[mushufasa]

This sounds really great in concept.

I don't see detail here. As someone who would be interested in using this, can you clearly explain how you will measure and track the outcomes? That's the key detail that matters.

Relying on customers to self-report is not sufficient, and an automated self-report-system is not a true improvement.

[benjsm]

Thank you! To define the outcomes, it will be up to our customer and their users to state precisely what an outcome is and how it will appear. Once we have that information, we sync into their systems of record and act as that verification layer. It’s not an automated self-report-system, because they don’t have to report anything. As the work gets completed successfully (ie, a meeting booked or a customer support ticket closed) we will see it, verify it and bill it in realtime.

Would love to chat as well ([e-mail]) if you have any questions specific to your use case. May be able to give a better answer, as the nuance really varies by use case.

[mushufasa]

"we sync into their systems of record and act as that verification layer"

As long as those 'systems of record' are controlled by the customer, then that is self reporting. If they don't enter a sale into their CRM or tag it differently there's nothing you can do.

The industries where I have seen pay-for-outcomes work are industries where there are regulated legal controls or strong third parties. For example, a lot of financial services have commission payments that are based on the actual invested assets as measured by the bank/custodian, that then get paid out to salespeople or partnerships.

[AznHisoka]

>> we will see it, verify it and bill it in realtime.

How do you verify that work got completed?