Usable with a quick edit10 of 12 checks passed
The proposal is data-driven, complete, and directly usable by a product manager with only minor wording adjustments, without needing to re-verify evidence or redo analysis.
Output
Inkwell Pricing and Packaging Proposal
Recommendation
Don't move everyone to a flat $19. Our customers aren't one market.
- Freelancers are 53% of accounts but only 10% of revenue, and they already find $15 expensive.
- Agencies are 13% of accounts and 56% of revenue, and they consider $15 cheap.
A flat $19 overcharges the first group and still undercharges the second. I propose three plans priced by segment, with a staged move for existing customers. Before churn, this delivers about +44% MRR in year one and +95% once fully migrated, compared with +27% for a flat $19.
What the data says
Revenue concentration (150-account sample, $11,805 MRR)
| Segment | Accounts | Seats | Share of MRR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Freelancers | 80 | 80 | 10% |
| Small agencies | 50 | 264 | 34% |
| Agencies | 20 | 443 | 56% |
Freelancers are price-sensitive and short-lived. - 50 of 60 freelancer survey respondents put "getting expensive" below $19. For 35 of 60, $15 is already at or past that point. - 5 of the 6 price objections in win/loss came from freelancers. - Freelancers lose to "Google Docs and a free e-signature tool" (12 of 70 deals), not to PandaDoc. - Their trial conversion is 9%, and 38% cancel in month two. - No freelancer in the sample has been a customer longer than 9 months. - They mostly use one template and e-signature.
Agencies are underpriced. - Every agency respondent's "bargain" price is $20 or higher. - 7 of 20 put "too cheap to trust" at $14–15. - Agencies never raised price in win/loss. Their losses to PandaDoc were about product. - They had 0% early churn and use the features freelancers don't: shared library, approvals and CRM sync. - At $35, every sampled agency would pay under 0.5% of the contract value it signs through Inkwell.
Small agencies have room. - Every respondent's "getting expensive" point is $26 or higher. - Trial conversion is 31%, with 6% early churn.
Plans
| Plan | For | Price (per user/month) | Includes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solo | Freelancers | $12, 1 user only | Unlimited proposals, templates, e-signature |
| Team | 2–10 users | $25 | Solo + shared content library, approval workflows, CRM sync |
| Agency | Required at 11+ users | $35 | Team + multi-step approvals, roles and permissions, admin controls, priority support |
The 14-day free trial stays on all plans.
Why these prices: - $12 Solo sits below "getting expensive" for 56 of 60 freelancers. It costs about 2% of total MRR to cut existing freelancers from $15. - $25 Team is below every small-agency respondent's "getting expensive" point. - $35 Agency is below every agency respondent's "getting expensive" point (lowest is $42) and well under "too expensive" (lowest is $60).
Plan fences: - The seat cap (Solo = 1, Team ≤ 10) is the main fence. It maps onto the segments the data already uses. - Agency features are deliberately the ones a larger team needs to manage people, not new product promises.
Moving existing customers
| Today | Year 1 | From year 2 (next anniversary) |
|---|---|---|
| Freelancer, $15 | Solo $12 immediately (a price cut) | $12 |
| Small agency, $15 | Team at $19 | $25 |
| Agency, $15 | Agency at $25 | $35 |
How to run it: - Notice. Give at least 60 days' notice to anyone whose price rises. If January is closer than that, launch new prices for new customers in January and move existing customers in February or March. - Lead with what's included. Existing teams keep every feature they use today. The message is "you're on the plan built for teams," not "the price went up." - Annual lock. Offer annual prepay at the year-1 rate, locked for 12 months. This converts the increase into commitment. - At-risk agencies. Have someone call the top agencies by MRR personally before the email goes out. - Your $19 still appears. It becomes the year-1 rate for existing small agencies.
Revenue impact (sample MRR, before churn)
| Scenario | MRR | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Today | $11,805 | — |
| Flat $19 | $14,953 | +27% |
| Proposal, year 1 | $17,051 | +44% |
| Proposal, full list | $23,065 | +95% |
What this means: - The flat $19 figure assumes zero churn and no drag on new sales. Most of the churn risk sits with freelancers, the segment that pays the least. - Year 1 beats flat $19 unless we lose about 12% of MRR. That's roughly 1 in 5 agency seats, in a segment with 0% early churn and no price objections. - The real risk is concentrated. Agency seats carry most of the upside, so agency retention through migration is the thing to watch. Freelancer churn barely moves the total.
Risks and checks before announcing
1. The survey is stated willingness to pay, not behaviour. We don't know whether respondents are customers or prospects. To limit the risk: - Launch new-customer prices first and watch trial conversion by segment for 4–6 weeks before existing customers move. - Keep the agency year-1 rate at $25. 2. Check CRM sync usage before finalising Team. CRM sync is in Team so small agencies lose nothing. If heavy CRM-sync users are mostly 11+ seat accounts, it could move to Agency instead. I need feature usage by account size to confirm. 3. Agencies near the 10/11 seat boundary may resist the jump. Allow a 12-seat grace period on Team for existing customers in year 1. 4. Freelancer losses to free tools aren't solved by a cheaper Solo plan alone. A free tier (e.g., 2 sends a month) is worth testing separately on new trials. It isn't part of this launch because it could cannibalise paying freelancers, who send about 3 proposals a month. 5. Metrics to track monthly: - Trial-to-paid conversion by plan - Month-two cancellations for Solo - Agency logo and seat churn through each migration step - Win rate against PandaDoc
Decision needed from Priya: approve the three plans and the staged migration, and confirm the existing-customer timing (January if 60 days' notice is possible, otherwise February/March).
Grades and run details
Decision model 75 · LLM judge 100
Decision model checks
- failUses the supplied evidence correctly44%
- passAddresses the actual decision89%
- partialRespects explicit constraints32%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty97%
- partialAvoids unsupported claims26%
- passProduces the required deliverable55%
- passSees who's underpriced76%
- passAnswers the CEO's flat rise100%
- passEach tier for a different buyer87%
- failGets the base of every number right79%
- passPriced on willingness to pay72%
- passMoves existing customers fairly100%
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 1.8 min
- Submitted
- 5 Oct 2026