Monetizaton Engineering

Monetization Engineering: A New Discipline for a New Era of Software

Dec 11, 2025

1. Introduction: Why Monetization Just Got Harder

For the better part of a decade, B2B SaaS and software monetization was straightforward. The dominant model was simple: Per-Seat, Per-Month.

You signed a contract for 500 users, provisioned 500 licenses, and sent a recurring invoice. The cost of serving the 501st user was negligible (a row in a database and a small fraction of AWS compute). In this world, monetization was largely an administrative task. It lived in spreadsheets, PDF contracts, and static billing configurations.

That era is over.

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) and agentic AI workflows has materially shifted the economic center of gravity in software. Today, the cost of serving a customer is no longer negligible; it is variable and often volatile.

Every time a user prompts your AI Copilot, you incur costs for:

Input tokens
Output tokens
Vector database lookups
Potentially large context window caching

If your product utilizes autonomous agents, a single user request might trigger a recursive loop of ten, twenty, or fifty internal API calls and model inferences.

If you apply a flat Per-Seat price to a product with high-variance, usage-based costs, you take on significant margin risk. You face the "heavy user" problem, where your most engaged customers (the ones you should value) become your least profitable ones.

As a result, AI companies are moving to:

Usage-based pricing (UBP)
Hybrid models
Outcome-based pricing

In this environment, monetization is no longer just a pricing page choice or a billing system configuration; it is a systems engineering problem.

Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Snowflake, and Twilio have discovered that traditional billing tools cannot handle the complexity of consumption-based AI pricing. Both Snowflake and Twilio employ approximately 50 engineers each on internal billing infrastructure. For most companies, that is not feasible. Understanding what this discipline entails, and how to build it efficiently, has become a competitive necessity.

Your quote-to-cash vendor is not ready for this.
Your Rev Ops team is not ready for this.
Your engineering team does not have time for this.

A new technical discipline is forming to bridge the gap between product usage, quoting, billing, and revenue recognition.

We call this discipline Monetization Engineering.

2. The New Cost Reality for AI Products

Traditional SaaS operates at 70–80% gross margins because marginal costs approach zero at scale. AI-powered products face a different structure where every user interaction generates real, metered costs.

2.1 The Foundation Model Cost Landscape

Consider the current pricing landscape (2025–2026) from major foundation model providers:

OpenAI GPT-4o: ~$5 per million input tokens, ~$15 per million output tokens, after a significant price reduction since GPT-4's launch.
Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5: ~$5 input and ~$25 output per million tokens.
Anthropic Claude Sonnet models: ~$3 input and ~$15 output per million tokens.
Budget options:
- GPT-4o Mini: ~$0.15 / ~$0.60 per million tokens (input/output).
- Claude Haiku: ~$0.25 / ~$1.25 per million tokens (input/output).

These numbers become large when reasoning models enter the picture. Models like OpenAI's o1 and Claude's extended thinking mode generate thousands of internal "thinking tokens" that do not appear in the visible output but do count toward your bill.

A query that shows 500 words of output may actually process 10,000 or more tokens internally. This challenges the assumption that lower per-token prices automatically translate to lower overall costs.

2.2 Cost Per Interaction

Real-world cost-per-interaction estimates show why this matters for business model viability:

Simple chatbot response (GPT-4o Mini): ~$0.001–$0.01
Complex reasoning task with premium models: ~$0.05–$0.20
Document summarization with 10,000+ token inputs: ~$0.10–$0.50
Agentic workflows with multiple LLM calls, tools, and reasoning: ~$0.50–$5.00 per interaction

When heavy users generate 10–100x more cost than light users, the seat-based pricing model that worked for Slack becomes difficult to sustain.

2.3 Example: An “Agentic Marketing Platform”

User Action: A user clicks "Generate Campaign."

System Action: The agent:

Creates a plan
Drafts 5 emails
Generates 3 images
Creates landing page copy

The Cost: The workflow consumes:

15,000 input tokens
4,000 output tokens
3 image generation API calls
20 vector DB searches

The Revenue Question: How do you charge for this?‍

Options include:

Passing through token costs with a markup (hard for users to predict)
Charging per "Campaign Generated" (risky if campaigns fail or get regenerated repeatedly)
Charging a flat platform fee (margin risk)

This scenario shows that selecting and metering the right pricing metric is central. Some companies have scaled to millions in ARR only to realize their gross margins are negative because they:

Failed to meter intermediate model calls, or
Grandfathered power users onto effectively unlimited plans

Without granular visibility, down to the specific feature and model, you cannot know which customers are profitable.

Monetization Engineering provides the observability needed to see this.

3. The Monetization Stack: Entitlements, Metering, CPQ, Billing (and Why It Is Breaking)

Before defining the role, we should define the system. The Monetization Stack is the set of technical components that govern access and money. In the LLM era, this stack is under significant stress.

3.1 Entitlement & Access Control

Definition: The system that answers, "Is this user allowed to do X?"

The AI Challenge: Access is no longer just binary (Feature On/Off). It is quantitative and tiered.

Questions include:

Can this user access GPT-4 or only GPT-3.5?
Do they have a 32k context window or 128k?
How many agents can they run concurrently?
Have they hit their daily token cap?
‍

Entitlements now need to be checked in near real-time, sometimes mid-inference, to prevent cost overruns.

3.2 Metering

Definition: The system that counts usage events.

The AI Challenge: Accuracy and granularity.

You cannot simply count "API hits." You need to meter:

Input vs. output tokens
Model type (with different unit costs)
Compute time (for self-hosted models)
Outcome events (for example, "Lead Qualified")
‍

This requires a high-throughput, idempotent event ingestion pipeline that can handle duplicates and late-arriving data without dropping billable events.

3.3 Pricing & CPQ (Configure-Price-Quote)

Definition: The logic that applies price to usage.

The AI Challenge: Complexity and hybrid models.

Sales teams are creating contracts such as:

"Commit to $50k per year, receive 1M tokens included, then pay overage at a discounted rate, but only for the Pro model."

Hard-coding this logic into the application backend is not sustainable. It creates a "spaghetti code" situation where a pricing change requires a full engineering deployment.

3.4 Billing & Invoicing

Definition: The system that collects cash (Stripe, Netsuite, Zuora).

The AI Challenge: Translation.

Billing systems speak in invoice line items.
Metering systems speak in events.

There is a translation layer required to aggregate, for example:

"1,402,302 tokens used between Sept 1 and Sept 30"

into a single line item such as:

"Overage Fees: $42.06"

3.5 An Emerging, Yet Disjoint Landscape

A new category of specialized vendors has emerged to fill parts of this gap:

Metronome powers OpenAI and Anthropic’s billing, processing usage at scale with SQL-based billable metrics and support for prepaid credits and committed-use contracts.
Orb has customers like Vercel, Perplexity, and Pinecone, with its RevGraph technology that separates product instrumentation from pricing logic, allowing pricing changes without re-instrumenting the codebase.
Lago offers an open-source option used by Mistral AI and Groq for high-volume AI billing with code transparency.
Stigg focuses on entitlements, determining what customers can access based on their plan, which most billing systems handle only partially.
m3ter specializes in the Salesforce and NetSuite integration layer that many mid-market companies need.
Amberflo positions itself as "FinOps for AI" with prebuilt meters for LLM token tracking and model cost attribution.

No single system solves the problem end to end. Companies typically need to combine:

Event ingestion and metering for capturing usage data
Aggregation and rating for converting events to billable amounts
Entitlement management for controlling feature access and usage limits
CPQ for enterprise deal complexity
Invoicing and payments for collecting money
Revenue recognition for GAAP/IFRS compliance

The challenge grows because AI companies change pricing metrics quite frequently. When you shift from per-seat → per-token → per-workflow → per-resolution pricing, sometimes within 6–18 months, every integration and calculation in the stack must adapt.

This is not something that can be addressed by a single vendor or a one-time internal project.

This is the gap Monetization Engineering fills.

4. What Is “Monetization Engineering”?

Monetization engineering is not simply billing engineering, although it includes it. It is not pricing strategy, though it supports it. It is not financial operations, though it automates much of it.

Monetization engineering is the systematic discipline of building and maintaining the infrastructure that translates product usage into revenue, while remaining flexible enough to support rapid pricing evolution.

It requires engineers who understand both technical systems and business models, with specific skills in:

Billing systems
Pricing mechanics
Financial accuracy

4.1 Organizational Patterns: OpenAI’s Financial Engineering

OpenAI's structure provides a useful reference. Sara Conlon, their Head of Financial Engineering, organized the function into four specialized pods:

Pricing and Packaging pod – Ensures consistency across products.
Infrastructure pod – Handles scalability and reliability of the billing backbone.
Financial Automation pod – Manages quote-to-cash and month-end close.
Payments pod – Reduces checkout friction and handles fraud prevention.

4.2 The Forward Deployed Engineer Analogy

The Forward Deployed Engineer (FDE) model, associated with Palantir, offers another relevant pattern. FDEs operate like startup CTOs embedded with customers, owning end-to-end execution of complex projects.

Monetization engineering often requires a similar customer-facing capability, particularly for:

Enterprise deals with negotiated pricing
Custom billing requirements
Contract terms that do not fit standard templates

5. The Illusion of the “All-in-One” Solution

In the rush to monetize new AI and LLM capabilities, leadership teams often fall into a predictable pattern: the Vendor Fallacy.

It starts with a recognition of the problem:

"Our billing is not working for usage-based pricing. We need to fix this."

The immediate reflex is to buy software. You evaluate market leaders:

Modern metering platforms (Metronome, Orb)
Billing engines (Stripe, Zuora)
Enterprise CPQ tools (Salesforce)

The sales decks are polished. The promise sounds straightforward:

"Install our SDK, and your monetization problems are solved."

You buy the tool, sign the contract, and months later:

You are still running billing out of a spreadsheet.
Engineering is deep in integration work.
Sales is frustrated because they cannot quote the custom hybrid deal a strategic customer wants.

5.1 Monetization Is an Architecture Problem

This happens because monetization is not primarily a tool problem; it is an architecture problem.

The modern stack is fragmented by design:

The metering vendor may be excellent at counting tokens, but not at handling detailed revenue recognition rules in NetSuite.
The CPQ vendor may be effective at generating PDF quotes, but may have no mechanism to push those contract limits into your product’s runtime environment to enforce entitlements.

You have bought components, not a finished system.

Buying high-quality materials does not automatically result in a well-designed building. Similarly, buying well-regarded SaaS tools does not automatically result in a functioning revenue engine.

6. The RevOps Trap and the In-House Trap

6.1 The RevOps Trap: Why RevOps Cannot Own This Alone

When tools do not immediately work as expected, the next instinct is often to hand the problem to Revenue Operations:

"RevOps owns the money process. Let them figure out how to bill for the AI agents."

This is a category error.

RevOps teams are experts in:

Aligning people, processes, and data in Salesforce, HubSpot, Gainsight
Defining the strategy of a deal: the "Who," "What," and "How much"

However, in the world of LLMs and usage-based pricing, monetization becomes a distributed systems engineering challenge.

RevOps will struggle to oversee this transition alone because of:

Scale mismatch
- RevOps tools operate on human-scale data (hundreds of contracts, thousands of leads).
- AI monetization operates on machine-scale data (millions of tokens, billions of events).
- You cannot push high-velocity inference logs into Salesforce or low-code tools without serious performance and reliability issues.
Low-code ceiling:
- RevOps teams excel at low-code/no-code tools (Zapier, Workato, Flow).
- These tools are useful but can be brittle.
- Mission-critical AI billing requires idempotent, fault-tolerant code, not just drag-and-drop workflows.
Source-of-truth shift:
- In traditional SaaS, the primary source of truth was the contract in the CRM.
- In AI SaaS, the primary source of truth is in the infrastructure where usage occurs.
- RevOps typically lacks access to, and deep understanding of, this environment.

6.2 The In-House Trap: Why Product Teams Struggle with Monetization Platforms

If RevOps cannot fully own the problem, it usually falls to the internal Product Engineering team.

Your engineers are capable and are experts in:

RAG pipelines
Vector embeddings
Agentic workflows

They are definitely not experts in pricing strategy. They are generally not experts in billing infrastructure.

Asking core product teams to build a monetization platform often leads to:

Lack of domain expertise:
- Limited familiarity with ASC 606 compliance.
- Limited experience with idempotency in high-throughput financial ledgers.
- Limited exposure to best practices for prorated upgrades in drawdown-credit models.
Maintenance burden:
- Monetization logic is living code.
- It requires ongoing updates as pricing strategies change.
- Every new pricing idea creates work for Engineering.
Opportunity cost:
- Time spent on Stripe and NetSuite integrations is time not spent improving model quality, latency, or reliability.

7. Monetizely entering the fold as your Monetization Engineering Partner

You need a solution that bridges the gap. You need a team that can speak "distributed systems" with your engineers and "ARR" with your RevOps leaders.

Monetizely is not a software vendor. It is fundamentally a pricing strategy consulting firm who is now expanding to also offer a monetization engineering service.

We are able to take raw materials—metering tools, billing gateways, and CRM—and assemble them into a cohesive and automated system.

The team at Monetizely has seen these patterns across multiple organizations and understands common failure modes when monetization is treated as an afterthought.

You can think of Monetizely as a general contractor for your revenue infrastructure.

You would not typically try to build a complex custom home yourself, coordinating plumbers, electricians, and framers in your spare time. You hire a builder who ensures the systems connect correctly behind the walls.

Monetizely performs a similar function for the monetization stack.

7.1.1 Architectural Design & Strategy

Before any implementation, there is alignment between business goals and technical reality.

Example requirement:

"We want to charge a platform fee plus a per-token overage, with a prepaid drawdown model for enterprises."

We are able to build a systems plan as to what pricing strategy is practically implementable within the universe of tech stack components you are looking at.

7.1.2 Tool Selection & Vendor Management

Since Monetizely is vendor-agnostic, it focuses on fit rather than preference. The team:

Evaluates tools such as Stripe, Metronome, Orb, Lago, Netsuite, Salesforce CPQ, etc.
Works through technical requirements
Ensures selected tools align with your use cases and constraints

7.1.3 Risk Mitigation & Launch Oversight

Pricing migrations are sensitive. If they go wrong, customer trust can be damaged quickly.

Monetizely:

Oversees the rollout
Work on your behalf, not a vendor’s
Deals with external consultants
Supports Sales and Support teams as they begin to live with the new stack

The goal is to keep implementation risk as low as possible.

8. The Outcome: Freedom to Focus

The main return on working with Monetizely is not only a functioning billing system; it is organizational focus.

By delegating the complexity of the monetization stack:

RevOps leaders can focus on sales velocity and deal strategy, with confidence in the underlying systems.
Engineers can focus on improving AI capabilities instead of invoice logic.
Sales teams get systems that support complex deals without constant workarounds.

Monetizely builds and operates the monetization engine so that you can focus on product and growth.

In an AI environment where unit economics can change quickly, treating revenue infrastructure as a first-class engineering problem is increasingly important.

‍

Get Started with Pricing Strategy Consulting

Join companies like Zoom, DocuSign, and Twilio using our systematic pricing approach to increase revenue by 12-40% year-over-year.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.