I am the owner of a small business with four, sometimes five, employees. I would very much like to upgrade my account to Enterprise as there are several features I would like access to, notably granular security, but also others like two way sync that would be very useful. I also suspect given recent announcements, like AI, that more and more features will only be available on the Enterprise level subscription tier. So I approached the sales team, as the only way of investigating the implications of upgrading my Pro tier plan, which I have had for a number of years now. Imagine my surprise when I am informed that there is a minimum user count of 20 users, plus a not insignificant price rise, and a requirement for annual payment. I expected a price rise and can understand, even if I don't like the annual payment, but the effective cost increase to to me is getting close to a 1000%. So I asked myself what possible justification could there be for preventing access to individuals or teams smaller than 20 by demanding they pay such an enormous increase to access feature(s) that they are currently denied. I understand some aspects, e.g. the human effort required to supply support/training/integration type services that come with an Enterprise tier is expensive. I don't understand denying other features like fully granular data security which one would assume is a top priority for all users? I'd like to think everyone deserves to have good data security, not just those with deep pockets.
Given I suspect the new AI features are likely to be Enterprise only (just my guess) I thought I would pose the question to AI by asking what a highly respected moral philosopher, Immanuel Kant, might say about this. Here is what I got;
"If we accept Kant's perspective that humans should not be treated merely as a means to an end, we can argue that service providers should extend their best features and offerings not only to large organizations or multiple users, but also to individuals and small companies.
In summary, by appealing to principles of equal worth, fairness, market potential, ethical reputation, and the stimulation of innovation, you can present a compelling argument to service providers, urging them to extend their best features and offerings to individuals and small companies."
So that all makes sense to me, but I was interested if there was a counterargument to this position and here's what I got:
It's important to consider these counterarguments as they highlight potential perspectives that service providers may have regarding resource allocation, scalability, differentiation, competitive advantage, and market demand. Responding to these counterarguments would require addressing the specific concerns raised and presenting alternative solutions or benefits that outweigh the perceived drawbacks."
So I thought OK fair points but do any of them stand up to further analysis or are they more like excuses?:
"If we accept Kant's perspective and prioritize the ethical principle of not using humans as mere means to an end, the counterarguments presented earlier may still face challenges. Let's analyse them in light of Kant's perspective:
In summary, while the presented counterarguments may still hold practical considerations, they might struggle to align with Kant's perspective if they prioritize efficiency, resource allocation, market segmentation, competitive advantage, or demand viability over the ethical treatment of individuals and small companies. Service providers should strive to find ethical ways to accommodate a diverse range of customers while maintaining their business objectives."
I think that summarises the situation very well. I hope Airtable isn't happy to put profits over ethics. I know that Airtable cares about inclusivity! I can only hope that this post helps them realise that by making features financially inaccessible to individuals and smaller teams they might be damaging themselves. For clarity when I say feature I am referring to technical features of the platform and not to resource limits like rows of data, number of automations, or human related services like training. I am referring to data security, two way sync, AI, etc.
What do you think?
Subscription tiers can have several unseen implications for businesses and consumers. Here are a few examples:
Customer Segmentation: Subscription tiers allow businesses to segment their customer base into different groups based on their needs and willingness to pay. This segmentation helps businesses target specific customer segments with tailored offerings and pricing, capcut template, maximizing revenue potential. However, it can also create a divide among customers, potentially leading to dissatisfaction or the perception of unfairness if the tier structure is not transparent or well-communicated.
Perceived Value: The different features and benefits offered in each subscription tier can affect the perceived value of the service. Higher-tier subscriptions often include additional features, exclusive content, or enhanced customer support. This can lead customers to perceive higher value in these tiers and justify paying a higher price. On the other hand, lower-tier subscribers may feel they are missing out on certain benefits and may consider upgrading their subscription.
While market segment differentiation can be a valid business strategy, service providers should ensure that such differentiation does not undermine the principle of equal treatment. Offering exclusive features only to larger organizations could be seen as prioritizing profit over ethical considerations Capcut Templates.
The different features and benefits offered in each subscription tier can affect the perceived value of the service. Higher-tier subscriptions often include additional features, exclusive content, or enhanced customer support.