RFC-60: Marketplace Monetization Strategies

I am from OBSS. Thank you for sharing these details.

  • First of all, I presume any app will be able to select a subset of these licensing options. No app will be forced to select only one or support all options. If not, that will be a troubling move for us.
  • We see multi-site licensing as an improvement over the current structure. That is a win.
  • Just like many others, We see user-based licensing as a negative move.
    ** We think only a small portion of apps will be suitable to be licensed like this. Many apps introduce system wide functions or work on data created by all users (planning, reporting, admin apps are the first ones that come to mind). User-based licensing is not meaningful for them.
    ** I know the RFC says “User-based licensing will be optional” but once this is on the table, we’ll get great pressure from the customers to provide this option. It will bring many licensing, administrative, and implementation complexities.
    ** When user-based licensing is available, customers definitely will start sharing users.
  • Unlike many others, we see JSM Agent-based licensing as a negative move too.
    ** This is just another form of user-based licensing.
    ** We believe product-based (Jira, JSM, JPD) and/or Jira-project-based options should also be explored. (Since agents are also users on other Jira projects, JSM-based licensing and agent-based licensing are not the same). Almost all content and features in Jira are related to an issue, and so related to a Jira project, and so related to a product. Licensing an app for a product (Jira, JSM, JPD) or a group of Jira projects might be an option. This will effectively treat a group of projects in a Jira instance like a separate Jira. (This might require significant changes in the behavior of Atlassian’s own product API though)
  • Usage-based licensing doesn’t sound attractive too.
    ** If implemented I expect only a small fraction of apps will be able to use this.
    ** The “usage” of an app has an app-specific meaning. You can’t measure this by simply counting the requests directed to the app. Only the app itself can measure it. This in turn creates the necessity for the app to measure its own metrics and push them to Atlassian for cost calculation. Very slippery. Open to a lot of conflicts.

Overall, the app licensing model should be parallel to Atlassian’s product licensing model. Apps shouldn’t be licensed in a way that Atlassian products can’t. (Atlassian doesn’t sell Premium licenses only for a subset of users on a standard instance, right?)

2 Likes

Hi there,

I represent a Release Management partner, and I want to thank you for considering our suggestions and feedback.

1. Multi-Instance Licensing

Introducing this option would be highly beneficial for larger clients. It offers them greater flexibility in setting up multiple Jira instances and makes better use of volume discounts, which are already part of many partners’ pricing structures. Additionally, it reduces the complexity of managing separate licenses and negotiating discounts for overlapping licenses.

2. User-Based Licensing

This option presents some challenges:

  • Pricing Complexity: Introducing user-based licensing could add more pricing models within a single Jira instance (instance-tier, user-based, and usage-based), which may create confusion for customers.
  • Cost Optimization vs. Vendor Impact: Customers requesting user-specific licensing often aim to optimize costs (e.g., buying licenses for only 10 users instead of all Jira users). However, from a vendor’s perspective, this could require increasing prices to offset development costs (similar to the pricing differences between Jira and JSM). This could alienate clients who want broader app usage within their organization, as the overall cost may become prohibitive.
  • Uncertain Revenue Impact: For vendors, this change could lead to unpredictable revenue shifts. If clients under the new model pay more, they may be dissatisfied; if they pay less, vendors may be unhappy. Finding a balanced pricing approach will be challenging, and there’s no clear win-win scenario.
  • Usage-Based Model: A usage-based model could work for certain high-cost features like reporting or AI capabilities, or for apps where infrastructure costs are a factor. Offering usage-based add-ons on top of standard pricing could work, but it would complicate the pricing structure.

3. JSM Separation

While I think this could be a positive change, we would need to conduct in-depth analysis of our client base before forming a final opinion.

4. General impression

That said, I agree with previous comments that having multiple pricing models could complicate deal negotiations, especially when solutions require purchasing Jira alongside various apps with different pricing structures.

Thanks again,
Yuri

2 Likes

Hi, I’m Björn, Co-CEO of Resolution. First of all, I want to thank Atlassian for sharing these insights and also express my gratitude to all the partners who have provided their comments. In addition to our detailed thoughts, it would be very interesting to understand the specific objectives behind each of these individual pricing models from Atlassian's perspective. It would also be helpful to see a clear plan on how these models are intended to work together within the larger Marketplace ecosystem—across Solution Partners, customers, and Marketplace Partners—alongside their respective licenses. There must be some underlying vision for how these models should function in practice, but unfortunately, that isn't fully clear from the posts so far.

Effects for Customers:

Many of the challenges that arise from the proposed changes will heavily impact customers, and this cannot be understated. While new pricing models like multi-instance or user-based licensing may seem beneficial at first glance, they introduce a high level of complexity that will be difficult for customers to manage, navigate, and understand.

  • Multi-instance licensing and user-based licensing offer customers the opportunity to pay only for what they use, which is theoretically advantageous. However, managing multiple licensing models at once will make it very hard for customers to keep track of their actual costs, especially when different pricing structures run in parallel.
  • Multi-instance licensing seems fair and reasonable, as it will relieve customers from having to purchase separate licenses for each instance, aligning better with their real needs
  • Costs will become significantly more complicated with usage-based and user-based models. Customers will struggle to predict their costs, which is especially problematic for large enterprises working with strict budgets. This unpredictability could lead to mistrust in the Marketplace, making customers hesitant to adopt new models.
  • Budget management will also become more difficult and less transparent. With multiple pricing models that vary depending on the app or use case, it will be challenging for customers to forecast their annual or monthly expenditures, which could be a major deterrent for many businesses.

Effects for Solution Partners:

Atlassian Solution Partners, who sell both Atlassian licenses and Marketplace apps to customers, will face significant challenges. They are caught between managing the complexity of both Atlassian’s licensing models and the Marketplace licenses, which follow different pricing structures.

  • Solution Partners will feel the brunt of the customer challenges, as they serve as the interface between the customer and Atlassian. They will bear the responsibility when customers struggle to understand the various licensing models and their costs.
  • The administrative burden for Solution Partners will increase dramatically, especially when it comes to offering quotes. It will be difficult for them to provide accurate pricing if they cannot predict the exact costs that will eventually be passed on to the customer, particularly in the case of User-based pricing, and usage-based pricing.
  • Billing will become more complex, with both fixed and dynamic pricing models in play. Solution Partners must ensure that customers understand this complexity while managing timely and accurate billing on their end.
  • Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between Atlassian licenses and Marketplace licenses. The different pricing models and licensing strategies between the two make it harder for Solution Partners to provide a cohesive and transparent offering to customers.

Effects for Atlassian:

Atlassian will be at the center of this complexity. One of the biggest challenges will be making these changes transparent and manageable for customers and partners alike. Here are some critical areas that Atlassian will need to address:

  • Atlassian will need to significantly enhance its admin interfaces for customers, Solution Partners, and Marketplace partners. Transparency around license management, usage quotas, and costs has not historically been Atlassian's strength, and this added complexity could quickly become overwhelming.
  • To manage these new licensing models, robust monitoring and reporting functionalities are necessary. Customers and partners need clear visibility into how many users are licensed, how usage is evolving, and how this impacts costs.
  • Atlassian must also ensure that these new pricing models are aligned with existing Atlassian licenses. If the pricing for Marketplace apps is structured differently from that of Atlassian’s core licenses, it could lead to confusion and frustration among customers.

Effects for Marketplace Partners:

For Marketplace partners, these changes will introduce significant costs, both financial and operational. Adapting to the new pricing models will require considerable investment and organizational changes.

  • Managing user-based or usage-based pricing will require substantial analytics and infrastructure, which most partners currently do not have in place. These new pricing models will demand detailed monitoring and reporting, making it harder to track customer usage, costs, and revenue.
  • Currently, Marketplace partners do not have direct access to users, which makes successful customer success programs difficult. Since Atlassian does not allow direct communication with users, partners will struggle to implement user-based models effectively.
  • Without access to customers, Marketplace partners will also find it harder to drive adoption and growth for their apps, as they have limited ability to reach users or promote within the app.
  • Administrative costs for Marketplace partners will increase, as they will need to allocate more resources toward managing pricing models. This includes investments in analytics, customer success, and sales to maintain the same revenue levels as before.

When looking at the specific licensing models, multi-instance licensing, as described, seems generally beneficial, especially when combined with the existing licensing model. This approach could simplify things for enterprise customers while maintaining consistency. However, user-based licensing introduces unnecessary complexity. The core question remains: What exactly is a "user"? For many apps, users may be the ones creating scripts or rules, but the benefits of those actions are often experienced by all users across various screens. Similarly, in reporting apps, is the user the one creating the report, or are all users who view and consume the report considered users? While every Marketplace vendor could theoretically define their own "user," this lack of standardization would lead to confusion and frustration among customers, who would have to navigate differing definitions of what constitutes a user from app to app. The result is a chaotic environment where customers are unsure whether they need to license individual users for one app but not for another. This model, with so many divergent interpretations, risks becoming unmanageable and causing dissatisfaction across the board.

Regarding JSM decoupled from Jira, this model makes sense in theory, but raises the question of whether it ties directly into per-agent pricing. While per-agent pricing is logical, the issue remains around apps that function in both Jira and JSM environments. How does the customer choose which licensing model applies? Once again, the core question of “what is a user” re-emerges. Is the user defined as the agent? Or does the term "user" extend to everyone involved? What happens when an app that functions in both Jira and JSM forces the customer to license by agent in one instance but by user in another? This situation is left unclear, and the potential for confusion remains.

Lastly, usage-based pricing only makes sense when it is combined with app editions and the existing licensing models, as currently envisioned. It should allow for a base standard license that includes a certain number of actions or features, with the option for customers to scale up to a premium tier offering more. Usage-based pricing could then come into play for handling additional needs like storage or API requests, targeting power users or customers whose usage drives up costs for the Marketplace partner. This would prevent general costs from rising for all customers and ensure that only those with high demands incur additional charges. However, as a standalone model, usage-based pricing is too unpredictable and difficult to manage. Combining it with the existing licensing framework and app editions is the only way to make it a viable option, much like how Atlassian manages its own pricing tiers.

7 Likes

Thank you everyone who has shared feedback so far. We are looking at all the feedback internally and due to the amount of feedback received, we will close the discussion and also share the responses from Atlassian by end of this week.
Apologies for the delay in responding to your concerns and feedback.

1 Like

Thank you, Ulrich, for your feedback.

Regarding the licensing of Bitbucket Cloud apps in the Marketplace, this is currently in the backlog. We will provide further information once it is added to the roadmap.

3 Likes

@andreas.schmidt, thank you for your feedback and we acknowledge your concern. We have decided to keep these items as optional, so that Marketplace partners can adopt what works best for them.

Our objective is to offer a variety of choices to Marketplace partners, enabling them to establish a thriving business on the platform by implementing the monetization strategy that aligns best with their business goals.

2 Likes

@attila.bordas , thank you for your question. There are specific rules that will govern the co-existence of these licensing models. Currently, we are finalizing some of these rules and we will communicate them in a future update and will share examples at the same time.

2 Likes

Thank you for your feedback, @marc

Historically, we have aligned app pricing with parent product pricing. However, we have noticed a shift in the types of apps being released on the Marketplace.

In order to establish an inclusive environment where all can thrive on the Marketplace, we consider it crucial to offer pricing and licensing flexibility. This approach enables individuals to craft a monetization strategy that suits their needs, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all model on everyone.

1 Like

@OstapZaishlyi , we appreciate your detailed feedback.

Our main focus while developing this is to prioritize customer experience and simplicity. To ensure this we have been talking to customers and gathering feedback esp. from Enterprise customers which is driving the approach we are taking. It is one of the major customer pain point and we believe it will potentially unblock more seats / revenue

We acknowledge that the example we provided may seem complex, as we aimed to showcase all potential scenarios in a single view. However, the likelihood of this occurring is low, given that customers typically purchase a limited number of apps.

Regarding the challenges posed by flexible licensing on conversions, it would be beneficial to schedule a discussion to delve deeper into your specific obstacles. This way, we can explore how to integrate some of the insights gained. Would it be acceptable for you if we reach out separately for further conversation?

2 Likes

Hi @craig.schwarze

Thank you for your positive feedback regarding the separation of JSM and multi-instance licensing.

In terms of the flexibility we are introducing, we acknowledge the presence of successful businesses on the Marketplace operating under the coupled licensing model – and our intention is not to disrupt them.

Our goal is to expand opportunities, recognizing that the current licensing model may not be suitable for certain apps. We anticipate that apps within a specific category or use case will provide similar flexibility. We are also working to enable decision making for Marketplace partners by giving them tools and data before we make these new capabilities available to Marketplace partners.

To prevent unexpected charges for apps utilizing usage-based pricing, we are actively working on a solution that we plan to unveil by early Q1 CY25.

1 Like

Hi @BenRomberg

Having multiple concurrent pricing models for a single app is not feasible.

To facilitate existing customers in transitioning, we will implement mechanisms to streamline the migration process from the current pricing model to a new one. Further information regarding this will be communicated in upcoming updates.

To add, there will be different usage tiers, and they will operate in a manner similar to the one you described.

Hi @AaronMorris1

Thank you for your feedback.

We are planning to implement mechanisms that will help customers track their app usage.

1 Like

Hi @Wizmur , thank you for sharing and outlining your concern.

Editions would be one way in which partners could offer more tailored support and additional customer service at a premium price (i.e., an advanced edition versus a standard).

1 Like

@Prabhu_Palanisamy - Thank you for showing interest in partnering with us.

In our interactions with customers, we have made it clear that there may be an increase in the per-user price under the new licensing model. However, we are currently unable to provide customers with a clear understanding of what a substantial price increase might entail as price changes will be up to Marketplace partners based on competitive analysis, customer conversations, etc.

Regarding conducting A/B tests for pricing, this capability is not supported and unfortunately is not on the current roadmap either.

We will contact you as we commence our Early Access Program (EAP).

1 Like

Hi all,

Our sincerest apologies for the delayed response. Rest assured that we will be responding to each and every comment by early next week.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

1 Like

Thank you for your feedback, @tbinna. We understand your concern about having to explain the various options to customers. It will require some change management should partners choose to opt in but the aim is to create more options for customers and meet their various needs, which in the end will benefit partners as well.

We hear that you would have preferred a more nuanced approach. While it may seem like a lot to share at once, we felt it would make the most sense to share all options being explored at the same time given that they are related. We will definitely be taking all feedback into account and sharing some follow-up communications in partner portal soon.

1 Like

Thank you @rlander for sharing your feedback.

As we are building this, we are constantly evaluating our approach with customers and incorporating the feedback to refine our approach.

Usage based pricing is going to unlock a few combinations for a specific cohort of apps and we will offer more insights with respect to how it will work in future communications.

Thank you so much for taking the time to share your feedback, @scott.dudley.

The new pricing model is designed to give Marketplace partners the flexibility to establish a separate set of values for $/user price tiers. Additionally, partners can define a multiplier that can be applied to the current $/user price to generate an alternative pricing plan.

As we roll out this feature for Marketplace partners to set their prices, we will also be adding more data points to the current reports. These enhancements will offer partners greater visibility into their pricing strategies. Detailed information regarding the modifications to the existing reports will be communicated in the near future.

1 Like