Pricing in the AI Era: From Inputs to Outcomes, with Paid CEO Manny Medina

Your customer will always default to something like the easiest way to buy, which is either some kind of fixed price or a consumption price for the first year to see if it works. But if it does work, it is up to the AI agent, builder and creator to go back to the same customer and say, let's align on things that are important to you and charge for it.

Greetings. Today we're joined by Manny Medina, founder of Paid. Paid helps agentic AI companies make money by dialing in their pricing and costs. Manny experienced the problem he's now solving with his previous venture outreach where he first encountered the challenges of pricing and margin management. Challenges that are becoming top of mind as a gentic companies move from experimentation into production. Paid provides the infrastructure that helps AI companies transition from simple activity based pricing to more sophisticated value based approaches, allowing them to capture their fair share of the value they create for their customers. In this episode we'll explore Manny's contrarian views on AI pricing models, his framework for the four pricing approaches that are working today, why he believes specialized AI agents targeting narrow problems are printing money and what it takes to build a successful business in the age of AI agents. We hope you enjoy. All right, we're here in London for a very special episode of Training Data with Paid founder Manny Medina. Manny, welcome to the show.

Thank you for having me. This is awesome.

All right, we're going to start off with a high level question.

Okay.

In the world of AI apps.

Yep.

These are your customers. So I think you have a pretty good sense of what's working and what's not working.

Yep.

What's working?

So I think that we are right now, and if you were to take the analogy of Hedgehog versus Fox, we're in hedgehog land right now.

I love where this analogy is going.

So if you take up a very narrow problem and then you hedgehog into it and you become the best at that one thing that is printing money right now, like everyone that I'm seeing.

What's a good example?

A good example? For instance, I love what Quandary is doing. I love what Expo is doing in your portfolio. I love what Happy Robot is doing. There are very narrow cases of problems that have a lot of people in it that don't have a clear solution for software. There's no software to solve that problem. It's people heavy. It's interesting because they're not replacing people right now, but they're replacing BPOs. So whatever you see BPOs having a big role, that is food for the apex predator that we're seeing right now in the world of AI, which is AI agents.

And for the uninitiated, what is quandary? What is Expo? What is Happy Robot?

So quandary does policy renewals. Another one that is adjacent to it is a company called OWL that does. They're in the insurance space too, but they review claims. They review claims data again. So super tiny. Like, you look at it and you pass because you think that the world is really small. But when you look at all the amounts of claims that people do and the ones that get left over, they're taking care of those. Happy Robot is calling truckers on behalf of brokers. So if you want to send beer from Milwaukee to Boston and you call a broker to find your trucker, Happy Robot spins up 2,000 agents. Agents call the truckers, which is a guy and a dog, and they negotiate with each other until they book the load and then they call the trucker all the way, all the way to delivery.

Of course, once that Milwaukee beer gets to Boston, the Bostonians are going to send it right back home.

They're going to throw it over. Exactly. But somebody has to move the beer around. So this is a thing. Expo, of course, does pen testing. And again, they took out the pen testing agencies. They, they rank them, they look like the best, and then they run it for you. So these are, in my mind, very narrow problems. So Expo doesn't come and say, I'm going to be a full cybersecurity solution, which eventually they will be, but that you're saying, I'm just going to continuously bang against the door of every single app and backend that you have, and I'm just going to figure out a way to penetrate it. And that's going to happen with the highest quality possible, and it's going to happen continuously, which is unavailable right now.

And is the converse also true? The things that are not working or things that are too broad in scope at the moment?

I think there is a lot of traction in things that are broad in scope in terms of companies coming out. And they're doing okay. They're quite well, like Harvey's doing quite well. And they're not so broad in scope. They're narrow into the legal system. But I'm excited for what Crosby is going to do. For instance, they're tackling the problem in a. In the similar space, but with a different approach. You're just like full out replacing the lawyer for commercial contracts. But if you go too broad, for instance, AI SDR is a little too Broad and that encompasses a lot of things and means a lot of different things for a lot of different people. There is going to be swirl. So I don't like to characterize it into what's working, what's not working. I characterize into what's working now and what's not working yet. You see what I mean? Like what is going to be refined and eventually come through? Like for instance, the one that I'm waiting for with bated breath is AI assistants for EAs who's going to be my AI EA. And I think there is Lindy and there is Fixer out there, but they're not quite, quite there yet. You see what I mean? They're not. For instance, I love Fixer, but I have three time zones that I work through. My co founder is in India sometimes and like most of our customers are in Pacific zone. I'm here and like getting that to work out just right doesn't quite work for me. But if I had like one time zone and I had like one line of business, like, like if I'm a real estate broker, they are perfect, like perfect fit for that particular thing. So like big problem, narrow application, nailed it.

We have a. On the EA front, we have a founder to introduce you to. He's, he's in stealth so I can't say his name. Okay, it's coming.

Perfect. All right. Love to see it. Because this is one of those problems that I'm just going to wait. I'm not like I've been had an AI forever and I'm going to bite the bullet and just kind of wait for AI to catch up. So I'm ready guys. Send me business.

Do you have a sense for which markets are likely to be transformed sooner rather than later and which markets are going to be more resistant to AI transformation?

So I heard this thesis when I came up with the idea for paid, it was right around when Strawberry dropped. And you guys wrote that paper on the shift to Cognition Act 01, right? Yeah, I remember where I was. It's one of those things that I read the paper and then I listened to somebody reading the paper and I remember where I was. There's so many episodes in your life. You remember where you were when that happened? I remember exactly where I was when that happened and just hit me and I was listening to. I think it was Mamoon from Kleiner who had this hypothesis that I actually fully disagree with.

Fully disagree.

Yeah. So his hypothesis is that AI is going to start with the highest paying jobs.

Okay.

Because that's where the money is. Right. So it makes logical sense. Right. You go and target the most expensive job and you displace those developers, lawyers, accountants, doctors. I actually disagree with that hypothesis. I think AI is the highest paid. People will buy AI as a side thing and ditch it with the same regularity that they ditch other things in their lives. I think AI is going to stick the landing where it actually takes over our role fully that nobody else wants to do. So for instance, nobody wakes up and wants to be an insurance actuary or an insurance adjuster.

Our partner rule of boto would beg to differ. Yeah, perhaps the only licensed actuary in the world of venture capital.

All right, so I'm sure there is an exception to that. But these are jobs that are hard to, that are hard to backfill.

Yes.

So you know when quandary does is this policy renewals, people like they're just like they're replacing people that are exiting the business and they're not filling it back on. Right. The same thing was like nobody wants to wake up and like work for a bpo banging out the phone. Like they do that job for like six months on the way to a different job. So they turnover in these jobs are really high.

So.

So what I'm observing from my end is that the companies that are doing really well are addressing pools of labor that are either disappearing because of retirement or they want to do something else or they're run by BPOs.

Yes.

And in that segment I'm seeing a lot of stickiness, I'm seeing a lot of expansions, I'm seeing a lot of growth and really good economics. Like I can charge whatever I want. You know, my upper bound of my price is the labor cost. My lower bound on my price is my margin. And, and people are going to town on that. So in terms of people experimenting with outcome based et cetera, that's where I see the majority of my traction in the broader application. The reason I disagree with the rich job replacement is because everyone is going to go there. You see what I mean? If OpenAI needs another source of revenue or a company needs another source of revenue, they're going to go after lawyers and accountants. Why? Because it's hard and they pay a lot and they buy everything. So I feel like that market is going to be hot for now and then it's going to get super competitive and then you're going to have a lot of people in it.

See, I wonder if you can have your cake and eat it too. I wonder if Both you and Mamoon are correct in the sense that for the higher paying, more creative jobs, I think the copilot approach, and I don't mean Microsoft copilot, I mean the approach of AI that is giving people superpowers seems to really be working, you know, Harvey and legal or open evidence and medicine. Whereas for the jobs that are lower paying and a little bit less creative, the full autopilot approach seems to be working where you're fully replacing the work with an autonomous agent that can do it so better, faster, cheaper. And so I wonder if it's both. And then as far as moats for the copilots, I think you're right that because those are big categories where there seems to be a lot of money, there's going to be a lot of competition. I think what we're also seeing is collaborative workflows, which are kind of the eighth wonder of the world as it comes to software. Collaborative workflows still work. You tend to get pretty deeply embedded into your customer and then once you're in there, you're providing a ton of value and they don't really want to switch, right?

No, so it's true.

But.

But I think the world has changed a little bit in that I don't know that you're going to see asanas anymore or servicenows or any of those. They work in the collaborative workflow when it didn't exist and they were revolutionary. I think now anyone can spin up, you can vibe code a servicenow.

This is a good topic. So vibe code, are you a believer or not? Where are you in vibe coding?

We're, dude, we spun up painting like a month and a half. You are a vibe coder and half of it was by coding. I mean we have to throw it away. But this is the beauty of vibe coding. You can throw it away and re spin it. You know what I mean? Like there is no. There is a lot of people getting hung up on the whole debugging thing. You don't debug vivecode, you throw it away and you start and you put it in production and when it breaks, you start. It's wonderful. You can always start.

This is very comforting to your customers.

Yes, well, I don't have a lot yet, so I don't have a big problem. But eventually it will be a big problem. To start is. Is a very easy thing. So back to the workflow question. I think that you're right. So if you become a definitive workflow for X, Y or Z, like it's Definitely a sticky point. I just think that the speed of competition is really high right now.

Yes.

And copilots have. The explainability of the value of a copilot is really hard to land. Like, how do I differentiate one copilot versus the next versus the next versus an X? And they all can come and say, I'm the same as X but better or cheaper. And that's a recipe for swirl. So unless they specialize in verticals and say, like, if you are, you know, if Harvey were to say, like, for, I don't know, patent law, I am the best. And I got 78% of the market boom. Right, but now you're moving into the very narrow application with very narrow set in a very rich market. It's rich because you own the whole of it, not because the whole market is rich. You see what I'm saying? So that's, that's. But look, we're all hypothesizing here. Like, I make money either way, so. So I'm happy for all of it to work out.

So you're trying to jump in to help with this on pricing and packaging, what are you seeing work today?

So I'm seeing four things stick in the landing with aplomb, with gusto. One is, you know, clearly charging by activity. You know, that's an easy one, has a credit consumption type model and you can show the activity that was done fairly easily. The other one that I'm seeing more is changing by workflow. When you string a number of activities and you say this workflow cost this much like a document review. Right. Because then you can separate documents that are small from documents that are long and complicated because they have different consumption patterns.

And it feels like you're getting closer to value based pricing as opposed to cost based pricing.

Exactly, exactly. So moving to a workflow allows you to move out of the treadmill of charging for pure work to charging for actually that is worth something to somebody. And then eventually you will get to some kind of outcome. And what I've been recommending to my customers, not out there yet, but I'm going to give it a push, is to charge instead of charging per outcome. Get an outcome bonus, meaning if an outcome happens of a particular quality that is measurable, charge for it. That way it opens the door to a conversation of value alignment. And the moment you open the door to a conversation, follow value alignment. Then you start getting into more bespoke contracts with each of your customers, which are super hard to rip out.

Historically, that's been a tough pricing model to pull off. Do you think AI changes that?

I think AI completely changes that because in the past we wanted to put everyone in these little boxes called SKUs and then we wanted to count SKUs and each SKU will have a discretionary amount of discounting whatnot. That was a world of rows and columns and you don't need that anymore. If you go to the largest companies again, like a ServiceNow or a Salesforce, all their large contracts are bespoke. So you send off Paul Smith or their CRO to go and sit down with United Condo party. He comes back with a deal and the deal has all sorts of complications in it that doesn't belong into the CPQ world, you know what I mean? I don't know why in the agentic world you wouldn't do that all the time with the customers that you want to go big with. You can always put a chat interface to say, interpret this contract for me and give me the annualized value. You can inquire all the body of contracts you have done and get a sense for your unit economics and your growth and what this looks like. I think that custom contracts is here.

Okay, you had four things. There was activity based, there was workflow based, was outcome.

A third outcome is a third and.

It was the fourth.

The fourth is pay by agent.

Pay by agent. How's that work?

So I've been working with a lot of the AISDR companies to get into, to introduce this as a concept because a lot of what they're doing is replacing say 80% of what normal SDR would do. And an SDR fully loaded will cost you somewhere between 70 and $90,000 a year. So you can pay instead of saying a platform fee, say like I'm going to deploy X many agents, the agents are going to do this amount of work that is equivalent of a $90,000 a year ser. I'm going to charge you 20,000 per agent. The agent is going to deliver this much work and you can pay me a bonus for meeting. For meeting. Both.

Yeah. How do you, how do you define, I guess how do you define the job of an SDR? Do you just say, hey, your human SDRs have a certain quota. This agent's going to hit the same quota.

Yeah. When you hire an sdr, the first thing you get is activity. So you get X many calls x many meetings. You have a book of accounts, you have contacts within that account and each of those contacts get an activity. So that's where you get the 100 calls a day. Type of SDRs. You can do the same thing with an AI SDR. You can say you're going to draw a boundary around the activity that this agent is going to do, and then you're going to charge for that agent because the output is the same. Right. And then your job is to say, look, Instead of paying 90,000, pay 20,000 for the agent and then pay me a bonus for meeting booked, pay me a bonus for opportunity close one, which is very similar to the equivalent of hiring, which is the hiring of a human in the flesh sdr. And you get to dip into the headcount pool of budget as opposed to the tools pool of budget. So you're not in the revops purview in terms of where my budget is coming from. You're in the hr, which is far larger. So that's what I'm sort of trying to steer people away from charging like it was a tool, because then you're constrained. Then the CRO has a budget for so many things and you'll get a sliver of that as opposed to full headcount replacement.

What are the pitfalls that you're seeing with companies that are ending up in the charging as a tool bucket rather.

Than charging for the work that then you get pigeonholed into seats, I guess.

What are people doing that makes them get pigeonholed?

A lot of what I'm seeing selling is the vast majority of AI agent companies are doing PoCs right now. I mean, they look like contracts and they look like their money, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But in reality, every company in the planet got a AI mandate. So somebody in that company went and pursued some software and then they bought it. And they bought it as software and as a trial.

Vibe revenue?

Yeah, 100% vibe revenue. Okay, so like, so now you have the Vibe revenue curve. And now soon we're going to come into renewal land and that's going to separate the wheat from the chaff. And at that point you're going to figure out who got real stickiness and who doesn't. It's. And that's where the real monetization scheme is going to come in. Because they're going to figure out who made money, who didn't make money, what kind of value they deliver or not.

They'll see the outcomes, and they will.

See the outcome, right? Exactly 100%. And it's funny because a lot of my early customers, I told them how I thought about the world and they said that will never happen. And now they're calling me back and be like, hey, I just got my first contract that only pays me per outcome and I calling you because I don't know who else to call. So I feel like this is going to be pulled by the buyer. You see what I mean? As a way to mitigate risk because AI is risky in a number of dimensions and outcome actually lowers your risk.

Is this in the four things you mentioned? Activity, workflow, outcome, agent? Is that a maturity curve of sorts? Is the idea that you want to get to selling agents or maybe you want to get to selling outcomes?

It's a fascinating question. So the answer is I think there is a maturity element into it, but it's a little bit of making your own adventure element to it in that there's a bottom line. So everybody has to get out of selling by activity. If you stay there, somebody will come along and say I'll do the same thing for cheaper. And then you are in a nightmare scenario in which there is tons of others who look just like you. Messaging is just like you. And the other way to separate the we from the chaff is to try and now you're like churning from one to the next. So yes, there is a maturity level in that if you don't move out of that bottom one, which is easy to sell, you'll get competed out. Once you get into workflows, then you're into value based pricing and then you're defining what the workflow is and why is that important. And then you are in a deeper conversation and that forces a much better alignment and that requires some. So I guess the answer to a quick question is yes, that requires some level of maturity to have that conversation with your customer. Your customer will always default to the easiest way to buy, which is either some kind of fixed price or a consumption price for the first year to see if it works. But if it does work, it is up to the AI agent, builder and creator to go back to the same customer and say let's align on things that are important to you and charge for it.

Do you have any sense of which markets are likely to stay with value based pricing and which markets are likely to collapse into cost based pricing? Have you seen sort of early indications from the companies that you're talking with or working with of markets that are trending in one direction or the other?

So what I'm seeing right now is that for those who are targeting BPO budgets, yes, to win that business, they go at the BPO pricing, lower it, and they say I'm going to do the same as the BPO cheaper 24 7. And I'm going to accumulate all the data that the BPO used to do. Yep. But again, I'm seeing that as an intermediate step. Like that is not the full step. That's just a way to get into the market and win it. Then I wonder the VPO is not going to just sit there and just take it. These are relatively large companies and they can just as much buy somebody's technology and deploy it. So I wonder what will happen once the VPO turns around and deploys their own agents, replaces their own people, uses the data that they have internally to train or to make it better, and then go to town and defend themselves. I was actually talking to BCG about this and they wouldn't tell me that they're doing a lot of engagement with BPOs, but I sort of sensed it and I don't know that they're just going to sit on their hands and see their business go away. That will never happen. So I wonder, how does the game sort of levels, if you would, where does it balance the trade? I don't know the answer to that, but I think that to get into a market you see a lot of initial, let's price it the easiest way for somebody to consume. But to advance into the market, you immediately switch to something else. In the AIs. Er, I'll show that everywhere. Everyone came in and charging by some kind of token or credit or activity. But then it became a bloodbath and there's like 50 of these guys and they all kind of sound the same. So unless you start making some assertions of your quality and putting your pricing to back that assertion, meaning I'm going to get you five qualified meetings or I'm going to charge you per agent that replaces a human being, then you're going to get competed away as you.

Move into these more the later maturities of pricing models. How do you see people measure and actually implement these things?

I think that's the beauty in that to each customer, the definition of success is going to be a little bit different, a little bit of. I feel like I was like John the Baptist walking around eating locust and honey and looking like a crazy man, telling people that they should do bespoke contracts and everybody look at me like I'm crazy. Now it's coming around to say, like the ability for you to understand your customer's business and price and contract around it and have the engine behind it to support it is actually a competitive advantage in a world in which you all have the same tools. But it wasn't obvious now. It wasn't obvious when I started. I remember we talked in September last year. It wasn't obvious back then. It's getting a little bit more obvious now as we're turning on the lights in different parts of the market where people are saying, yeah, we need to do something that is very unique to me so that I can protect that asset or that contract. Second of all, I think it was Seth Godin who said pricing is part of your story. You know what I mean? And how do you differentiate in your market is your story has to be different and if your story is different and your pricing is the same, your story ends up being the same. You see what I mean? So aligning with. And this is why Sierra doesn't have pricing on their main page, because they're sitting down with each customer and they're finding out what's important to them. Is it time to resolution? Is it that the customer resolves a ticket and then buy something? Is it csat? Is it nps? What is it? And then you build a box around and you say that that's your outcome function. It's just the same as an objective function. In machine learning, you create this function of where you want everything to go and then you keep iterating towards it.

Yep. Yeah, well put. All right, talk a bit about the cost side of the equation and how margins play into this.

So it's really interesting because this is another one that I'm contrary. Like everybody's telling me that the cost of tokens are going to go down and this is going to become a commodity and whatever, whatever. I think in a world of reasoning, where is inference time compute worth more than training time computer, I just don't see how, at least in the immediate future, I just don't see how the token price goes down because you're going to require deeper level thinking. So what the problem with agents right now is that you workflow them. You go to Linegraph and you put your boxes and what each does and you string them together. But the fundamental problem with that is if you have a hallucination at the very beginning of that chain, you're screwed. You have all sorts of bad activity happening all through and there's no amount of eval that is going to rescue you out of that. So the better way to do it is to have the model do most of the work. You see what I mean? As opposed to have these little boxes of work, have the model do most of the work, have A good eval framework to make sure that it's doing the thing that it's supposed to be doing and then roll it out. In that world where you have less error rate, I don't see it that the cost per token going down. I see that if nothing else is going to go up as the models get more advanced and smarter.

Or it could be the horse race between volume and price. And price for a fixed workload may go down over time, but workloads increase because you're throwing more compute at things at inference time or because you're just doing more sophisticated jobs.

Yeah, I think over the long arc of history, I think you're absolutely right. I think in the very short term, as we're trying to figure this out, I just don't know the short of it. The second thing that I'm seeing actually, which is my big aha moment, is that agents are using one modality and the moment you nail the modality, you want to use all these other modalities. So you do text and then you want to do a phone call or to take an inbound call and do outbound call or to a band avatar or whatever that is, then you're incurring costs that are not LLM but are third party APIs. So the full cost of the full service, you got your cloud cost, you got your LLM cost, and then you have all this other stuff that you have to buy to make it sing in the different modalities in which it's used, or even buying data or buying whatever. And that is what's driving up the cost. So if you look at say an avatar company or a phoning agent, their cost is not quite the LLM. Their cost is how long are you going to stay on the phone and the number of dials that you do, or how long does the avatar run, et cetera. Those are compounding costs that you have to look out for. The problem that we have right now in coast mode is that because everything, like all the activity of the agent goes down through this eval framework that acts as a proxy before the token goes to the LLM. You don't know who's incurring what cost. So you don't know what customer is profitable to you, what customer is negatively impacting your margins. You don't know what agent is doing a good job, what agent isn't. You see it as a whole, you see what I mean? And this is why the margin problem is such a bare to solve.

And generally speaking, margins are a reflection of the amount of value that you're providing to your customer. Do you see that in AI apps right now, or is there a mismatch between the amount of value that companies are providing and the margins that they're able to get?

It's a mismatch because people don't know how to price and people don't know their cost. So this is why the problem compounds a little bit in that agent. Companies are relatively new, so they come to the market just trying to get business. So I'll price in whatever way you want to buy, and only later I find out whether I win or lost. You see what I mean? So I think that this is just the beginning of the game, that as they understand the unit economics, they're going to price better. As they understand the value delivery, they will price better, but they just don't see it yet. So, for instance, we build this thing in pay that we look at an activity or a workflow, and then we make this call to the service that tells us what is the human equivalent of the same work in what country? So if the work is kind of hard, it looks up the type of work. How much would that person make per hour and how long does the work take and returns a value. So we give our customers this little bit of pricing guidance that says the human equivalent of the same amount of work is this. You can price up to that point. You see what I mean? Or at least use that to go and say, I need an increase in what I'm getting paid. Because this is actually pretty expensive. But without that, it's kind of tricky. And it's not like you have Simon Kutcher, like price intelligence alongside you, guiding you all along. They come in once a year, and then they peace out. You're left holding the bag. Whereas you actually need guidance on this stuff every time you talk to your customer to get sure that you're getting your prices worth. The problem we're seeing is that the value is accruing to the customer, not to the agent business. They're capturing all the value of all the savings, and that needs to change.

Yeah.

So you started a company to help this. Tell us a little about why and what your mission behind it is.

When we were rolling out agents at Outreach and I wanted to understand the business fundamentals of the agents, my margins, the value that I'm adding, and how am I adding value. The underpinning software supporting me was not helpful, was not built for a world in which pricing needs to evolve, where the agents are delivering more than just you know, bits and bytes of delivering these full outcomes. And that just stuck in my head as I moved to London and I stepped aside from being CEO and I sort of like, noodle on that. And the problem kept on bugging me. So I'm like, is this a problem that was just me or who else had this problem? So I spent a couple of months just calling friends and other founders. And I always have this trick, right? Like, I know a lot about sales, right? And they know a lot about agents. So we will do a cross education. Ask me like an ama, like, you ask me anything about building out sales teams. And I asked him about, like, what it's like to run an agent business. And I found that this, like, running the business itself was all spreadsheets. So when I. And. And that's number one. Number two, some of the problems were actually difficult, but not intractable difficult. There was just a lot of work. You see what I mean? So I love when there is a problem that is big, people are hacking around it and the problem is not, like, simple as, like, you know, a couple lines of code kind of solves it. So that sort of was the inspiration behind it, solving the problem. Number three, I wanted to build a company that I get to work with the new founders because they are building a company themselves. And that kind of energy just drives me. So the most fun thing to do when I was running outreach was customer conversations. But the customer conversations at the founder level are so raw, are so full of wonder and mystery and energy. I can just see my energy tank just going up and up and up. In every single one of those conversations, I'm like, I want to do this for a living. This is a great place to exist and the market is going to be big, and it's a small enough market that I can just cold call everybody. And most people will return my call because it's founder to founder stuff. I see your problem. Maybe I can help you, maybe you can help me. And boom, you're in. You're in a conversation. So, like, it didn't almost feel like selling. It felt like I was solutioning. And at the end of the day, like, I would tell him where I'm building this thing. And they were like, yeah, let me try it. And like, I had 100% history on people who said, let me try it. I'm like, oh, shit, let's go. The worst that could happen, somebody buys something.

We haven't actually said explicitly what is paid. So maybe, maybe just answer that question. What is paid?

Yeah. Thank you so paid is the business engine for for AI companies. So what we do at Paid is that we build the entirety of your billing, invoicing, monetization, pricing, even at this point, we're doing collections, revenue recognition. So the entirety of your vendor management, margin management, so the entirety of the back office. You need to get your business up and running to understand the unit economics and run your business. That's what we're building at Paid. Our first foray into the market was our monetization engine and our margin management engine, which is the biggest problem that we're seeing in the market. But we're building the adjacent. So the problem compounds. The moment you solve monetization and invoicing, then you need to solve collections. The moment you solve margin, then you need to solve vendor management, and so on and so forth. So we're just building the unified layer that allows you to run your business in one place.

How much of what you learned at Outreach transfers directly to building Paid and how much is new?

The human aspect is the same. Building themes is the same, Inspiring is the same. Selling ahead of capability is the same. What's new is how savvy the world has become in terms of company building. I think you made this joke in our podcast that you look at an AI agent company, you take the hood off and it's just building a company. The building company part has gotten so much smarter. Like, everyone that I talk to like, is way more advanced than I was at the same stage in my building of outreach where people have seen what happened in SaaS, the whole arc, and they're building completely differently.

I was going to say, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Because I think the positive case would be people are better informed, they're just making better decisions and they're expediting a lot of the aspects of building a company that are not unique to their specific company. I think the negative case would be that people are blindly pattern matching and not understanding the causal determinants that actually lead to healthy businesses over time. Do you think it's more the former it's a good thing, or more the latter, it's a bad thing. Maybe somewhere in the middle, case dependent.

To be frank, I haven't stopped to think about that particular question, but if I were to put a qualifier to it, I think that the initial conditions are different. Meaning they're starting from a point in that I'm going to keep the company small, I'm going to own more of my destiny. So we're going to raise in A different way. We're not going to be growth at all cost. I see. I've seen it from several founders already that they take more time honing in who their ideal customer profile is and making sure that they scale that versus scaling everything. So when I started outreach, I was always trying to figure out what are the edges of my market, who should I be selling to? And it turns out I can sell to everybody. And that actually makes the problem worse. Right? Because I can sell to a startup, I can sell to a very large company. Like Adobe was one of my earliest customers. As much as I can sell to the Hillary campaign, as much as I can sell to a repo company, they all have communication problems, they all have workflow problems, but they all have completely different ways of getting to them, honing in the product for their particular solution. And it was really hard for me to let go. And I sort of like wallow in the CEO of business that I had from every walk of life where if I were to relive my company, I would like really hone it in with intention and say like, okay, so what does make outreach a billion dollar run rate company and then like stack from there. I'm seeing these new founders coming with that point of view. I'm like, what is it? The. The narrowest profile that I can sell without a lot of friction and then going up from there. Now the problem with that is that they may be restrained their icp. See, I mean, they may not be trying, they may not be experimental enough to grow the company from single product to multi product to platform.

Yeah, but quality tends to scale. Right? If you really nail it for a small audience and you can start compounding from there, that's probably better than being mediocre for a big audience.

100%. And it just makes life more fun because your roadmap is a lot clearer. Your tickets, they all look the same. So the scaling of all the other operations is actually easier when you have one type of customer that you're serving with excellence. And then you get known, the word of mouth gets bigger. All that happens more organically. Again, I wish I knew that when I started outreach and that was faster to. All right, let's narrow, narrow, narrow, narrow, narrow and stay super focused on these two things or one thing.

All right, Manny, so how does one get started with paid?

So that's a great question. We are now onboarding manually to make sure that we have all the pieces dialed to your business. So you apply and there is a short questionnaire like monetization Margins and what breaks you in. We'll schedule a conversation for onboarding. And the beauty of being an early stage startup is that all the onboarding is done by me and my small team. We make sure that we're capturing your agent work correctly. We're making sure that we're guiding you with best practices because we understand the market. At this point, we've seen pretty much everything under the sun, so we understand your market, how you should charge and give you a few ideas, get your invoicing trail going, get your margin trail going so you have visibility into how you're making money. And we'll be a short call away at all times. So just apply, make sure that you have an agent business and some customers and then we'll take care of you from there on.

What's it like to be part of your team? Maybe. What words would you use to describe the culture of paid?

I know this is super trite, but the first word that comes to mind is fun. And the reason it's fun is because we're serving an industry that in itself is fun. Everyone that I talk to that is building agents out there, they can't believe they're doing this for a living. They can't believe they're like, these are.

Like, what a time to be alive.

What a time to be alive. They're doing stuff that and they're getting paid to have fun. So all our conversations are super fun. I remember when I was in sas, there's a lot of people who are stressed out and there's all this milestones and whatever. Maybe because everyone is early stage right now, so there is not a whole lot of growth rounds happening. So nobody has a number that they have to hit or an efficiency they have to hit. But everyone is just enjoying the discovery. So it's a little bit like that book from Basis of Innovate and Wonder. Everyone is innovating and wondering, Living the art of the possible. With models improving every seven months, you have a new toy to play with every seven months. I think the ability. So this is understated. The ability to vibe code an idea, to just at least show how it works and then actually build it has made the iterations and the conversations so much faster. You can just say, we think we should build this or I have a lot of energy around this thing and you can just write it and you can see it work and you can tweak it a little bit and then present it in front of everybody and sell it like you're selling internally to another to Another person. So this ability for us to be brass stacks in terms of like what we're building, for whom we're building, being so small and getting so much work done in a small team and being so close to our customer because we're early, it's just fun. I think that's the best word to describe it.

Very cool. Love it. All right, let's jump into the lightning round.

You ready? All right.

All right, Question number one. Who is on your Mount Rushmore of founders?

Jeff Bezos for sure.

Okay.

He's a big name founder in my life. I have a lot of friends that are founders. I just really. They really inspire me, you know, like Todd Olson from Pendo. He's a great founder that I just find he's a great human being as well. I really like what Sam Altman has done with OpenAI. I think the ability to just push out innovation with regularity and be a showman in the world, I think it's something that I aspire to be. The Collison brothers are really special to me because they're so voracious in their appetite and the reading and how they think about the world, that even though they're very young, they're so wise that I really look up to them.

Awesome.

What's one piece of content that every AI founder should read?

I've been thinking about this one a lot because the thing that changed my perspective in AI is actually a very old book about a statistical natural language processing that. It was written by a guy called. His name is Rich Manning. It was mandatory reading at Stanford Computer science program on the natural language program course. I don't know that it is anymore because it's so old, but it's like one of those oldie but goodie kind of thing where they tell you how a Markov chain works, how the length of the look back and look forward to try to predict the next word. It's like the early days of machine learning and a lot of the stuff that we're doing right now is still based on this statistical approach. So I know that a lot of advances have been done and we now cut tokens in many different ways and optimize in many different ways. But I feel like if you don't understand where all came from, I don't know that you're going to get where it's going. So that book is actually not a hard read. Even though it sounds like a hard read, it's a fairly easy read. It's written in a fairly normal and accessible way and I can't believe more people haven't read it yet.

What AI product can you not live without?

Oh, Perplexity. That's an easy one.

What do you do with Perplexity?

Oh, we do everything. It's so weird. No, seriously, it's so weird. Like fashion advice or like, you know. So the hardest thing for me is to have to take a driving test again. Like, come on. Like, you know, I know it's the wrong side of the road and everything, but, like, having to relearn everything is just absurd. And I've been, you know, pushing away, learning how to drive here in the uk, and my wife had to beat the bullet because one of us had to drive at some point. And she just went to Perplexity and looked for advice on finding a good person to help her how to drive. And she found this super guy that has helped her go from zero to driving in no time, which I didn't know Perplexity can do that, but it can. So it's taken over pretty much every aspect of our life. That, and of course, I don't write anything without anthropic anymore. Like, Claude is my constant companion for pretty much everything I do. It's like a friend that I talk to and I shouldn't be talking to if we were to have imaginary friends. Claude is mine.

Models are commoditizing. Yes or no?

No, not yet. Not in a world of reasoning. I think that we're just scratching the surface where this can go, and there's a lot to go. Like, if you see every new model coming out, the input tokens are far more expensive than the one they leave behind by a factor of six or seven or eight, not by small amount. And I think that this is just going to continue as we discover new things.

On what date did we or will we reach AGI?

I think it's kind of here already, just in an underused kind of way. We haven't really bottomed out everything a model can do. So I think it's just behind door number three or something. I think it's already here. We just haven't acknowledge that it is.

Yeah.

And then what's your most optimistic future state for AI? Describe it.

It's a scaffold for human imagination. I think we also haven't really absorbed how much smarter we get when we have somebody else doing a lot of the thinking and discovering for us. It's sort of like when somebody props you up on the shoulders. Like, all of a sudden you can see farther and longer. AI is doing the same thing for us. We will now be able to see farther and longer and come up with things that were impossible before. Such a time to be alive.

Yeah. Last question. One piece of advice for AI founders.

Stay focused on a very narrow set of customers. Don't worry about tam. Disregard. And they say this all in the world. Disregard VC advice about big TAMs. Small TAMs will be big tams as long as you deliver a superb experience.

Awesome. Thank you, Manny.

Thank you.

Thank you. That was awesome.

Sam.