Regarding upcoming changes to Answerbot and Flow BuilderPinned
Hi everyone -
I’m Jon Aniano, SVP of Product here at Zendesk.
A few days ago, we posted an article in our Help Center about upcoming pricing changes to Answer Bot and Flow Builder. We got a lot of feedback on that article and want to share what we’re hearing and begin to respond to some of your concerns.
To speak a little about why we’re making this change, we’ve heard from customers that with the current model, it is difficult to predict and forecast the number of resolutions needed per month. Monthly Active Users (MAU) will provide a more flexible unit of measure that makes it easier to analyze and predict usage.
When Flow Builder was first announced with messaging in 2021, we communicated that it would be unmetered for some time. Since then, we’ve invested heavily in Flow Builder, allowing our customers to build great customer experiences by automating a broad range of requests. Moving forward with our planned usage-based pricing model will enable us to continue improving this functionality and delivering the value you expect from Zendesk.
To speak to a few things that some users found confusing from the article:
- These pricing changes will not impact existing customers until their next renewal and no sooner than September 2023. In May, you can start monitoring your MAU usage in an Admin Center dashboard, which will help you forecast what may be needed as your business grows. Still, no caps or additional charges will be implemented until later in the year.
- Under the new pricing model, when you near the cap for your MAU usage, you’ll receive notifications to adjust your MAU as needed.
The other feedback we've heard largely centers around the following concern:
- The 1,000 MAU limit seems relatively low. When we began planning for this change, one of the things we considered was current usage. We wanted to find a limit that would allow a majority of customers to use the tool without significant price increases. It would also allow us to invest in much more advanced functionality for users who wanted to make Flow Builder a primary part of their service strategy. We found that a large percentage of our accounts fell below 1,000 MAU, which is how we landed on this threshold.
We are continuing to listen to your feedback and your comments.
I want to encourage you to provide additional feedback on this as we continue shaping up our plans. I'm also looking into setting up a live listening session with people who've provided feedback so far, so that I can hear and engage with you live.
I’ll continue to field questions and review and evaluate feedback here. Thanks, as always, for letting us know how you feel and think about Zendesk.
Thank you in advance for taking the approach of listening to feedback from us as customers.
The following questions came to me spontaneously while reading your post:
- Can you please elaborate on what exactly is meant by "Moving forward with our planned usage-based pricing model" - is this statement targeting only Flowbuilder or Zendesk in general?
- "We found that a large percentage of our accounts fell below 1,000 MAU, which is how we landed on this threshold.":
In my opinion, using the current figures from Flowbuilder is only of limited significance because, at least in a company like ours, the implementation of Flowbuilder needs time and preparatory work and is still in the planning phase and, among other reasons, a go-live will only take place in the future due to the lack of functionalities.
- Can you please elaborate on where exactly the info was distributed that Flowbuilder will not be free at a later date?
Spontaneously I have found no reference to this on the following pages:
Thank you for not ignoring the comments and even trying to respond to them.
When Flow Builder was first announced with messaging in 2021, we communicated that it would be unmetered for some time.I'm just wondering if there's any proof of that statement because you haven't put a link to an announcement or other post.
To speak a little about why we’re making this change, we’ve heard from customers that with the current model, it is difficult to predict and forecast the number of resolutions needed per month. Monthly Active Users (MAU) will provide a more flexible unit of measure that makes it easier to analyze and predict usage.In fact, Zendesk bots can be used for several tasks, and the task "solving a customer issue without transferring to an agent" is only one of many. I could say that it's fair to charge for the issues really solved by the bot, not just for the interaction. For example, the bots can be used for a welcome message. In the legacy Zendesk Chat, we used to create welcome messages and Zendesk never thought of charging for that. Or we can use Zendesk bots for transferring. I believe it's not fair to charge for the welcome messages or transferring. We do save money when the client has interacted with the bot and has confirmed that his issue has been resolved and he does not need to communicate with an agent. In other cases, the bot simply plays a supporting role.
I totally agree with Slava above.
What if the bot is only used for pre-screening?
We will check with our legal department if this has been mentioned when drawing up our contract. When we signed it we assumed that using the bot was part of the given contract.
It is not a modular part like Sale, Chat or whatever - btw this would also have been a better way to charge for it separately if you think that is necessary and not for the usage, that would be way more transparent to say, ok - the bot is a demo now, but if you want it later we will charge you for it.
More thoughts 😇
4. When we began planning for this change, one of the things we considered was current usage. We wanted to find a limit that would allow a majority of customers to use the tool without significant price increases. It would also allow us to invest in much more advanced functionality for users who wanted to make Flow Builder a primary part of their service strategy. We found that a large percentage of our accounts fell below 1,000 MAU, which is how we landed on this threshold.
"a large percentage of our accounts fell below 1,000 MAU" — I do not really understand why all plans (Team, Growth, Pro, and Enterprise) include the same amount (1000). I believe that your clients with Team and Enterprise plans are very different. In our case (Enterprise) we would have about 100k MAU. Just to compare — SunCo pricing model assumes that our Enterprise plan includes 100k active clients per month. If the number of active clients is higher, we have to pay an extra fee. But 100k, not 1k!
5. When Flow Builder was first announced with messaging in 2021, we communicated that it would be unmetered for some time. Since then, we’ve invested heavily in Flow Builder, allowing our customers to build great customer experiences by automating a broad range of requests.
Although Zendesk is actually actively developing Flowbuilder, in our case we still can't make full use of it. We are a Ukrainian company and we chose Zendesk many years ago because it has Ukrainian language support (in Support, Agent workspace, Guide, and Explorer). But Flowbuilder still doesn't support the Ukrainian language. So our usage of the product is very limited. We've achieved some percentage of self-service by creating custom steps in Flowbuilder with custom translation. A separate agent in our team looks at frequent customer questions and tries to help customers get answers by manually creating custom steps with answers. That's not exactly what you'd normally expect from a bot, right? So for us, Flowbuilder is still more an IVR, not a bot.
Thanks for jumping in.
1. I was referring to the updated pricing for Flow Builder.
2. This is good feedback, I understand the scenario. We are analyzing data across thousands of customers at different stages of their lifecycle, but we can go back and take another look.
3. I don’t have the announcements in front of me (I believe this was a few years ago now) but I’ll spend some time reviewing and I’ll post back here.
1. Per above I’ll see what I can find for you here.
2. This is very valid feedback and something we’re actively discussing right now internally. We’re going to think about this and I’ll report back to the community in the coming weeks with some info about our discussions.
Per the #2 response to Slava above, we’ll be looking into this.
Thank you for the feedback on how we communicate the pricing and packaging for various parts of our product, I’ll bring this to the team.
Hey Slava (again),
1. I hear your feedback on volume, I think this might be related to your feedback in the first post about how the difference between a bot/resolution and a pre-message form.
2. Also great feedback. Expanding language support for our ML-powered features to be in line with the rest of our language support is a major priority this year. We expect to support Ukrainian language before the end of the year (hopefully sooner) and I’ll make sure to ping you when that is ready.
- When will the owner of the instance be warned that he/she is approaching the limit?
What would be the number of MAUs consumed for this warning? We are very concerned that the warning is sent on a weekend as the information will not be read until the following Monday.
- What is the expected behaviour in the different channels towards the end-user when the limit is reached and the add-on is not contracted?
- Will there be a field in the business rules available so we can create alternatives to the flowbuilder or article recommendations if the limit is reached?
- When will the dashboard be available in Explore?
- How will the capping work exactly?
Thanks in advance
Jonathan Aniano Thanks for taking the time to listen to the community about this.
It's the timing of this update that leaves an especially bad taste in one's mouth, considering it comes against a backdrop of numerous "Increase Your Bot Engagements!" presentations from the AI track of your recent What's New. Zendesk's silence about MAU pricing throughout those presentations was deafening.
Your team has put an enormous amount of work into updates which are singularly focused on increasing end user engagements with Answer Bot. Proactive Messaging is a prime example. Yet the bot itself still leans on keyword-based intents, leaving a massive gap between "just an engagement" versus meaningful and useful intent interpretation that actually serves end users.
These factors make the MAU announcement look opportunistic to say the least. It gives the impression that Zendesk's focus is on cranking out "just any old engagement we can charge you for," without regard for whether those engagements are actually helping customers or end users.
This does not reflect the commitment to product excellence and customer-centric support that we've come to expect from Zendesk as an industry leader and innovator. You're better than this.
For many of your customers in the retail space, a simple IF/THEN statement isn't enough to answer the vast majority of customer queries. It's certainly not worth paying per engagement for.
MAU pricing is for premium products with 80%+ ticket deflection rates. You have many competitors in the AI space with far more advanced capabilities, and those products integrate with much more affordable ticketing platforms. Downgrading to a cheap ticketing system and using that freed-up capital to upgrade to a better AI could very well be the path forward for many of your customers, considering the undeniable future of CX.
If MAU pricing were part of 1. an optional upgrade that 2. included desperately-needed improvements to the AI language processing capabilities such as NLP, my feelings about this pricing change would be completely different.
If that were the case, I'd be discussing with my team whether we should consider upgrading our plan or purchasing a nice add-on — not having the current conversation about shifting resources.
Thank you for taking the approach of listening to your customers - although I do hope actual actions are going to follow.
For me the pricing announcement is indicative of Zendesk's recent changes and trajectory when it comes to monetization and product development - and confirmed my initial concerns with the future of their product.
#1 MAU for a customer service BOT is not a KPI that in any way measures actually resolved customer concerns or increases in support efficiency. If anything a lot of our customers have found the Bot experience to be frustrating and unhelpful. Positive Resolutions would have been an actually viable indicator and would have justified additional charges - as successful BOT resolutions would indicate a positive customer experience and lower load on customer service staff, thus justifying Zendesk in charging for it.
#2 MAUs do not consider businesses with a lot of seasonal activity - for us we will have spikes of customer engagement during 2 or 3 months of the year with potentially 20.000 active customers at once, while during other months there will be less than hundred. The fact that MAU is, again, not bound to actual support efficiency or customer satisfaction will simply lead to us disabling the BOT during those seasonal spikes - significantly limiting its use-case and benefit.
#3 Flow Builder's ability to match intent is still very limited and often causes frustration for customers. Charging high prices for something that works flawlessly and makes use of AI properly would be less of an issue. The problem is, Zendesk's flow builder is simply not anywhere near good enough of a product. It often struggles with matching customer intent (and yes I have read everything about how to properly set it up) causing customers to be frustrated as they get the wrong answers - it is years behind the competitions NLP AI solutions. Having a KPI that would incentivize Zendesk to improve their intent matching - would have been an indication that the company is committed to improving the product experience for its customers at all costs. However the announcement to use MAUs simply suggests to me Zendesk is not willing to share the incentives of its customers, and does not trust its own AI solution to adequately make good suggestions.
#4 The Zendesk Messaging product still lacks essential functionality that would be expected in any standard messaging experience: The ability to change the Messaging experience based on whether Agents are Online is a basic requirement for example. However that is still not possible as the Agent Status feature still does not have conditional logic in flow builder or API functionality. Any standard Messaging solution allows to enable/disable or alter the experience based on whether there are enough agents Online. (And yes I know about the business hour condition, but it does not provide a solution here - as agent availability is not accurately predicted by business hours - especially not during high volume periods)
#5 There is plenty of competition for messaging solutions that leverage NLP AI that are far further ahead. I believe I do not need to speak of the elephant in the room right now. While I was of the impression that Zendesk was a company focused on leveraging trends and developments in the market - I cannot see that happening here. It looks to me like they are attempting to increase prices for a feature that would have been relevant one or two years ago. The current messaging and flow builder solution lacks the advanced capability and requires significant content setup and investment of time and resources into defining and updating answers in flow builder.
As someone who knows the Zendesk service inside and out and probably even better than some of your own employees, I am really quite disappointed with recent developments. While I was initially going to propose to my company, that is an enterprise customer of you, that they should extend their licensing with Zendesk, despite of the price increases. I have now decided to actively rally for alternative solutions as I simply do not see a promising future with the product.
In fact I believe using Zendesk will be a significant risk to our business processes in the long term as a company that is charging based on usage rather than charging based on successful service, is not a company I would like to rely on for key functionality in our customer service. Especially during a period where we expect significant customer service load.
This coupled with recent service shortages:
- certain UI features such as opening the Ticket at the top of the last message, not working properly and not being fixed for months
- The Email template not loading changes and instead relying on a cached version
and cuts to existing features and functionality:
- removing the ability to sort by requester in Ticket views
- Changes in pagination
- Moving the Macro button thus slowing down agent efficiency
as well as slow implementation of new product features:
- customization of the agent workspace still not possible
- no better tabs experience in agent workspace (ability to close all tabs at once for example)
- intelligent triage and intent detection not available for other industries except standard E-Commerce (even though Zendesk is actively advertising this feature on their website)
- end-user authentication for flow builder still not being fully integrated (not able to display E-Mail in agent workspace) and no ability to use information from authenticated customers
...leaves me with overall concern for the benefits of using your product.
I have since found out that some of the content I mentioned that is missing is currently in EAP and I have applied for said EAP programs.
Mainly Agent availability and skills based routing for omnichannel routing as well as layoutbuilder. This is a positive sign and it's great Zendesk is taking steps in the right direction.
But my points about using MAU as a pricing indicator still stand.
Thank you Jonathan Aniano for taking the time to address the various concerns posted as comments on the Announcement article.
I don't feel the need to create a considerable comment here regarding all my concerns, as they have all been posted above - I still do want to post here, to back up the above statements and unhappiness of how Zendeks have approached this.
- I don't recall any announcement mentioning the "Unmetered approach for some time"
- The 1000 MAU a month is a joke - likewise is the definition
We're really unsatisfied with this pricing model, and we're in consideration to cancel our entire Flowbuilder rollout, which really is a shame, as the pricing model of MAU does not match with our price per ticket and how much is deflected in our current iteration of Flow Builder
Hi folks, I'm still watching and listening to this thread, I wanted to follow up with some replies here to the recent posters.
Hi Admin redk (Borja),
We are working on the details for most of these questions right now, so, while I do not have the details yet, I do want to acknowledge the questions:
1. When/how/what will the thresholds be for notification? We are working on the details here but we'll either set a comfortable threshold (e.g. 70% of of the cap) or allow you to set your own threshold. We'll likely be emailing all of the admins. And remember, you'll always be able to monitor this within admin center.
2 and 3. What will be the behavior in the end-user experience / can we customize the fallback experience: Ultimately, the theory here is to gracefully update the end-user experience where we have to. There will not be a "hard down" message. We may revert to a simple fall back flow message that you can customize. We are working on the details here and will publish them as we get closer.
3. When will the dashboard be available in Explore? We expect to show the MAU usage in the May timeframe in Admin Center.
4. How will the capping work exactly? I think I'd need a little more clarification here to answer the question.
Hi Harper Dane,
Thank you for your candor and your direct feedback. I truly appreciate your perspective and your honesty here.
The announcement was made now to give our customers as much time as possible to think about the implications of this to their workflow in advance of us charging for these capabilities toward the end of the year.
While I don't want to speak specifically in this forum about our upcoming product announcements around Flow Builder, I do think you will be pleasantly surprised with some of the updates we are making in the May timeframe in advance of this new usage model for Flow Builder.
Hi Shayan Moussawi,
I also appreciate your thorough reply and feedback. I also appreciate the edit as I know we've made recent progress in some of the areas you've mentioned. Please keep the feedback coming and let me/us know if there is anything I can help you track down to help with your operations.
Regarding your comment #1: Our intent was to actually match the pricing to satisfactory customer outcomes with MAU vs charging for every resolution. If you have a customer who comes back and interacts with flow builder multiple times in a month, there will only be one MAU account for that. But, I do hear your feedback that when a bot flow escalates into an agent interaction, it may not indicate a satisfactory resolution. We'll consider this.
Regarding your comment #2: As for seasonal usage, this is a good point. We usually try to work with customers that have major seasonal spikes to find a model that works for them. This might be something your account team can help with later this year as we get closer to this rollout.
Regarding your comment #3 & 5: Without going to far into upcoming launch announcements, like Harper above I think you'll be really pleasantly surprised by the major updates to Flow Builder coming mid-year.
Hi Simon Blouner,
Thank you for your feedback and I'm sorry to hear about your disappointment. Per my #1 response to Shayan above, we're thinking about how this model affects customers like you who may have more escalations from Flow Builder into agent assisted tickets vs satisfactory bot resolutions. I may work with your account team to learn more about your current price per ticket model and how you're using Flow Builder today.
This is very disappointing. I like many others would like to see exactly where it stated that Flow Builder was going to be a metered function in the future. I do not recall this and have can not find it anywhere.
I find it very hard to believe that you have made this change due to feedback that resolutions are hard to predict. It seems to me that it is more likely that your current options did not drive very high positive resolutions and therefore you needed a way to make more money. So now you are looking to charge when a bot/flowbuilder doesn't hep a customer but simply just suggests something.
1000 MAUs is crazy low, you would use that on a simple article bot trigger set up in your auto replies to tickets within a day or two.
I hope that you listen to your customers and re think this approach. I feel if you do not, you may start noticing a real hit to your renewal rates
I can't believe you change the pricing for bots and flow builder just because it is hard for some so-called users cannot estimate their budget for it. This is insane.
It is just a year since I switched from another customer service software to Zendesk. One of the main reasons I did so was because of the reasonable pricing plans of Zendesk. Now you tell me you can change your pricing plans anytime you wish and in any way you would like to.
NO WAY I WILL ACCEPT THIS
This is not fair, as the bot is not helpful to my company at all. The resolution rate of my bot is only less than 10%. So you are saying I am going to pay much more to use Zendesk every month?
Please reconsider the limit of MAU. You should tell the truth! 1000 is useless. Admit that you are charging almost everyone for it.
If this was not resolved ideally, I would go for Georgia next year.
We support 5 brands through Zendesk; each brand has a growing client database, so 1000 MAU sounds like a joke to us. If we are to pay $75 per month for each additional 500 MAU we will have to find an alternative service provider.
You have stated here https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/5352026794010#topic_o2r_13x_4wb that, visits are going to be counted as multiple MAU when the user interacts over multiple channels, browsers, or devices.
Does this mean you lack the necessary technology to properly assess the user? The entry point, in my opinion, should not be the primary indicator in such a count.
As Harper Dane pointed out, your competitors in the AI space have far more sophisticated abilities. Your current service capability does not justify these additional charges, and I am not planning on sponsoring your AI development project!!
If your answer bot's ability is near the chatGPT, I would like to pay even the price is higher. Now I would like to say its function is much like an IVR as many others commented. Please invest more to increase the answer bot's ability before charging for it, or it will backfire.
I do not understand how 1000 MAU could be enough for Enterprise accounts. Who would purchase Enterprise having only 1000 MAU?
It is a very very disappointing decision. I advocated for Zendesk for quite some time, but it is more and more apparent to me that a lot of features are being released without customers in mind, without proper testing and just lucking simple common sense. Other missing features (present in any Zendesk analogue on the market) are being ignored year by year. We had some meetings with product managers, but nothing got done. I am very frustrated with Zendesk last year.
I don't have anything to say at this point that is new or different from what has already been said. I just want to add my name to the list of concerned, long-time customers.
We are a small non-profit and we have invested more and more in Zendesk over the years (nearly 12 years since we started using Zendesk). The cost is very high for our small company already, as we have to pay the exact same price for part-time agents who rarely work tickets as for the primary technical support person. We have chosen the Enterprise plan because of the many features, including AnswerBot, that were supposed to be included. The idea of having to pay more--when we expected that our use of AnswerBot would easily fall into the baseline range and that Flow Builder was simply "included" --is truly concerning.
I appreciate seeing management here, listening and responding to questions. However, I also know in 12 years of using Zendesk that the general trajectory is to increase prices, and listening doesn't always lead to change. We're "stuck" because we have a lot invested in making Zendesk part of our support infrastructure, but I honestly don't know if we can continue through any further price increases. I will continue to monitor this thread and aim to understand the changes and how they will impact us.
I'll add my concerns to the above. While I appreciate the responses, I don't feel like there is any intent to change direction. I was actively working on expanding our usage of the answer bot as well as starting to use Flow Builder. Based on what I am seeing, I'm putting all of that on hold. There is no incentive for me to spend my precious time building out a tool that ends up being curtailed due to what appears to be a laughably low usage limit. I would be perfectly happy paying if we kept the limits on resolution, but expanding that to any recommendation that the bot makes, regardless of whether it actually assists the user, feels very much like a cash grab. I saw your comments about building out the functionality in Flow Builder, but again, I have no incentive to start using it if it's going to increase my costs without a proven track record of providing benefit.
I have been following this article with interest for the last few weeks in order to make a decision based on them whether or not we should proceed with the Flowbuilder evaluation within our company. Currently, honestly, everything is still stopped.
What I would like to add since my first comment:
- Why are there limits on Image Gallery, for example, based on the license plan:
Wouldn't this also be an elegant way to appease Enterprise customers?
- Has anyone within Zendesk had a chance to find the article where it would be announced back then that Zendesk plans to price this feature extra? It's OK for software companies to adjust their pricing model, but rather less cool to state that this was communicated earlier without that being the case.
- Why are there limits on Image Gallery, for example, based on the license plan:
Jonathan Aniano Are there any updates on all the concerns raised in the thread? In our case, we are wondering how much the new pricing policy affects our costs and how Zendesk now looks compared to the competitors. Since we are considering a new 5-year contract, it would be great to have all the details not by September, but in the near future.
I'm hoping for an update on this as well.
Based on our resolution rate, $75/500 MAU would mean that Answer Bot Suggestions via email would cost a minimum of 4x what it costs to have a human agent handle the same question. In many cases, it's 8x the cost or more.
In light of this, I'll obviously be turning off Article Suggestions the moment Zendesk begins charging per MAU.
I get the sense ZD doesn't want to take responsibility for the shortcomings of this product, and prefers to insinuate that poor resolution rates land squarely at the feet of admins. That's only adding insult to injury for those of us who have spent weeks (or in my case, months) diligently organizing a data-driven approach to setup and faithfully following all documented best practices, only to continue seeing abysmal resolution rates and frustrating CX due to limitations baked in to the bot.
I may speak broken English but I need to say this .
The longer I'm using messaging bot, the more I realize there are always limitations of this feature in comparison with other competitors.
1. Button feature in Messaging is not compatible on Mobile SDK and it's been over two months and got no result at all.
2. Cannot even upload the original image within message flow so always images has to linked from open-post article.
3. Cannot change each bot-tree the way I want it to be placed in order.
4. It does not provide 'do-over ' feature at all
5. even if I set the conversation to be disconnect, in Mobile SDK , it's always showing the last reply from previous ticket which does not provide the initial menues .
and I heard you will charge for this feature when we are already paying for what's less than our expectation...
How can you overcharge for a service that is 1. not on par with many competitors and 2. still doesn't have the desired behaviour one would expect?
We will fight to make things right, but if ZD doesn't listen and take action, we will.
Sorry ZD but this is one too many price increase announcements for my liking.
With 500 monthly resolutions we were able to maintain the service.
With 1000 MAUs we don't make it to 10 days.
Bad. Really bad.
Happy to pay a fee for the bot when it's successful, but to charge for article recommendations in email that are rarely successful is ridiculous.
You've always called this AI, but where is the intelligence? It's a simple keyword search of the help center and even still gets it wrong most of the time.
If you don't charge for successful interactions vs. all of them, what's your incentive to make this tool better? Every single one of your competitors offers a better bot.
I can't understand why you make changes that may be good for you and very bad for your customers,1000 MAUs are you serious about that can see the huge numbers that we are trying to serve and instead of helping us you made things worst, keeping the same bot is better than this awful decision, and this should be part of improving progress to AI world not to pay more, was thinking of enterprise I know I will pay more but now after seeing these things I will keep on Profesional plan, I'll obviously be turning off Article Suggestions I was excited about AI events and changes but now I'm not anymore.
We have the same, we used Answer Bot before, and our technology isn´t that easy with repetitive processes. Answer Bot may fix 1-2% of our cases, which was OK enough with available free solutions.
Our MAU Usage in May is already after 10 days on 1000+, which means we need to buy extra content, but there is no effect of saving Agents, as the recommendation isn´t good enough, and we still need to work on the case.
Now we found out we also need an AI Plus license (50$ per Agent) to get Chat GPT benefits on TOP, so Zendesk charges 3 times (License, AI license, MAU). This is absolutely unacceptable.
Also, I don´t find any way to use a "Messaging / Chat" license to combine our own Chat GPT API.
We will delete all Recommendations and start to build our own Widget to ChatGPT now, and Zendesk API doesn´t support this.
Tobias Hermanns check out https://yuma.ai/. You can remove all of Zendesk's "AI" with this tool.
Dear Jonathan Aniano,
Since 2021 you have invested “slowly” in flow builder and made “insufficient” progresses - in fact as of May 2023 the product is far behind the competition and far from being mature enough to start charging for it.
We had to stop our organisation to migrate from Chat to Messaging with flow builder for a simple reason: the product has fundamental deficiencies and it wasn’t and isn’t complete just yet.
As we are desperately waiting every day for every new updates to Messaging and bots (ie the recently addition of talk to messaging, amongst other things), to make the product suitable for our company, I find out about this new pricing module: MAU.
So said in other words let’s start over charging first the feature, then we will figure it out what is missing. Great pricing strategy!
For a company like our, that is pursuing the switch to messaging and bots and want to use all the build in functionalities that Zendesk offers, in order not to use competitors, the limit of 1,000 is not just simply ridiculous, it is out of the market, and the benchmark you used is taken by extremely low volume interactions organisation (or forgive me invented).
Now you have the option to make it right and adjust the figure on 1,000, that is completely insignificant, or reinvent the pricing model, as it stands is immensely overpriced.
Is there a way for admins to see how MAUs have been used over the past month, both by brands and by channels? I just thought that seeing only the current month wouldn't be very helpful.
Please sign in to leave a comment.