Hi, OP chiming in...
We've come to realization that we need to move away from "per seat" licensing.
Whilst metered pricing would seem to be the most balanced approach, there are too many general, and industry specific cons to make it workable.
Has anyone been in this position before? Can you tell us how you moved to a different pricing strategy? Did you end up making less per customer?
Any advice/anecdata would be great.
Pricing is a dark art but essentially tiered pricing is usually about going after different sets of customers who have clearly different needs and clearly different propensity to pay.
For example, you sell premium email accounts which give you a back rub when you send an email. There might be some luxury retail customers who love backrubs and would pay $30 a month for that service, but they're not gonna pay $20.000. But a hedgefund might see this as an essential part of their recruitment and retention strategy. They have very different needs like email audit, but also they might pay $1000 a year for one person. You want to tier those customers out.
Metering works better when the thing you sell has some real cost. An API that sends you a handwritten letter giving you a personalised compliment - that should be metered because of the cost per unit. You are encouraging the user to use your product less which is often not ideal.
>Why don't we see a greater proportion of metered pricing vs plan tiers?
I think it's because most sw companies pay very little on cost of goods so whether you use 10.000 or 10 of their product doesn't cost them more or less. Tiers are a way of offering the 'same' product to two different people who have different budgets and optimising for those budgets - this happens with software quite a bit.
If you have low cost of goods and one type of customer - just charge on price. No need to cargo-cult other start ups.