(topic withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 1 hour unless flagged)
It seems like a steep price because it is a steep price.
Airtable’s pricing matrix fails to stratify the market with any precision. I, for example, have 38 clients who use Airtable; each with many who are paying for pro accounts. I occasionally need to look at a Script Block or a feature block to support this client base. But I rarely use feature blocks of any type for my own use. And all integration in my two companies are based on API solutions.
In that sense, I am a producer of data, not a consumer per-se. Unlike Coda - where there are “Makers” of solutions, Airtable it’s an all or nothing proposition - you’re a “user”. I’m not suggesting I should be treated special, but I am suggesting the payment I make for a Pro account is somewhat hollow. I suspect this sentiment is pervasive among the Airtable consultant and developer community.
There’s a better model…
Imagine if freelancers and consultants were paid a royalty based on data flows into Airtable from their respective clients. No consultant would flinch paying the $240 bucks if the annual data vig was a grand or two. And it’s likely that many more consultants would flock to this great tool to leverage it for their customers. Predictably, a revenue-sharing model like this would drive Airtable’s revenues far in excess of the royalties because we’d all have a deep incentive to nudge clients towards this platform and sustain and grow its use across our client bases.
Most will chuckle when they read this idea, but I’m not drunk (at the moment); totally serious. This is economics 101 in a free-market system. Incentives (and disincentives) often establish a fine line between failure, success, and hyper-success.