01
Client context
Seat-based pricing was limiting adoption inside customer organisations, and competitors had begun introducing consumption-based models.
02
Business challenge
Leadership feared a model change would confuse buyers, reduce predictability for finance teams and put existing revenue at risk.
03
Research objective & questions
Identify the value metric customers find fair, estimate willingness to pay, and design a package structure and migration approach.
- Which value metric best reflects how customers perceive value?
- How important is cost predictability to buyers?
- What are customers willing to pay by segment?
- How should existing customers be migrated?
04
Methodology & approach
- Value-driver interviews
- Economic buyers, data leaders and procurement.
- Van Westendorp and Gabor-Granger
- Price sensitivity across segments.
- Choice-based conjoint
- Testing package structures, usage allowances and add-ons.
- Competitive pricing review
- Published and buyer-reported pricing of alternatives.
05
Sample & geography
- ~20 value-driver IDIs
- ~300 B2B survey respondents
- Geography — United States and United Kingdom
06
Key findings
- Buyers accepted usage-based pricing but wanted a committed base with predictable overage.
- Willingness to pay differed sharply between analytics-mature and early-stage teams.
- Procurement teams strongly preferred annual commitments over pure pay-as-you-go.
- Two capabilities were valued enough to sit in a premium tier.
07
Business implications
- Introduce a hybrid model: platform fee plus usage bands.
- Create three tiers aligned to analytics maturity.
- Migrate existing customers with a protected-price period.
08
Outcome
The client received a recommended value metric, tier architecture and migration plan backed by buyer evidence.
Example engagement — Shows how Hoog approaches this type of question. Not a specific client project. Findings are directional.