Yeah…I’m not so sure about this. Operator gripe: I get the theory, but try managing an increasingly fragmented installed base especially for PLG. Customer comms and billing are only the surface-level problems. In a PLG biz, customers on different plan generations encounter different features, limits, upgrade paths, and discovery experiences. How do you maintain a coherent product-led journey across that landscape? It's hard enough trying to do that on a 3-4 release cadence annually before adding two P&P updates. Yes, you could put the things together but sometimes I don't like pairing P&P with releases because it pulls from the core marketing focus. And, it also contaminates your measurement. Adoption rates, upgrade behavior, and churn signals increasingly reflect differences in packaging and entitlement vs. actually different customers. If we're talking pricing only, then sure, six months is a decent interval. The moment you do packaging it's a different story. If someone has solved this while I wasn't looking please let me know!

This sounds amazing. Can we please record this? I'm running an offsite next week otherwise I'd be in the first row with popcorn in hand. Thanks!

I've gotten as far as writing the requirements for the changes to CPQ or the website but never actually pushed the buttons myself. This would be handled by a salesforce admin or web team respectively.

Hey all - another timely post as I'm working on add-on strategy this week. Here's my thinking so far. Most of us know the classic Relative Preference × Relative WTP quadrant model for deciding what should be an add-on vs. included. Especially that low preference / high WTP quadrant that often gets labeled as prime add-on land. I find that approach to be a bit incomplete or inadequate when actually layering the add-on into my lineup. The secondary lens I'm using is bridges vs. bypasses. Rough definition... Bridge: an add-on that helps customers naturally progress as they grow or get more sophisticated. The need shows up because things are working. Bypass: an add-on that lets customers get around friction or limits that already exist. It removes a constraint rather than unlocking something new. When you overlay this on the quadrant model: High preference / low WTP - features tend to feel like bypasses when monetized (toll booths, nickel-and-diming). Low preference / high WTP - work as situational bridges for a small but intense segment. High preference / high WTP - where true bridges usually live and monetization feels earned. Low / low - skip, nobody cares Big takeaway for me: Preference × WTP tells you if you can monetize something. Bridge vs. bypass tells you how it feels when you do. This was the missing part. Anyone else looking it this way or a different way aside from just the quadrant? When I have time, I want to deep dive into this new add-on collection to see what others are doing. Curious if others think about add-ons this way, or where you’ve seen bypasses work (or not work).

Yes. This has been absolutely top of mind. Here's how we're tackling it b/c I don't think the credit route is right for us for the near term. We've built what I've nicknamed the Swiss watch. It's a monetization system with four interlocking gears. Some monetize directly but others don't. And in our case, AI (copilots, agents, etc.) don't get their own meter. They spin one or more of the gears. A few nice things about this approach: Margin Control at the Gear Level: Margins stay stable because each loop is priced to hit a certain gross-margin profile. Even if AI ramps usage, the blended math works. No credits (at least not yet) because our ICP doesn’t want to manage credits. We want using the product to feel natural, not like checking a balance. It's also a heavy lift and the juice isn't worth the squeeze yet. Long story short, we built a system that is durable enough (I think and hope) to weather all the new AI stuff. At least for the next year or two...

@Rob Litterst Sure. DM me and let's set up something next week. Thanks!