$50 is a much better minimum buy-in for most B2B services than $20 is. You'll make a lot more money, sure, but you'll enjoy the reduced support headaches and vastly lower churn even more.
You might think the stylized math is "Out of an initial notional pool of 50 lower-value accounts and 50 higher-value accounts you shed 40 of the lower and none of the higher, resulting in ~50% higher revenue."
That's not usually what happens. What happens is closer to:
That's not usually what happens. What happens is closer to:
You've got 10 pathological customers, 10 low-value customers, and 80 high-value customers in a notional pool of 100 accounts. You lose 8 of the pathological customers, 2 of the low-value customers, and none of the high-value customers.
Your support load decreases *by half.*
Your support load decreases *by half.*
(Note that it takes a while for this sort of thing to catch up because, as a savvy SaaS entrepreneur, you're not raising the price for existing users but rather raising it on new cohorts.)
This also tends to improve the product over time, too, since all of your inbox is from customers who understand that your product is worth $50+ a month, can trivially budget that for their business, and have the kinds of sophistication-increasing feedback you'd expect.
So you're pulled in the direction of "Can you integrate this with [ERP commonly deployed in your space]?" or "I'm an enterprise, can I get this with better auditing tools for 10X as much money?" and not "Ugh this is so complicated; can you make it more like Facebook please."
Complexity isn't a mark of good software but a lot of good B2B software is complex, principally because you're generally helping professionals work and the work professionals do is intrinsically complex.
There are better and worse ways to expose/manage that complexity.
There are better and worse ways to expose/manage that complexity.
