Pricing strategy has moved from flat per-repo models toward a multi-tier structure that distinguishes between self-serve knowledge creation and consultant-led [conversion services] (Narrative_SetupFeeAsConversionService). The current architecture [names four tiers] (Position_TierStructureNamed) (Free, Expert, Team, Organization), with an [intentional 10x price gap] (Narrative_10xGapIsFeature) between Team and Professional tiers to signal the inclusion of human-in-the-loop services. While the [tier names were updated] (Narrative_TierRenameExpertTeam) in March to better reflect user behavior, the underlying revenue model has expanded to include [CPC-on-goal-URL] (Narrative_CPCOnGoalURL) for external deployments, contrasting with subscription-based internal models. Ownership is decoupled from consulting; clients can [own their repo from day one] (Narrative_OwnFromDayOne) via the Team plan, making the consulting relationship an independent, optional layer. Recent tactical shifts emphasize [parallel MSA/POC workflows] (Position_POCMSAParallelNotSequential) to eliminate procurement friction, while the [conversion model] (Position_WeDoItConversionModel) remains split between 'we-do-it' (upfront fee) and 'they-do-it' (marketplace percentage) paths.
Witness phrases
verbatim Instead of taking a cut of practitioner fee, it could be outcome based. I.e., every perspective carries a goal which is a forward to a link. Essentially a click like ads.
verbatim the client can own their repo from day one by paying for the product (Team plan) and adding Scarlet as a team member
verbatim The question is do we charge that fee up front or as a percentage of sales or both? They could create one without our help, then it's definitely percentage
verbatim For single/small team publishers and experts the setup fee would be us turning their book or course or training or consulting package into the AI-native distribution format
verbatim So that the transition from POC to actually using it is, you know, low impact and without large spiky work required.
verbatim The CPC-on-goal-URL model shifts pricing from 'accumulation' to 'intent-based clicks,' potentially conflicting with the 'price the accumulation' principle.
verbatim The 'we-do-it' vs 'they-do-it' conversion models create tension between high-touch service revenue and scalable marketplace-percentage revenue.
In this area
NarrativeNarrative_10xGapIsFeature The 10x Price Gap Between Team and Professional Is Intentional
NarrativeNarrative_CPCOnGoalURL CPC-on-Goal-URL for External, Subscription for Internal
ObservationObs_CPCPricingQuote Scarlet's verbatim articulation of the CPC-on-goal-URL pricing model — the founding evidence for the new pricing narrative.
ObservationObs_DemoProspectCommissionGapQuote Scarlet's framing of the value-driven upgrade from Team to Professional — consultant-led extraction as the pull factor.
ObservationObs_OwnFromDayOneStructure Own-from-day-one structure: client pays for Team plan, adds Scarlet as team member. Consulting continues or stops independently of repo ownership. The consulting relationship and the product subscription are separate decisions.
ObservationObs_ScarletRevenueModelQuote Scarlet's articulation of the dual revenue model — upfront fee and/or percentage — and the viability of both.
ObservationObs_ScarletSetupFeeQuote Scarlet's verbatim articulation of the setup fee as conversion service for single/small team publishers.
ObservationObs_UpgradePathQuote Scarlet's framing of the two upgrade path types — value-driven and requirements-driven — as the architectural principle baked into the tier design.
9 further nodes are not published in the public projection. Each node links from the entity index.