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.
- Equal Inherent Worth: Kant emphasized the intrinsic value and dignity of every individual, regardless of their status or role in society. By denying individuals and small companies access to the best features and offerings, service providers may be treating them as mere means to profit, disregarding their inherent worth. This contradicts the ethical principle of treating all individuals with equal respect and dignity.
- Fairness and Justice: Kant advocated for the principle of treating others as ends in themselves, implying that everyone deserves fair treatment and equal opportunities. Service providers that exclusively cater to large organizations or multiple users while neglecting individuals or small companies create an imbalance in access to valuable resources. This unequal distribution undermines the principles of fairness and justice, as it perpetuates advantages for the already powerful and disadvantages for the less influential.
- Market Potential: Neglecting individuals and small companies as potential customers can lead to missed opportunities for service providers. By offering their best features to a wider range of clients, including individuals and small companies, service providers can tap into new markets, expand their customer base, and potentially increase their overall revenue. Failing to recognize the potential in these segments can limit growth and hinder long-term sustainability.
- Ethical Reputation: Today, ethical considerations are increasingly important for consumers and stakeholders. Companies that are seen as caring about fairness, inclusivity, and equal treatment are often viewed more favourably by the public. By extending their best features and offerings to individuals and small companies, service providers can enhance their ethical reputation, build trust, and attract a broader customer base.
- Innovation and Creativity: Individuals and small companies often possess unique ideas, perspectives, and potential for innovation. By providing them with access to the best features and offerings, service providers can nurture creativity, support entrepreneurship, and foster a more diverse and dynamic market environment. This can lead to a richer ecosystem of ideas and contribute to overall societal progress.
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:
- "Scalability and Efficiency: Service providers may argue that their primary focus is on scalability and efficiency, which can be better achieved by catering to large organizations or multiple users. Offering their best features to individuals or small companies might require significant resources in terms of customization, support, and maintenance. By focusing on larger clients, service providers can streamline their operations and provide a more cost-effective and standardized service.
- Resource Allocation: Service providers might argue that their limited resources are better utilized by targeting larger clients. These clients typically generate higher revenue and have greater demands, making them more lucrative for the business. Allocating resources to serve individuals or small companies, who may have lower budgets and less demanding requirements, may not be financially viable or sustainable for the service provider.
- Market Segment Differentiation: Service providers may choose to differentiate their offerings based on market segments. By providing exclusive features or services to larger organizations, they can position themselves as catering to the specific needs and scale of those clients. This differentiation strategy allows service providers to capture the market niche for larger clients, while other providers may focus on serving individuals or small companies, thus diversifying the overall market landscape.
- Competitive Advantage: Service providers might argue that catering to larger organizations or multiple users gives them a competitive advantage in the market. By providing tailored solutions and exclusive features, they can attract and retain these clients, establishing long-term partnerships. This advantage can lead to higher revenue, better negotiation power, and overall business growth, which may not be achievable by serving individuals or small companies exclusively.
- Limited Demand or Viability: Service providers might claim that the demand for their best features among individuals or small companies may be limited or insufficient to justify the investment required to offer those features. They may argue that the majority of their customer base consists of larger organizations or multiple users, and their business model is aligned with serving this particular segment effectively.
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:
- Scalability and Efficiency: While scalability and efficiency are important considerations for service providers, they should not be pursued at the expense of treating individuals or small companies as mere means. Kant's perspective emphasizes the inherent worth of every individual, regardless of their size or status. Service providers could explore alternative approaches to balancing scalability and efficiency with the ethical treatment of all customers, including offering standardized features to larger clients while still providing essential services and support to individuals and small companies.
- Resource Allocation: Kant's ethical framework suggests that equal respect and dignity should be extended to all individuals, regardless of their financial resources or demands. While resource allocation is a practical concern for service providers, they should strive to find ways to accommodate individuals and small companies within their resource limitations. This could involve finding cost-effective solutions, leveraging economies of scale, or seeking partnerships that allow for broader access to their best features.
- Market Segment Differentiation: 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. Kant's perspective encourages treating all individuals as ends in themselves, suggesting that market differentiation should not result in the exclusion or marginalization of certain customer segments.
- Competitive Advantage: While achieving a competitive advantage is important for service providers, it should not come at the expense of using individuals or small companies as mere means. Kant's ethical framework emphasizes fair treatment and equal opportunities for all. Service providers can seek competitive advantage through other means, such as innovation, superior customer service, or creating value in ways that do not compromise the ethical treatment of individuals and small companies.
- Limited Demand or Viability: Service providers may argue that limited demand or viability justifies their exclusive focus on larger clients. However, Kant's perspective urges us to consider the ethical treatment of all individuals, regardless of demand or financial viability. Service providers can explore alternative business models, pricing structures, or partnerships to address the needs of individuals and small companies without completely disregarding them.
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?
