Hybrid SaaS Solutions

For years, it was a debate: Product-led or sales-led? Self-serve or high-touch? PLG or enterprise sales? Pick one. Can't do both. Turns out, that was wrong. The best SaaS companies are doing both. And it's working. What's happening: Companies starting PLG, adding sales for expansion. Companies starting sales-led, adding self-serve for smaller deals. The hybrid model is winning. Examples: Slack: Started pure PLG. Free teams sign up. Upgrade when ready. Then added enterprise sales team for Fortune 500. Now: Self-serve for SMB. Sales-led for enterprise. Notion: Free individual accounts. Teams form organically. Enterprise sales team closes 6-figure deals with strategic accounts. Figma: Designers sign up free. Teams adopt bottom-up. Sales team comes in when company wants enterprise features. The pattern: PLG gets you in the door fast. Sales takes you upmarket. Why this works: PLG creates demand. Sales captures value. Small teams self-serve at $50/month. Large companies need hand-holding at $50K/year. Same product. Different motion. Stop asking "PLG or sales?" Start asking "Which customer segments need which motion?" Small teams with simple needs → PLG Large teams with complex needs → Sales The infrastructure this requires: Self-serve onboarding (no human needed) Usage-based triggers (when to involve sales) Expansion playbooks (moving PLG users to paid plans) Sales team that can take warm PLG leads and expand them Companies getting this right: Calendly: Free for individuals. Sales for teams Airtable: Free for small teams. Enterprise sales for large. Loom: Self-serve everywhere. Sales for strategic accounts. The insight: You're not choosing between PLG and sales. You're choosing which customers get which experience. The question for your SaaS: Which customer segments should self-serve? Which need high-touch sales? And how do you move between them? That's the game now.

Having founded two SaaS companies (Statista and ECDB), I've watched pricing models evolve from simple seat-based subscriptions to something far more nuanced. Today, I want to share my findings on what pricing model works for many SaaS companies, and what we’ve learned. Seat-based pricing means you buy x seats, use 70-80% actively, and everyone gets tool access. Simple. But the world has changed. Today, data flows through multiple channels, which means a seat does not reflect actual usage anymore. Data can now be accessed in various ways: 📈 Direct API integrations with BI tools 🤖 AI assistants answering ad-hoc questions 🖥️ Automated workflows pulling market data daily 🧑💻 MCPs (APIs for LLMs) enabling new use cases A single developer might automate queries for an entire organization. Ten analysts may share one dashboard but rarely log in. Why should they all pay the same? It doesn’t make sense. According to an OMR/hy study, usage-based pricing adoption in SaaS jumped from 31% to 67% in just two years. The reason? AI and automation are making per-seat models obsolete. When one employee can automate what previously required five, charging per seat doesn't reflect value delivered. The software’s true value comes from enhancing efficiency, output, or outcomes, not the headcount. That is why we at ECDB are moving to a hybrid model: platform access + consumption credits. 👇 Here's our approach: 1. Platform tiers remain - You still choose a plan based on team size and features needed. 2. Credits introduced - Each plan includes base credits for downloads and light API usage. Heavy automation requires add-on credit bundles with volume discounts. 3. Fair pricing across channels - Whether you access a data point via xls, API call, or AI query - same credit cost. No more arbitrary pricing based on how you access the data. We found that this model works best for us right now. I welcome feedback from our customers, other SaaS founders, and industry experts. Are you seeing similar shifts in your products?

Everyone agrees usage-based pricing is the future of SaaS. But is it ACTUALLY delivering stronger performance? We dug into the 2025 Software Equity Group B2B SaaS report and layered in Monevate’s own pricing and segmentation data. Here’s what we found: 💡 Usage-based pricing is now more common than user-based (37 companies vs. 24 in the dataset). The shift is real. 📉 But the performance tells a more complicated story. Usage-based models show similar growth to user-based, but with significantly lower EBITDA margins. 🤔 However, valuation multiples for companies with each model are nearly identical. That disconnect suggests investor preference is inflating usage-based multiples beyond what fundamentals alone would justify. Does that mean usage-based pricing isn’t delivering? No—there’s a variant that is clearly a winner. 🔀 Hybrid pricing, combining elements of user-based AND usage-based models, is outperforming both. On ALL key performance metrics. ✔️ Higher growth. ✔️ Higher margins. ✔️ Higher valuation multiples. Often seen as “the best of both worlds,” hybrid pricing’s performance data suggests it might just be living up to that title. 👇  Seeing this in your own data or GTM shifts? Want the full findings? Drop a comment or DM me and I’ll send the full 10-slide deck + dataset. #SaaS #Pricing #HybridPricing #UsageBasedPricing #Valuation #SaaSGrowth #SaaSInvesting -- Hybrid pricing outperforms user- and usage-based models on growth, margin, AND valuation.

Seat-based pricing is dying faster than most CEOs realize. 12 months ago: 50% of B2B SaaS used flat or seat-based models Today: Down to 27% Projected 2027: <10% The shift? 41% of companies are now using hybrid pricing models. At SaaS Metrics Palooza, I walked through why this is happening, and the framework we use to build hybrid models that actually work. Here's the reality: AI changed who does the work. It's not just humans anymore. It's systems completing tasks, generating summaries, resolving tickets, approving requests, all autonomously. So how do you charge for that? By the person? The product? The outcome? Answer: It depends on who's doing more of the work. The BAM Framework - Base, Allowance, Meter These 3 layers create 5 different hybrid pricing models: 1/ Access Tiers (Base only) - Different AI complexity per tier, fair usage policy 2/ Flat + Unit (Base + Meter) - Platform fee + outcome-based hybrid pricing 3/ Flat + Limit + Unit (All 3 layers) - Most popular hybrid, includes volume + overages 4/ Credit-Based (Base + Allowance) - PLG favorite hybrid, but don't fall into cost-plus trap 5/ Pay-As-You-Go (Meter only) - Pure consumption, AI infrastructure The pattern from 400+ transformations: Companies using Flat + Limit + Unit (Model 3) are seeing the most traction. Why? It gives customers predictability (base fee + included volume) while capturing expansion value (usage after allowance). But, and this is critical, you need safety mechanisms. → Predict usage (dashboards, estimators) → Prevent surprises (match reset timing to contracts) → Protect customers (caps, true-up options, don't penalize usage) The companies winning with hybrid pricing aren't just picking a trendy model. They're designing the model that fits how their AI actually creates value. Based on Tremont's research: Hybrid models are capturing 3-4x more expansion revenue than traditional seat-based pricing. The question isn't "should we go hybrid?" It's "which hybrid model fuels OUR growth?" Which model fits your product? Person doing the work or product doing the work?

Just read the 2024 SaaS Benchmarks Report by High Alpha. One stat jumped off the page... Companies with Net Revenue Retention (NRR) >106% grow 2.5X faster than those <98%. That's a significant gap. To illustrate the impact, consider a $20M ARR company: - At ~112% NRR, it ADDS $4M in revenue from existing customers. - At ~94% NRR, it LOSES $1M due to churn. The ~94% company would need to add $5M in new revenue to keep up with the ~112% company, which does so while adding ZERO new logos. But like many things in SaaS, hitting high NRR is easier said than done. Here's why: Many SaaS companies assume that customers will naturally move from left to right in a Good-Better-Best (GBB) model. While that happens, it's often a slow journey, with customers staying in their chosen plan for years. Others rely on charging based on "seats" or "users" to hit NRR targets, but this requires your customers to add more staff who need to use your software. Adding staff is expensive and often the first cost cut during tough times. So, tying your pricing to headcount can be risky. In many B2B scenarios, the number of users isn't closely linked to the value you deliver, which can lead to the opposite result—eventual churn due to a value disconnect. Clearly, we need additional mechanisms to capture more value from customers if we want best-in-class NRR. This is where adopting a hybrid model comes into play. Charge for additional usage-based elements to achieve more vertical expansion while offering lateral expansion through your existing packaging. In other words, allow customers to stay in their current plan but pay more as they use more—think number of appointments booked, documents sent for e-signature, or AI videos created. By building hybrid pricing models—combining lateral expansion (feature differentiation and workflow enhancements) with vertical expansion (additional usage-based metrics)—you can achieve best-in-class NRR. This approach aligns your pricing with the actual value delivered without forcing customers into higher tiers or relying solely on them to hire more staff. Are you still relying only on seat-based pricing and hoping customers will upgrade?

Forget what you've heard….. Sales-led growth isn't dead, it's changing. Product-led vs. Sales-led Growth vs. Both - Which One Fits Your Business? In B2B SaaS, we're obsessed with the PLG vs. SLG debate, But here's the twist: this either/or thinking might be your biggest mistake, After 20+ years steering global B2B marketing from startups to enterprises, I've found that actual success lies in the middle ground. This is what I've learned about choosing the right approach: 1️⃣ Understanding the Difference: ◼️ PLG: Product drives acquisition, conversion, and expansion ◼️ SLG: The sales team drives customer acquisition and account growth 2️⃣ Key Factors to Consider: ◼️ Product Complexity: High complexity? SLG might be better ◼️ Price Point: Lower price? PLG could be more efficient ◼️ Target Market: Tech-savvy users? PLG. Enterprise? SLG ◼️ Sales Cycle: Shorter cycles favor PLG, longer ones SLG 3️⃣ Metrics That Matter: ◼️ PLG: User activation rate, time-to-value, expansion revenue ◼️ SLG: Sales cycle length, customer acquisition cost (CAC), lifetime value (LTV) 4️⃣ My Experience: Blending Strategies at SnapLogic ◼️ Challenge: High-value product, but needed faster market penetration ◼️ Solution: Implemented a hybrid approach - Created a freemium version for self-serve users (PLG) - Maintained enterprise sales team for high-touch deals (SLG) ◼️ Result: 3x increase in qualified pipeline within 6 months ✳️ It's Not Always Either/Or ◼️ Many successful companies use a hybrid model ◼️ Start with your customer - their needs should drive your strategy The bottom line? Don't let the PLG vs. SLG debate paralyze your decision-making. Use the power of "and" instead of "or." Remember, the best growth strategy aligns with your product, market, and customer needs. It's not about following trends but finding what works for your business. P.S. What's your experience with PLG or SLG? Or are you using a hybrid approach? Share your insights below! #ProductLedGrowth #SalesLedGrowth #B2BStrategy #SaaSGrowth

The era of 90% SaaS gross margins is ending. We are sleepwalking into a margin crisis. As AI takes over, the "Pure Seat" model breaks because seats decline. But the "Flat Fee" model is even more dangerous—it destroys margins when power users consume massive amounts of compute. We are looking at a future where SaaS margin expectations reset from the historical 80-90% range to something closer to 40-50%. So, is the answer "Outcome-Based Pricing"? No. Despite the hype, less than 1% of SaaS providers successfully pull this off. Why? 1. Attribution is messy: Most products can’t prove they caused the outcome. 2. CFOs hate it: Procurement demands budget certainty. You can’t budget for "variable success." The Winner: The Hybrid Model The only model surviving this transition balances predictability with protection: ✅ The Platform Fee (Predictable): Covers access, governance, and data. This keeps the CFO happy and anchors the contract. ✅ The Metered Component (Bounded): Charges for value-linked events (artifacts, resolutions, decisions). This protects your downside on compute costs. If you aren't auditing your pricing model for "Compute Risk" right now, you are effectively subsidizing your customers' AI usage. https://lnkd.in/eD4wY37N #SaaS #PricingStrategy #GrossMargins #AI

Most brands are asking the wrong question. At Informa's Restaurant Leadership Conference, everyone was talking about tech stacks—built systems vs. bought systems. But here’s the truth no one wants to say out loud: It’s not “built” or “bought.” It’s both. That’s where the real power is. That’s where smart brands win. In my latest podcast episode, I break down what this actually looks like—and why the hybrid path is the most ROI-positive move for mid-market and enterprise restaurant brands today. 📌 Quick hits from the episode: - Bought systems feel easier. They’re plug-and-play. Fast to deploy. But they force your roadmap into someone else’s box. Their roadmap, not yours. - Built systems give you control. But they come with big time, big budget, and big risk. - Hybrid systems are where the magic happens. Use best-in-class platforms like Olo or Spendgo as the engine, then build a custom experience around them that’s on-brand and on-strategy. This approach is called decoupled architecture. And while that might sound techy, it’s the most strategic play you can make if you want your digital guest experience to actually reflect your brand. 🧁 Examples? Great American Cookies – 3D Custom Cookie Cake Builder Duck Donuts – Custom Dozen Donut Builder with full toppings and glaze customization (Links in comments) You won’t find that in a SaaS plug-in. 👇 Let’s keep the conversation going: Where has a built system helped you win? What’s worked well from a bought system? Have you found success with a hybrid model? Let’s trade notes. Let’s build better. #RestaurantTech #RestaurantBranding #HospitalityInnovation #RestaurantStrategy #CX #DigitalGuestExperience #TechStack #BrandExperience #DecoupledArchitecture #HybridBuild

Integration is no longer “just connect System A to System B.” Most landscapes today mix cloud apps, on‑premise systems, and external partners—each with different connectivity and security needs. Many teams design integrations as if everything lives in one place. In reality, some systems are deep inside the data center, some are SaaS in the public cloud, and some belong to partners. Without a clear view of cloud vs on‑premise vs hybrid scenarios, it is easy to pick the wrong pattern, overcomplicate connectivity, or ignore security constraints. Cloud‑to‑cloud: CPI sits in SAP BTP and connects directly to SaaS solutions (e.g., SAP S/4HANA Cloud, SuccessFactors, external CRM), using internet‑based protocols and modern APIs; this is the most straightforward scenario for CPI. On‑premise‑to‑cloud: CPI connects to systems inside your data center (like SAP S/4HANA on‑premise or ECC) via secure channels such as SAP Cloud Connector or VPN, handling challenges like firewalls, network latency, and closed inbound ports. On‑premise‑to‑on‑premise via cloud: even when both endpoints are on‑premise, CPI can act as a central cloud broker if you design secure outbound connections from each side into CPI instead of opening your network broadly. Hybrid scenarios: real projects often combine all three patterns—on‑premise ERPs, cloud HR, external logistics, and partner platforms—so CPI must orchestrate data flows across multiple directions while keeping security and governance consistent. A good design always starts with a landscape diagram: where each system lives (cloud/on‑prem), how it connects (direct, Cloud Connector, VPN, reverse proxy), and which flows really need to pass through CPI. Imagine this setup: SAP S/4HANA on‑premise in your data center. SAP SuccessFactors in the cloud. A third‑party payroll provider as another SaaS. CPI can receive employee changes from SuccessFactors, pull additional data from S/4HANA via Cloud Connector, then send a consolidated payload to the payroll provider over a secure HTTPS API—one central integration flow crossing cloud and on‑premise boundaries without exposing your internal network directly. Cloud, on‑premise, and hybrid are not buzzwords; they describe real technical constraints that shape how CPI should be used. If you map your landscape clearly first, the right CPI pattern and connectivity options almost choose themselves. This is Day 5 of #100DaysSAPCPI – understanding where CPI fits in cloud, on‑premise, and hybrid scenarios. How would you describe your current landscape: mostly cloud, mostly on‑premise, or truly hybrid—and does your integration design reflect that reality?

At Stripe, we’re building the economic infrastructure for AI—and that means obsessing over how to help any company effectively monetize AI. Today, 62% of the Forbes AI 50 use Stripe Billing. That gives us a front-row seat to the experiments the fastest-growing AI businesses are running. Unlike traditional SaaS, AI products face high variable compute costs and explosive demand. Pure subscriptions don’t cover inference costs; pure usage-based pricing is too unpredictable. The winning pattern we see: hybrid pricing. Companies pair a base subscription with included usage, then charge pay-as-you-go for anything above. Customers get predictability, companies get sustainable margins—a win-win for both sides. Here’s what we’ve learned about pricing your AI offerings: https://lnkd.in/gW9U6Tqz.