Skip to main content

I am looking at the pricing just to plan ahead for possible needs in the future as our nonprofit expands. Yes, I plan to send an email soon asking for a discount 🙂 but want to get a feel for a couple things before putting together our request.


So looking at the pricing page I see the following:



You can add as many collaborators and bases as you’d like for free, as long as each base falls below the per-base record limits described above. If any of your bases exceeds those limits, you’ll need to upgrade the team to which that base belongs (if you are a solo user, you are considered a “team” of one person).




For paid teams, you will be charged the per-user, per month fee for each person you’ve invited to collaborate on bases belonging to that team. You will not be charged for read-only collaborators.



So here is my question. It said that you can add as many collaborators as needed as long as you do not exceed the limits. So would I be able to pay for 1-2 users but still add other collaborators to just certain tables as needed as long as those did not exceed the limits? They would have to have edit access not just read-only.


The issue I foresee is that for each “mission” our organization would be using the system for there will be different collaborators that only are involved in that one table. Over the course of several of our “missions”, there could be up to 20 different persons that work but only on one specific one, not others.


No problem with paying for a few of our core staff that will have full team access but want to make sure we understand how that would relate as to using base-only collaborators.


I must say that AirTable is a game changer in our mission and what we do. We look forward to writing you soon with a formal request.

To clarify, the record and attachment limits are on a base level, not table level. You can add collaborators at a base and team level, not at a table level. Here’s more on our collaboration model:


To clarify, the record and attachment limits are on a base level, not table level. You can add collaborators at a base and team level, not at a table level. Here’s more on our collaboration model:



Yes, forgive me. I do mean at a Base level, not Table.


So to verify based on looking at that. The user fee is only relevant to TEAM level collaborators as long as a base does not exceed its limits? So we could still have as many BASE level collaborators as needed and different in each base?

Yes, forgive me. I do mean at a Base level, not Table.


So to verify based on looking at that. The user fee is only relevant to TEAM level collaborators as long as a base does not exceed its limits? So we could still have as many BASE level collaborators as needed and different in each base?



I’m very much interested in this too, but I think this wording works against us. For paid teams (i.e. any team that has a base that exceeds the free team limit) you will be charged per-user. User is then defined as “each person you’ve invited to collaborate on bases belonging to that team.” So, you’re not charged for each full-blown team-level member, you’re charged for each user you’ve invited to collaborate on bases.


This part is going to kill my team. We’re a team of 6, and the table is close to the 1200 record limit (734 right now, but once we get going, it could easily get to 1200 but the 5000 records should be more than sufficient. However, even though we are a team of 6, we’re not using this tool every single day as a workflow, it’s more of a record keeping. Having to pay $72/month is just not in line with our usage. So, I’m trying to figure out a way we can work with this tool but not exceeding the 1200 records.

Hi Damon, have you got your clarification on this?


I’m also puzzled by the definition of user - team member or base-collaborator with edit capability.

Hi Damon, have you got your clarification on this?


I’m also puzzled by the definition of user - team member or base-collaborator with edit capability.


Both of those categories of people count as users for the purpose of billing. Perhaps this FAQ will answer some of your questions.

Both of those categories of people count as users for the purpose of billing. Perhaps this FAQ will answer some of your questions.


Hey Katherine, thanks for the info.


Rgds-Peng Wan

As I understand it, a collaborator can be non-billable as long as they are given read-only permission. However, nowhere does Airtable define the term read-only (!!). I am guessing it means the user can view the data but not modify it except through a form. They can search the data via a search block.


We can work with this, since there is only the one developer. But we do need a number of people to do data entry. Would this be possible with just the one billable user?


Thanks

Your billing structure is not scalable. I think you are losing a lot of money, potentially. I see many people love the app (including me) but the billing structure and team/upgrade logic is just simply unaffordable for mid-sized businesses and even small ones 6+… being charged for every team member a full user price (even if they are only assigned a minor task which requires editor privileges) is ridiculous, in my opinion. I think many people are willing to pay you money to use pro features (if it makes sense and it’s affordable) but this billing methodology gives us no option but to look somewhere else. I rather take $3 of 1 million people than $10 of 100 thousand people.You have something goo but if your billing strategy doesn’t change, you are creating a big opportunity for another developer to create a stronger competitive solution. With much love and respect, just constructive criticism. Thanks.

Reply


Terms & Conditions