AI pricing is changing fast—and suddenly, everyone is selling credits. But here’s the uncomfortable question: Are credits actually helping you scale… or quietly pulling you back into cost-plus pricing?
Steven Forth, co-founder of ValueIQ, joins Mark Stiving to unpack what’s really going on behind the rise of credit-based pricing—and why so many companies are adopting it despite its obvious flaws.
This isn’t a polite discussion. Mark challenges the very foundation of credits, arguing they break the connection between price and value. Steven pushes back, revealing why credits may be the only viable system in a world where AI usage is unpredictable, costs are real, and value is still being discovered in real time.
What emerges is a deeper truth most companies are missing about credit-based pricing. If you’re navigating AI pricing—or even just rethinking your current model—this episode will force you to rethink not just how you price… but what you’re really charging for.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Why you have to check out today’s podcast:
- Discover when credit-based pricing actually works—and when it quietly pulls you back into cost-plus thinking, weakening your ability to communicate real value.
- Learn how AI companies balance cost, value, and scale using the “two dials” of pricing—credit price vs. credit consumption—and why this changes how you design pricing systems.
- Avoid the hidden design traps that break credit models—including overages, rollovers, and pooling decisions that frustrate buyers and limit growth.
“AI is still early. Value is not preordained. Credits give you flexibility while you figure it out.”
– Steven Forth
Topics Covered:
01:43 – Why Credits Break Value-Based Pricing (And Create Buyer Confusion). Mark explains why credits add a layer of abstraction between price and value—making it harder for buyers to connect what they pay to the outcomes they get.
05:47 – The Hidden Shift to Cost-Plus Pricing in AI. Why tokens = cost-plus pricing, and how rising compute costs are quietly pushing SaaS companies away from value-based pricing without realizing it.
10:11 – The “Two Dials” Strategy: How Credits Unlock Pricing Flexibility. Discover how adjusting price per credit vs. credits per action creates a more adaptable system—without constantly changing your pricing model.
12:05 – The Hardest Problem Nobody Solves: Mapping Credits to Value. Why most companies fail at credit pricing—not because of the model itself, but because they skip the deep work of aligning credits with real customer value.
15:22 – The 3 Critical Design Decisions That Make or Break Credits. A breakdown of pooling, rollovers, and overages—and how each one impacts buyer trust, revenue predictability, and product usage.
21:57 – Overage Mistakes That Kill Adoption (And What to Do Instead). Why hard stops frustrate users and reduce usage, plus smarter alternatives like soft limits, borrowing, and on-demand credit purchases.
25:34 – The Emerging Best Practice: Hybrid Credit + Subscription Models. How leading companies combine base subscriptions with flexible credit top-ups to balance predictability with scalability.
27:00 – The Only Rule That Matters: Understand How You Create Value. Steven’s closing insight: pricing models don’t matter if you don’t deeply understand how your value is created—and how it’s changing over time.
Key Takeaways:
“Credits add a layer of abstraction between price and value—and that’s what makes them dangerous.” – Mark Stiving
“Tokens are cost-plus pricing. Credits give you a way to reconnect pricing back to value.” – Steven Forth
“Buyers are much more flexible with credits than with price increases.” – Steven Forth
“Credits feel easier to allocate internally—because they’ve already been ‘spent.” – Mark Stiving
“Hard stops on usage are bad design—they hurt both the buyer and the seller.” – Steven Forth
“Well-designed credit systems are actually buyer-centric—they give flexibility across different use cases.” – Steven Forth
Resources and People Mentioned:
- Lovable (AI platform) – Referenced for its approach to on-demand credit purchasing and overage design, including A/B testing credit top-ups to improve revenue and user experience
- Box (company) – Example of a company implementing restricted credit pooling rules (e.g., limited sharing of AI credits), highlighting tension between buyer flexibility and revenue protection
- AI Token Pricing Models – Discussed as a contrast to credits; tokens represent cost-plus pricing tied to compute usage, while credits can be designed to reflect value instead of just cost
- Cell Phone Industry (Rollover & Subscription Models) – Referenced as the origin of many modern SaaS pricing mechanics like rollovers, ARR, and customer lifetime value thinking, influencing today’s credit-based systems
Connect with Steven Forth:
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenforth/
- Email: [email protected]
- Subscribe to Steven’s Substack: Synthetic data in pricing: https://pricinginnovation.substack.com/p/synthetic-data-in-pricing
Connect with Mark Stiving:
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stiving/
- Email: [email protected]
Full Interview Transcript:
(Note: This transcript was created with an AI transcription service. Please forgive any transcription or grammatical errors. We probably sounded better in real life.)
Steven Forth
You need to invest the time and effort to be studying how you create value and how that’s changing. Because that’s the foundation for all of your subsequent pricing decisions.
[Intro]
Advertisement
Today’s podcast is sponsored by Jennings Executive Search. I had a great conversation with Jon Jennings about the skills needed in different pricing roles. He and I think a lot alike. If you’re looking for a new pricing role, or if you’re trying to hire just the right pricing person, I strongly suggest you reach out to Jennings Executive Search. They specialize in placing pricing people. Say that three times fast.
Mark Stiving
Welcome to Impact Pricing, the podcast where we discuss pricing, value, and how buyers decide. I’m Mark Steiving, and I help companies see value through their buyers’ eyes.
Our guest today is the one and only Steven Forth.
Steven, how are you today?
Steven Forth
I am good, Mark. I’m just back from Tokyo and diving back into things.
Mark Stiving
Excellent.
Well, let’s get back into that debate that we just can’t stop, and that is credits.
And what we’re going to do today, Steven and I talked a little bit ahead of time, is we’re going to talk about starting out with when do credits make sense? When do they not make sense?
And then we’re going to dive into how do we actually use credits? How do we implement a credit strategy and think through that? Does that sound like a great idea for you, Steven?
Steven Forth
That should work.
Mark Stiving
Excellent.
Okay. So I’m going to start with telling you why credits are horrible. Is that fair?
Steven Forth
Absolutely. They often are.
Mark Stiving
So here’s why I’m not a fan of credits. And it took me a long time to figure this out, because I know there’s something in there that’s really bugging me.
And the thing that bugs me about credits is that we as pricing people, we think about value-based pricing. We think about what’s value to the customer. We try to pick pricing metrics that are really highly correlated with value, if not actually the outcomes that people are after.
And as soon as we put credits in, we’ve now added one more layer of indirection between the buyer’s decision and where the value really is.
And so to me, that’s the biggest problem with credits is that I want my buyers to say, yes, when I give you a dollar, I’m going to make $10.
And with credits, we’ve gone to not only you’re not going to make $10, but you’re going to buy a credit, which you can spend on these seven different things you could go do with it. And so we’ve just taken that away. I’m going to open it up to you and say, ‘Mark, you’re wrong. Here’s why.’
Steven Forth
No, I think you’re right. But despite the fact that you’re right, that this does add a layer of abstraction, it’s needed in many cases.
So you started this by saying, you know, when do you need to use credits?
So you don’t always need to do credits. If you have a application or an agent that does one thing and one thing only and creates value in a very specific way, credits are just noise. They don’t add any value to anyone on either side of the equation.
But that’s not the case for many of us and the world that we live in. So I think first we can talk about why have credits or tokens and the two are not the same thing, but they’re often treated as the same thing.
Why have they become the dominant way that both frontier models and their APIs are priced?
And also why are they the dominant way that vibe coding is priced? And that’s really where this started is with the frontier models and vibe coding. And then it’s spread like a virus through other things.
Mark Stiving
Okay.
So hit us with a relatively quick answer because then I have one more argument I want to make with you that I don’t know that you’re going to disagree with either, but go ahead.
Why do we need credits in the world of vibe coding or agentic AI?
Steven Forth
Yeah. So I think that the critical, there’s two reasons.
One is this is still early days. And people are using things for many very different reasons. And it makes it difficult to say exactly how they’re going to use it.
So you want to be able to provide different mechanisms for charging for use. And credits give you a very easy way, maybe not easy, but they give you a way to do that.
So they give you a fungible pricing system that you can apply credit consumption to many different actions on your system. And we’ll get into how you connect that back to value, I think later on in today’s talk, but that’s the real reason.
So you have AI is still fairly early days. value is diverse and not preordained, and you need to build flexibility into your system. That’s what’s driving the initial adoption of credits. And then the other thing that’s driving it is costs.
So compute costs are real. We need a better way of associating price and compute cost just to protect the bottom lines and make sure we’re building companies that can actually be viable.
And that’s what I think was the initial thing that spurred people to use tokens, but it’s gone way beyond that now.
Mark Stiving
Yeah, you know what’s kind of funny is if you think, I don’t know how much you’ve worked with hardware companies, but when you work with hardware companies, even though they say they don’t do cost plus pricing, you know they all do cost plus pricing.
Steven Forth
Well, you need to, right?
Because, you know, there’s a sort of fundamental equation in pricing, I believe, which is that value has to be greater than price and price has to be greater than cost.
And you have to understand the scale at which that relationship is true. And ideally value goes up faster than price and price goes up faster than cost. If you don’t know those value price and price cost relationships, you can’t price effectively. SAS lived in a fantasy world for 10 years because its variable costs were very low.
Mark Stiving
Yeah, I absolutely agree. But the point I was trying to make was that as soon as SaaS has real costs associated with it called AI, they suddenly jump to a cost plus type marketplace, right?
Anybody who’s selling tokens is selling cost plus. And so if we’re doing credits and we’re selling a number of tokens, we’re doing cost plus. I absolutely agree 100% that one of the key reasons why we need credits, we need tokens, is to make sure we cover our costs, because we need to be in business. We have to sell at prices higher than costs.
But when we stop thinking about value to the customer, we’re doing cost plus pricing.
Steven Forth
So I agree, and I would also agree that tokens are cost plus pricing. At least they are if you’re using a technical definition of token, the way that the AI companies are.
So for an AI company, a token is a part of a word, and you define input tokens, you define the tokens that are used inside the system, and you define output tokens, and you price those, and that’s a form of cost plus pricing. credits allow you to abstract away from that so that you can manage both value and cost. which is, I think, why there’s a real difference between token-based pricing and credit-based pricing, and people who use them interchangeably are confusing themselves and confusing us.
And with credit-based pricing, if you have a value model, you can estimate the value of an action and assign a certain number or a value of an action, a value of an outcome, a value of completing a process, and that’s what you charge your credits for.
So you can build a direct link between credits and how many credits you charge and value. And that’s at the heart of credit-based pricing design.
Mark Stiving
Okay, so now I’m going to push back and say the following.
As soon as you tell me I can define credits based on value, I’m going to tell you you don’t need credits because I can charge based on value.
Whatever it is you’re going to use a credit to charge for, I could use a dollar to charge for.
Steven Forth
Technically you could, but it makes it that much more difficult to design and manage the system.
So by introducing an abstraction like credits, it gives you a lot more design flexibility and allows you to design a more adaptive system.
Let me give you an example. So I recently redesigned ValueIQ’s pricing.
ValueIQ has a credit based pricing system. But what had happened over the weeks that I was in Japan was that major new functionality had been added. And that functionality included the ability to create a value model based on deep internal analysis.
So the first version of Value IQ relied on external analysis. The new version gives you the option of uploading data sheets, connecting it to your other systems. It gives it a much richer data set on which it can operate, and it gives you a more compelling and accurate value model.
So that’s a lot more valuable. It also initially consumes a lot more tokens on the back end, but it’s a lot more valuable.
So we increase the credit consumption for a custom value model that relies on internal data. The other thing that we did.
Mark Stiving
Can I just pause you for just a second? Why is that different than I just raised my price?
Steven Forth
Well, the other thing that we did. Okay. Recalibrated the price per credit.
So we have two dials that we can turn. as we’re designing and tuning our pricing system. And having these two dials actually makes it easier to balance value and price across multiple actions.
So it gives you a system that is much easier to adapt and also much easier to tune.
So having these two different levers.
Mark Stiving
Okay, I’m still going to push back to say, by the way, I’m going to tell you why I think we should have credits in a second, but I’m still going to push back to say, I could do exactly what you just did by changing the price per action, the price per study, the price per whatever it is that we’re going to call, whatever you charge a credit for, I could have changed the prices.
Steven Forth
But then you lose a lot of flexibility because remember the credits can be used across many different actions.
Mark Stiving
Okay, so I lose flexibility in that I can’t change prices quickly for my customers.
Steven Forth
Well, the buyer loses flexibility.
So the credits give the buyer a lot more flexibility. Credit-based pricing, well-designed, is very buyer-centric. It really works in the buyer’s interests if it’s well-designed because it gives them more flexibility. and allows them to move back and forth and to use the applications and the agent families in different ways.
Mark Stiving
So I actually think this is why credits exist, if you want to know the truth.
But I think it’s a fully psychological thing.
So explain to me the difference between a department having a thousand credits to go spend with Value IQ or finance saying to a department, you can now go spend a thousand dollars with Value IQ.
And so the truth is, either way, you could get the same thing.
Credits feel easier to allocate inside a company. It’s like, well, no one else can take my dollars away because I’ve already got these credits. I’ve already spent them. I’ve already spent the dollars.
Steven Forth
I think that’s part of it. But I think having the two dials that you can adjust. the credit consumption per, let’s call them actions. It doesn’t have to be actions. There are many different things you can apply credits to, but for the purposes of this conversation, we’ll just call them all actions.
So you can adjust the number of credits per action, and you can add new actions easily, and you can change the price per credit.
Now changing the price per credit is likely to be a much more fraught conversation. That’s going to be perceived as a price increase or decrease. Or maybe that’s where you apply your discounting. Buyers and users are much more flexible when it comes to credits.
So you could say that that’s just psychology, but having these two different levers or dials that you can adjust makes the design of the system I find much easier.
Mark Stiving
Okay, so I’m gonna stop arguing with you about should credits exist or not. I think I’ve gotten all my points across that says here’s why I don’t like them, but I know that they exist.
And one of the reasons I like them, A, is the psychological aspect. The other reason I like them a lot is because nobody actually knows what value is today in this world of AI. Unless you’ve got an outcome-based type pricing today, it is so hard. Things are changing so rapidly.
We just don’t know. And so I’m totally okay with saying, hey, I’m buying a pile of credits so that I can play and experiment and figure out what’s going on and see if I can figure out where the value is. Totally okay with that.
And so let’s assume that the world is going credits because it is, right?
So now, what are the big problems we have with designing credits? We’ve got these two levers to pull, but there’s so many more problems involved in this whole credit process as well.
Steven Forth
Sure. I just want to call out the central one, though, because it’s something that a lot of people ignore or skip over, which is doing the fairly hard work. of mapping credits to value and making sure that that works across the different actions or the different ways that you can consume credits.
And just as a quick side comment, user-based pricing can be absorbed into a credit-based pricing system. They’re very, very flexible systems. So the key problem hasn’t changed, which is how do I understand value and how do I understand how I’m providing value?
And credit-based pricing gives you a new way to formalize that. But it remains hard work. Now, once you’ve done that, and many people don’t do it, or they just sort of skip over it, or they base their credits on costs, you still have a number of other design decisions that you need to face. And I think the easiest way to think of them is there’s three major ones.
One is credit pooling. So if you and I are in the same company, we buy credits, are you allowed to use my credits and am I allowed to use your credits?
So pooling rules are a critical part of credit-based pricing design.
A second thing is overage. What happens when I run out of credits? And this is causing a lot of problems today. Why don’t we come back to it in a moment and just get the third one out.
And then the third one is rollovers. So if I don’t use all of my credits, what happens to them?
So let’s just go through those three things one at a time, because those are really three of the most important things to think about when you’re designing a credit-based pricing model.
So pooling.
Mark Stiving
By the way, that one feels the least problematic to me. So I’d love to hear more about the problem.
Steven Forth
Yeah. You’d think it would be the least problematic.
You’d think that people would be happy to allow pooling. Many companies do not. Many companies tie the number of credits to a particular user and don’t allow sharing of credits.
And even Box, remember when Box introduced its AI, it only allowed you to share 20% of the credits. And aggressive CFOs don’t like pooling because they know that in fact, we all know that 10% of the users, you know, account for 90% of the usage.
And one of the reasons SaaS was so profitable was that 90% of the users were hardly ever touching the system, but they were still paying full freight.
Mark Stiving
And there was no cost anyway, so.
Steven Forth
Yeah. And people don’t like that. I mean, the sellers love that and the buyers where they’re so used to thinking in terms of per user that they don’t think about it.
Mark Stiving
I’m actually going to pause you right there for a second.
So when I work with SaaS companies, pre AI, I always focused on, you’ve got to get your users using the product.
Because the more they use it, the more value they get, the more value they get, the more likely they are to stay, to upgrade, to buy more.
So it’s like usage was really important at that point in time.
Steven Forth
And the fact that you had to coach them on that suggests that they weren’t doing it. Exactly. So there’s tension in management teams around pooling rules. You and I can sit here and agree, yeah, pooling is a great thing for the buyer. It does a way better job of aligning with value. What’s the problem with it? The CFO of the vendor though is going to say, well, the problem with it is that it’s going to reduce my revenues and reduce my profits.
Mark Stiving
Because the CFO wants to sell gym memberships when no one goes to the gym.
Steven Forth
Absolutely. It’s a very profitable way of doing business. It may not be acceptable going forward though in the credit based pricing world.
Mark Stiving
Okay. That’s actually, it sounds like it’s really related to number three as well. Right. The rollover. Right. Can we sell?
Steven Forth
Yep. Yep. In part. Should we do rollovers next?
Then we can talk about. Sure. Sure.
So same thing with rollovers, right? So I buy a hundred credits per month. At the end of the month, I have 20 credits left. What should happen to those credits?
So one thing is that they go poof and they disappear. You know, you had them, you didn’t use them. Tough luck. A second possibility is they get rolled over into the next month and then they disappear or they get rolled over for some longer period. What can’t happen is they can’t stick around forever because if they do, you can’t do revenue recognition and your CFO will hate you.
He’ll probably arrange to have you fired.
So as a pricing designer, whatever design you come up with for rollovers, it has to allow for revenue recognition, and you can’t have these big overhangs accumulating, because that’s a liability.
So here’s how I designed it for Value IQ.
So for free credits, because at Value IQ you get 200 free credits every month, you don’t use them, they go away. You didn’t pay for them anyway. They were free.
So I don’t think you got a complaint. If you do, it’s going to fall on deaf ears. you can make monthly commitments. If you make a monthly commitment, you can roll over the credits for one month. And then if you haven’t used them, they go away. If you make an annual commitment, you can roll over the credits for one year and then they go away.
So we have aligned your time commitment with how long you can roll over the credits for.
Mark Stiving
I actually think that’s really smart because from a customer point of view, that feels really fair, right?
It feels like I made the decision on how long I want my rollover based on how long I’m going to commit to you.
Steven Forth
Yeah.
So, but the critical thing with rollovers is I don’t care how you do it, but at some point unused credits have to go away because if they don’t, you can’t do revenue recognition.
Mark Stiving
So I want to push back on that one one more time. I understand the rules. I understand why you say what you say.
But if my buyer didn’t use it, why should I get paid for it?
Why should I recognize the revenue if my buyer didn’t use it?
Steven Forth
So you do have the option of refunding unused credits.
And I hope you will enjoy the conversation with your CFO when you have to pay balances.
Mark Stiving
You have to know, Steven, I don’t know when I came to this realization, almost my entire thought process is from a buyer’s perspective. Which is good. Right.
And so I’m always thinking, what’s a buyer going to think about this?
Steven Forth
Yeah. But, you know, going back to your gym membership metaphor, if you didn’t go to the gym in December or in January, do you expect to get a refund because you decided not to go?
Mark Stiving
I do not.
Steven Forth
So I think credit refunds are, the other problem with credit refunds is it’s the opposite of rollovers and it creates a serious overhang problem for the finances of the company.
I suspect that a lot of companies would rapidly become unviable if they took that approach.
Mark Stiving
Okay. I mean, we do have to think from the company’s perspective and I get the CFO story. Absolutely.
And I also think that cell phone companies taught us about overage. I’m sorry, taught us about rollover minutes. It’s like, Oh, we’re going to give you rollover minutes for a month or something.
Steven Forth
Yeah. Cause we’re such nice people and we love you so much.
Mark Stiving
Yes, exactly. But we got used to the concept. I’ll put it that way.
Steven Forth
Yeah. I think there’s a lot to learn.
Let’s face it. The subscription economy used a lot of metrics. from the cell phone industry. ARR and customer lifeline value, that metric came from cell phone industries.
We should have another conversation at some point about what capital investment means for the tech companies and their pricing models, but that’s a separate conversation. Let’s go on.
So we’ve talked about pooling and we’ve talked about rollovers. The other big thing is overages. What should happen when you run out of credits?
So there are a couple of different ways you can approach the design here.
One is you crash into a wall and you have a hard stop, unless you buy a higher tier. And in fact, that is how a lot of the first generation credit-based pricing models worked. You know, you ran out of credits and I, by being part of these conversations, ah, damn, we’re going to run out of credits. You know, everyone slow down, you know, slow down for the next week until we get our next monthly installation of credits. Or, oh, you want to develop that piece of functionality?
Wait till next month when we have the credits available. These are like bad conversations, right? They’re in nobody’s interest. The buyer is unhappy. The seller is losing money. So a hard stop, you know, a hard stop is bad design. It’s an anti-pattern. Then there are two, actually there are a number of other solutions, right?
One is you can borrow from next month’s credits. That might be, you know, in seasonal businesses and that could be a good solution for everyone. You know, it starts to interact with rollovers and you can get some fairly bizarre behaviors if you’re not careful, but it’s one approach.
So I can borrow from my next month’s credits and use them in this month.
Another approach is what the vibe coding vendors used to do, which is force you to upgrade. And in fact, that’s actually how value IQ worked in its version one pricing model. And I decided after we watched people use it for a few months, that that was bad design on my part. I should not have done that.
So another approach is true up. So you can use as many credits as you like this month. We’re not going to charge you any fees, but then we are going to increase your subscription next month based on the previous month’s use. That can make sense for users that are steadily growing their usage, but it makes no sense if I had a pop because I was developing some new functionality or it was seasonal use or whatever.
So that’s one possible design decision. In many cases, it’s a poor one. There are cases where it might be the right one. Another approach, which is what Lovable has done and what ValueIQ’s new credit model does, is if you need more credits, you can buy them. You can just. you know, buy them whenever you need them. There’s two ways to think about this. One is that’s your entire credit based pricing model. People just buy the credits they need when they need them.
And, you know, that’s it. It’s very transactional. Another approach is to say, well, you have to have some subscription in order to buy additional credits. So I think best practices and best design patterns are still emerging here.
And we can add the link when this is published, but Lovable’s chief growth officer has a great post on LinkedIn on her thought process and how they A-B tested this when they added the ability to buy credits. And I would guess it has increased the amount of money that ValueIQ pays Lovable by 40%. because we have a subscription.
We’re happy with the subscription.
We frequently need to buy more credits and we are happy to do so. It would be cheaper.
You pay a premium for buying credits on an as-needed basis.
So at some point we’ll increase our subscription once we know how many credits we’ll probably need. But that’s a basic role that we’re holding.
Mark Stiving
So you didn’t say one that I used to recommend to my clients when they were running some type, it wasn’t really credits, but some type of limits to say, hey, when you’re in the better package, you get X number of actions, right?
And what I would always recommend is just let them go over 10%. Let them know that they went over and don’t do anything about it.
Steven Forth
Soft overages. Yeah, soft overages. That’s another pattern. I’ve actually got a blog post where I actually looked at what’s happening in the real world and how many people are doing that. So that’s soft overages where you’re forgiving.
Mark Stiving
Yeah. So it feels to me like that’s really good. It makes the client feel good.
And then once they go over 10% over, then it’s like, we’re going to renegotiate. We’re going to move you to a higher tier. We’re going to, we’re going to do something.
Steven Forth
Yeah. No, no. I think soft limits and whether it’s 5% or 10% or 20% depends on the business and the positioning, but no, I agree. That’s another design pattern that is worth considering.
Mark Stiving
Nice.
Steven, believe it or not, we’ve already gone 30 minutes on this one. We’re going to have to call it quits. Let’s wrap it up with the final question. Do you have any new pricing advice?
What’s the one piece of pricing advice you’d give our listeners that you think could have a big impact on their business?
Steven Forth
So I’m going to stay with value.
And that is you need to invest the time and effort to be studying how you create value and how that’s changing, because that’s the foundation for all of your subsequent pricing decisions.
Mark Stiving
That sounds like an answer I would have given Steven. That was beautiful.
So thank you to our listeners. If you enjoyed this, would you please leave us a rating and a review? Oh, Steven, how can they contact you if they want to?
Steven Forth
The easiest way is through LinkedIn. I’m very easy to find and quite active on LinkedIn.
So Steven Forth, you can also find me Steven, S-T-E-V-E-N @valueiq.ai.
Mark Stiving
Perfect, and to our listeners, if you have any questions or comments about the podcast, or if your company wants to see value the way your buyers do, email me, mark@ impactpricing.com. Now, go make an impact.
Advertisement
Thanks again to Jennings Executive Search for sponsoring our podcast. If you’re looking to hire someone in pricing, I suggest you contact someone who knows pricing people. Contact Jennings Executive Search.
[Outro]
