[AznHisoka]

>> think about test-prep service that promises to only need to pay if you get X score, real-estate agent that carry commission as a % of sale price, etc.

I think those examples work because there is a clear, tight relationship and linkage between their work and outcome with very few external dependencies. If a a real estate agent can’t find you a seller, they’re 100% useless. They control 99% of the results.

There is very few software, on the other hand that clearly has that relationship. A sales tool that bills based on number of meetings has no control whether you have product market fit, whether you’re in a saturated market, or whether your sales rep is good at cultivating relationships. What makes more sense is billing you based in your usage. How successful the outcomes are from that usage is too dependent on so many variables that the software simply can not control… i don’t see why any software company would want to bill based on outcomes because of this

[benjsm]

I get it. It definitely isn’t the right fit for every use case at this point in time. That’s why we’ve built support for subscription and usage models as well. Then there's incentive for a sales tool to still charge on usage or subscriptions (slightly less than they normally would), but have the upside of an outcome converting. For buyers, this should be seen as the seller having confidence in their product.