I think it would be useful if at least the first email could be read without a subscription. Just to understand the content, tone of voice, and so on. I believe the conversion rate would be higher after that first read.

What we didn’t try

For example, charging based on customer revenue (like ChartMogul). It doesn’t really fit our case, but I just don’t like this model overall.

We also avoided usage-based pricing tied to API calls or account activity.

We never tried monetizing through ads or selling anonymized data — and we never plan to.

And unlike many SaaS companies, we never forced existing customers to accept price increases. I know some businesses calculate churn vs. uplift and decide it’s worth it. We’ve stayed away from that path.

No, as far as I know. But as a merchant, in theory you can block that customer from making future payments. But probably only their specific card or email.

I’d say if a chargeback does happen, the chances of winning =0, unless you can convince the customer to withdraw it. I realized this especially after my last dispute, where I was 100% sure I would win. But that’s it. I have no faith in the process anymore. What’s left is just the internal struggle, I always want to respond to something unfair and try to prove my case. But here it’s not worth doing.

Of course we would never do anything like that. In the post I just shared two different cases to give some perspective to the community.

From everything discussed in the article, there are a 2 major takeaways:

1) You need to avoid chargebacks as much as possible.

2) If a chargeback does happen, the chances of winning are basically zero — unless you can convince the customer to withdraw it.

Yeah, we have that

Sure, and that’s the right approach. We also issue refunds, but for that, the customer needs to write to us and ask.

I would suggest not requiring customers to write you for a refund. My company automatically refunds the most recent payment if the subscription is canceled within 7 days of renewal. The invoice email that we send when the subscription renews tells the customer how to get a refund. Chargebacks still happen (rarely), but if your company had this policy it would have prevented the first chargeback you mention.

Well, I treat other companies and people the way I’d like to be treated myself. Knowing that a chargeback is unpleasant and creates extra costs, I always first write to their support.

I treat other people like that, absolutely. Companies are not people and you can tell by the way they treat you.

The way a lot of businesses try to exist in this superposition between being "just pals!" when things are going their way but if you try and resolve a problem, they immediately start quoting policies and legalese is really off-putting tbh.

I appreciate your attention. Let me explain.

In the post I mentioned that we build several products. I didn’t want to list them all, because I always feel a bit awkward about self-promotion. My goal with the post was to spark a dialogue, not to advertise.

RE pricing page: yes, we do state that there’s a minimum of 5 seats. But there are no chargebacks here, since we don’t take a card upfront and we don’t bill in a hidden way. In the worst case, if you missed or didn’t read that detail, you can simply decline and not subscribe after the trial. You’ll see the price in Stripe before giving us your card. And if you prefer, you can stay on the free plan for up to 5 ppl.

Let me explain, you are advertising something for $10 and selling it for $50.

No wonder you get unhappy customers.

Here are two fixes

> "From $50"

> "$10/user minimum 5 users" in the same font and size

> But there are no chargebacks here, since we don’t take a card upfront and we don’t bill in a hidden way. In the worst case, if you missed or didn’t read that detail, you can simply decline and not subscribe after the trial.

This is a dark pattern. You should display the actual minimum monthly charge in text that is at least as large as the price per user.

No, the worst case is the customer gets the $10 price into their head and then doesn't see the actual monthly charge amount when they subscribe. You are now charging the customer 5x what they expected to pay.

As I mentioned in the article, this is extremely rare for us, but it has happened a couple of times. And that’s where I start having questions and frustration about the process itself.

I’ve shared examples in the article.

> this is extremely rare for us, but it has happened a couple of times

Put punitive terms into your SLA. (Though check with a lawyer about adhering to your merchant agreement.)

Charging back doesn’t cancel a contract. If you want to be vindictive, you could sell the debt to a collector.

Restatement (Second) Contracts sec. 356 would seem directed squarely at this bad idea.

It constrains liquidated damages to a reasonable figure. But it doesn’t prevent them. As for selling a debt to a collector, that seems perfectly reasonable, particularly if the customer made no effort to cancel.

I am acutely aware that it constrains liquidated damages to a reasonable figure. Conveyance to a collector is, of course, customary in the trade.

The problem is that a “punitive” amount of liquidated damages is neither reasonable, nor would it typically be found to have been the product of an actual estimate of the damages. See, 356 cmt. a.

If you didn’t say “punitive” in the LD provision, you’d have the “reasonable estimate” conversation but GP straight up called it a punitive clause, which is not going to fly (in many jurisdictions, ianyl, etc. etc.)

> a “punitive” amount of liquidated damages is neither reasonable, nor would it typically be found to have been the product of an actual estimate of the damages

Would note that the Restatement isn’t law, but an influential guideline. As long as the punitive terms are clearly agreed to, they ought to be able to fly. (Particularly if made in exchange for money, e.g. pay a premium to opt out of punitive cancellation.)