buzz two weeks ago that they offered, they moved into outcome based pricing. So they provide a agentic AI solution to solve tickets, uh, support tickets, and they charge 99 cents for every ticket closed by their AI agent, which is great. This is the outcome based, this is usage based. Fantastic. What I like even more is that I just noticed and uh, read this post yesterday that they introduced clean $1 million insurance. If their agentic AI caused any like, serious, uh, harm to your business by Losing customers or whatever that now without going into exactly what that means. But I think this is a fantastic use case. I was so, uh, excited to read about that because when you think of it, the biggest problem is risk. Right? When somebody tries, wants to buy and you interact with a potential buyer, what's going in their head is can I trust them? What they're saying is their ROI worth it? And now everybody, when you're talking about AI, how can I put my customers in front of an AI? I don't know what they're saying, how they're reacting, etc. But if a company takes all of that risk out of the table by giving you an insurance, $1 million for every harm, uh, our AI, um, uh, agent creates, uh, for your company. I was blown away and I think this is amazing, uh, an innovative approach to solve for that, uh, uh, for that problem. So I think that's, that's a fantastic approach.

Jesse Morris: I'm gonna have to look that up. I haven't, I haven't heard of that approach. And you know, being an AI, uh, company, we've been talking a lot about you know, the outcomes base. Like a lot of our pricing right now is, is m. It's more around like, you know, project based like outcome outcomes in the sense of like not tickets. But you know, we have to deliver this thing and it's flat rate and there's not this hourly, you know, complete component to it. And so people know going into it. But that's an interesting approach. I like, I like the idea and I like the, you know, the insurance side of it is, it is a fascinating one, especially in the AI side. So it's, it's really interesting. I'll look it up. So when you think about, you know, you've seen a lot of different B2B SaaS companies and how they approach pricing, you know, if you could fix one thing or recommend something to these companies that could really create value and drive impact, you know, what would that be?

Roee Hartuv: Yeah. I would go back to the point I raised earlier. Uh, pricing needs to be constantly revisited, uh, and tested. And we should think about pricing as something that is agile. Same as the product keeps on developing. Our pricing should continue to develop. And when you think of it, OpenAI changed their pricing 10 times in the last year, 12 months. Uh, and I'm not talking about the PRO account, I'm talking about the APIs. Right. For enterprises Salesforce with their agentic kind of solutions, they changed their pricing 13 times in the last 12 months. Wow. So these companies have the capability, of course, to constantly reevaluate, to test out new things. But I think they're showing the way for the rest of us that this is also how we should think about pricing and packaging and monetization in general.

Jesse Morris: That's awesome. And I do think, you know, the cool thing about AI is the ability to do this is going to get easier. Still hard. Don't want to sit here and make it sound easy, but easier. And I think that's why, you know, even the companies you mentioned are probably able to do 11 or 13 times in years because they've set up the systems and they're probably using AI to help with some of that repricing capability. So it makes a huge difference.

Roee Hartuv: And we.

Jesse Morris: Awesome. Well, hey, Roy, thanks so much for joining today. Those of you listening, if you aren't following Roy Best is to check him out on LinkedIn. I'll make sure I have the link in the thing, but. And then also, if you aren't subscribed to the podcast, please, like, subscribe. But, uh, Roy, again, really appreciate having you on the podcast today.

Roee Hartuv: Thank you. It was great. Thank you for having me.