Yes my point is that the term "optimal" could be misleading. People reading the document are likely to interpret "optimal" to mean that it's the best business decision. But in many cases it's not the best decision.

So my question (not point) is, when/for what is a 3 part tariff the best choice, when you consider all the other issues (like, what would annoy customers, etc).

In the case of Salesforce, the day I signed up, if there were a significant base cost over-and-above the per-seat price, there's a good chance I would have avoided Salesforce, and Salesforce would never have gotten that (eventual) $300K a year from me. So it seems that their pricing is better than a 3 part tariff.

First, your point about optimality is "not even wrong". Like I said, the surplus value you want to give your customers is really up to you and the optimality starts from this point. Yes, people may misunderstand this in the article. But I think that's the reason why the article does not offer any concrete recommendations.

Non-optimality just means you are leaving surplus on the table, out of your control. It certainly doesn't mean you will be better off in the long run. If you are comfortable with that decision, go ahead and choose a flat tariff. Since a business is also driven by cost, I would bet you will consider that decision sooner or later.

Non-linear pricing is "the best" when you are doing a theoretical argument, since you just can't do worse with more instruments than less - if you employ them wisely. That's what is written in the article, and that's what I elaborated on. It may just mean it gives you most control in deciding about consumer surplus, whatever that strategic decision may be.

Second, with regards to salesforce: A x-part price does allow you to set fixed components to zero, if that corresponds to the customer base. The "best" mentioned in the article is a theoretical construct in the sense that nonlinear pricing is simply more general. You are not the only customer, and in the end it depends on the whole demand base as to what is optimal. A product delivering high value per seat may just simply be best off with a low-to-zero fixed component. Again, it all depends on who you are targeting.

You spend 300k a year? So what if I offer you a contract with 200k a year plus a fixed 50k? Will you not take it? What if you do, and I tell you we both win in this deal?

My point is that there is a general thing to understand about pricing, and there is a reason why this article refers to something as best, while being sparse on actual implementation.

The best business decision, as you put it, depends entirely on your assessment of what customers want. This much will never change. But this article wants to point out that you can deal with information asymmetries with a nonlinear pricing scheme, something everyone should study deeply before pricing one's product.

As a consumer, you are faced with price menus in almost every purchasing decision you take outside a supermarket. That's for a reason. If you are an entrepreneur, and you do not understand why or when one may employ a nonlinear pricing scheme, then you are lacking knowledge.

Salesforce.com pricing is genius in its simplicity. I’m happy to discuss or explain, it’s really easy to reach me so please feel free to do so. I promise you can learn something unexpected about pricing. Because you really haven’t read what I’ve written.

Meanwhile, I don’t think anyone but us are reading this thread.