Pricing looks deceptively simple from the outside; inside, it’s anything but. Over the years, I’ve learned that every price tag is really a strategic statement about value, priorities, and the future we’re building toward.
At Fin, pricing and packaging (P&P) is more than a finishing touch. It’s a research problem, a forecasting challenge, a commercial decision, and ultimately, a strategic statement, requiring deep cross-functional work. We must balance the needs and wants of our customers, the value delivered by our product, and the broader vision we are building towards.
Our approach keeps evolving as our product and market mature. I treat it as a living system—continuously informed by research, GTM learning, and customer behavior, never "set and forget."
Here’s how I run the process in practice, especially when we launch something new that needs to be monetized, like Fin, our AI Agent. The work moves from qualitative discovery to quantitative validation to commercial modeling, with tight partnership across product, research, data science, finance, GTM, and engineering.
Step 1: Foundational research
I start by talking to buyers to understand their mental models of value. How do they define ROI? What pricing models do they expect in this category? What feels intuitive, and what feels off? This early discovery shapes two crucial choices: the pricing model and the pricing metric.
The pricing model is the overall structure; value-based, usage-based, access-based, fixed fee, and so on. With Fin, we chose a value-based model: you only pay when Fin delivers value. Our research clearly showed that buyers don’t want to pay for usage, they want to pay for results.
The pricing metric is the unit of value within that model, the unit we anchor pricing to. For Fin, the pricing metric is “outcomes.” An outcome is defined by Fin successfully handling a customer service query.
Small definitional changes can dramatically alter how customers perceive value, so I obsess over details. Buyers rarely hand us the “right” model; they reveal how they evaluate value, and I translate that into a model and metric that align with their goals and expectations.
Throughout, I loop in execs, finance, GTM, and engineering to ensure alignment before proceeding. Pricing choices cut across the business; they can’t be made in isolation.
Step 2: Willingness to pay
Once we have a model and metric, I quantify what the market will bear. This is where rigorous willingness-to-pay (WTP) research comes in, grounded in the language we validated through the qualitative work.
Here’s the kind of framing I use in surveys to keep things concrete and consistent with our model and metric:
You would only pay when Fin delivers an outcome (→ the model). An outcome is counted when the AI Agent resolves a customer query with no further help needed (→ the metric). Would you be willing to pay $X per outcome for Fin?
The foundational qual is so important as a first step. It helps us decide what we should be asking about before we start asking how much people will pay. Without the qual ground work, you risk building a very convincing answer to the wrong question.
The goal isn’t to find a perfect price. That doesn’t exist. The goal is to ground our discussions in the reality of the market.
I use methods like Gabor-Granger and Van Westendorp to understand WTP and to shape a demand curve that informs strategy, not just a single number.
This chart shows us what percentage of the market is willing to buy the product at various price points. The demand curve shows that 69% of buyers were willing to pay for the product at $0.86 per outcome, whereas only 39% were willing to pay at $1.42.
The dashed line shows the price point at which revenue for the business would be maximized (by multiplying adoption by the dollar amount).
This allows us to debate knotty questions like: What’s the right balance between growth and revenue? How sensitive is demand to price changes? At what price do we start losing the market? If we wanted to increase adoption, would lowering our prices by $X make a meaningful difference?
Those conversations help me weigh customer value and business outcomes side by side. At this stage, decisions feel more tangible, but I don’t finalize a price until I’ve modeled the operational realities.
Step 3: Modeling
By now I have a validated model, a clear metric, and a strong WTP signal. Next I translate theory into a commercially workable plan—this is where data science and finance are indispensable.
I start with a list price aligned to our strategy and commercial goals. Then I adjust for likely discounting to estimate realized price. Next, I analyze beta usage to project outcomes per customer by segment and derive average ARR. I combine usage projections with WTP to model attach rates across conservative-to-optimistic scenarios. Finally, I connect the dots in our long-range plan—logos, ARR, margins—iterating until the numbers and narrative cohere.
The modeling step is important because willingness-to-pay data is somewhat theoretical. It reflects intent, not behavior. Modeling helps us bridge that gap.
The goal of this step is to land on a price point recommendation, alongside forecasts for ARR and adoption. It allows us to understand the real business impact of the decisions we’re making.
Alongside all of this, we need to ensure any decision we make falls in line with our pricing principles and broader business objectives.
Step 4: Sign-off and execution
With the analysis complete, I consolidate everything into a clear P&P recommendation for executive approval. Once approved, the real work begins: enabling sales, communicating changes to customers, instrumenting ROI proof points, and monitoring performance so we can learn and iterate.
Do we run the full process every time?
Not always. This is the ideal process, and I apply it end-to-end for the most material decisions. In reality, time and resource constraints require judgment; rigor should mirror impact. When uncertainty crops up midstream, I run scrappier, targeted research rather than forcing a linear path.
The ongoing challenge
As Fin’s breadth has expanded, our pricing system has had to evolve, too. For a while, modular pricing worked well—each product had its own logic tied to a crisp outcome. As we add more products, more Agent capabilities, and more outcomes, the question shifts from “what is the right P&P for this one product?” to “how does everything fit together into a coherent pricing system?”
We must recognize that pricing isn’t something you set once and leave alone. As products evolve, especially in a world where AI is rapidly changing how value is created and delivered, it’s important to regularly step back and review the bigger picture, not just the component parts.
For example, outcome-based pricing has served us well, particularly when our products were tightly tied to clear, measurable outcomes. But as our products become more varied, and as we continue building toward a broader platform, it becomes less straightforward to apply a single model cleanly everywhere.
The challenge becomes less about replacing one model with another, and more about continually looking up and asking: what pricing philosophy best reflects the value we’re delivering today? And how do we deliver that philosophy in a way that still feels right for customers?
In short, there is no finish line, pricing is never “done” – and that’s exactly how it should be.
Why this work matters
Pricing and packaging is often noticeable only when it goes wrong. A confusing model, a bad metric, or a price that feels disconnected from value. And we hear about those quickly.
When pricing is done well, it becomes nearly invisible—but it still does a lot of work. It shapes how people perceive value, clarifies what they’re paying for, and makes the product easier to sell, easier to buy, and easier to scale. Most importantly, it forces us to be honest about what the product is really worth. That’s why I take it so seriously—and why I treat pricing as a product in its own right.
I’m getting sharper, more specific questions about scale from enterprise customers every quarter, and that’s exactly how it should be. Teams want to know how our platform behaves during their highest-volume moments — the Black Friday sales, the sporting events, the production incidents — and they want confidence their growth won’t outpace the systems they depend on.
We welcome those questions. They’re the right ones to ask of any critical component of your business.
Today, our systems handle serious scale. At daily peak, we see over 150,000 customer requests per second coming into the platform, with more than 70,000 asynchronous requests per second flowing through the background systems. During our busiest days of the week, we handle over five million conversations and more than 100 million comments being added across the platform.
We also design for individual customer spikes, not just aggregate platform traffic. We can handle a single customer workspace spiking with hundreds of comments per second, or around 100 new conversations per second. Sustained over a full day, that would map to millions of conversations from a single customer.
While those numbers matter, they age quickly. Every growing software company can publish a bigger number every year, month, week. What ultimately matters is whether the architecture has clear scaling levers, whether we understand the pressure points in the system, and whether we can add capacity before customers need it.
Every system has limits. Competence is knowing where they are, measuring them, and moving them before customers reach them.
Here’s how we do that in practice.
We build on boring foundations because at the edges, we try hard not to be clever. We use AWS for the infrastructure primitives AWS is very good at running. We do not want our engineers spending their best energy recreating S3, load balancers, queues, or commodity infrastructure patterns. We want that energy spent on the parts of the system that are specific to our customers and our product.
“That is a deliberate trade-off. It gives us fewer systems to understand, deeper expertise in the ones we do run, and more leverage when we need to scale.”
This extends a principle I’ve embraced for years: run less software. The point isn’t to minimize the stack for its own sake; it’s to compound expertise. When many teams build on the same small set of technologies, our tooling, observability, and operational practice all improve together. Boring technology choices aren’t a lack of ambition — they reserve our ambition for the nuanced scaling challenges that matter.
The source of truth is the hard part. You can scale stateless web traffic by adding machines, add queue consumers, and add cache. Those are real problems — just not the hardest ones. The source-of-truth database is where the most important data lives, where the hardest correctness guarantees exist, and where maintenance windows often come from. It has to be correct, fast, resilient to failover, capable of large migrations, and able to keep serving traffic while we improve it. As customers grow, it cannot require a full re-architecture every time the next ceiling appears.
That is why we moved to Vitess, managed by PlanetScale. The goals were clear: improve availability, reduce operational complexity, make large table migrations safer, simplify MySQL scaling, and eliminate customer downtime from routine database maintenance and failovers. When we first laid out this direction, the largest part of the migration was still ahead of us. We completed that migration in 2025, and the benefits are now part of how we operate the platform day to day.
Today, our highest-scale source-of-truth data is spread across 128 shards. The database layer handles around two million requests per second, with more than ten million cache reads per second in front of it. For the largest customers, we can isolate and scale database capacity independently, including dedicating a shard to a single customer when needed.
We have not come close to needing that, which is significant. The goal of architecture like this is not to run every system at the edge of its capacity, but rather to have room to move before customers need it. Vitess gives us native sharding, query routing, online schema change capabilities, connection pooling, and resharding primitives built for this kind of workload. Instead of application code carrying all of the sharding complexity, the database layer can do more of the work. That reduces cognitive load for engineers and removes whole classes of operational risk.
Ultimately, this gives us practical scaling options instead of hard architectural rewrites, and lets us do routine database improvement without planned customer-impacting maintenance windows.
Search is not a hidden bottleneck for us. Search underpins core product surfaces across the platform — from vector search in our AI features to realtime reporting — and if it’s slow or unhealthy, customers feel it. Scaling isn’t just adding more machines; often the better approach is making the product do less unnecessary work. Today, our Elasticsearch clusters support a much higher-throughput product than in the past, with more than 650TB of storage, more than 1.7 trillion documents, and peaks above 40,000 requests per second. We’re serving a larger product surface more efficiently, not just running a bigger cluster.
More importantly, when an index gets too large or traffic distribution turns unhealthy, we don’t want a high-risk, manual migration. We reshape Elasticsearch indexes online by partitioning by customer ID, dual-writing to old and new indexes, backfilling, validating, gradually moving customers with feature flags, and deleting the old index only when we’re confident. We’ve used this pattern for years to make large search migrations safer and more incremental — a core playbook in our platform scalability and SRE practices.
Fairness is non-negotiable in a multi-tenant system. A single customer’s high-volume moment should not quietly become everyone else’s latency problem. We design for this at multiple layers. For asynchronous work, we use overflow queues and queueing strategies that prevent one high-volume workload from consuming shared capacity in a way that hurts quieter tenants. AWS SQS fair queues are one example of a primitive we use extensively. They’re designed for exactly this class of problem. When one tenant creates a backlog in a shared queue, fair queues help reduce the dwell-time impact on other tenants.
We also build application-level guardrails so customer isolation doesn’t depend on every engineer remembering every rule in every code path. In a large multi-tenant Rails application, the safe path must be built into the system. The focus is primarily about correctness and customer data separation, but the broader operating principle is the same: important customer boundaries should be enforced by infrastructure and application frameworks.
The same thinking applies to scale. We want customer-specific load to be visible, attributable, and controlled. When a customer spike happens, we should be able to understand it as that customer’s workload, protect the rest of the platform, and add capacity where it’s actually needed.
Fin adds a new dimension to scaling. Our AI Agent Fin introduces a new set of infrastructure challenges. To provide reliable AI-powered support at scale, we need to operate across multiple model providers, route across them based on capacity and latency, and protect customer-facing workloads from lower-priority work. The details differ from traditional SaaS infrastructure, but the principle is the same: understand the bottlenecks, build clear scaling levers, and monitor the customer outcome. AI providers are not commodity storage systems, and we do not design as if they are.
That is why we have invested in Fin-specific reliability systems. Fin now fully resolves over two million conversations per week. At that scale, high availability cannot depend on a single model, a single provider, a single region, or a single pool of capacity. Our LLM routing layer supports cross-vendor failover, cross-model failover, latency-based routing, capacity isolation, and load testing. We also maintain buffer capacity with major providers, with headroom to handle 2x to 3x normal Fin traffic at any point. For enterprise customers, this matters because AI support volume can spike just like human support volume — and the AI layer must absorb that spike without relying on one fragile upstream path.
When customers depend on Fin to absorb a spike in support demand, the AI layer needs the same operational discipline as the rest of the platform.
Performance tests help, but production traffic is reality. Real customers use products in ways no synthetic test will perfectly predict: launches, incidents, seasonal patterns, gaming events, sudden changes in end-user behavior. Those moments give us data that no lab can fully reproduce. Often, a large customer event barely moves the platform-wide graphs because our customer base is broad enough that one industry’s peak aligns with another’s quiet period. Black Friday and Cyber Monday are good examples. Many ecommerce customers are at their busiest, while many B2B SaaS customers are quieter. At the aggregate platform level, the change can be much less dramatic than people expect.
“That does not mean those events are unimportant. It means we need to look at both levels: the health of the overall platform and the experience of the individual customer having the spike.”
Sometimes, these events teach us something specific. In one case, a very large customer used the Messenger in a way that exercised the full Messenger lifecycle even though the visible user experience did not require it. Under normal traffic, this was fine. During a major customer-side incident, their users refreshed aggressively, generating a much larger burst of Messenger traffic than the integration actually needed. The platform stayed available, but the event exposed unnecessary work in that integration path. We built a lighter-weight integration path that served the customer’s actual use case with far less work per request, making future spikes easier to absorb.
We treat large customer events this way even when there’s no broad customer impact. They’re opportunities to understand real scaling properties and make the next event safer — a habit that anchors our incident management, observability, and FinOps practices.
Scale is also an operating model. The infrastructure matters, but it’s not enough. You can have the right database architecture and still hurt customers if you detect issues late, recover slowly, communicate poorly, or fail to learn from incidents.
“That is why our operating model starts with customer outcomes. If the customer cannot do the job they came to do, the system is unhealthy. It does not matter how many dashboards are green.”
Heartbeat metrics tell us whether customers can do the core jobs they hire us to do. They cut through infrastructure noise and answer the question that matters most during an incident: are customers able to use the product successfully?
This shapes how we ship. Today, we average around 250 ships to production per workday, with an average merge-to-production time under 10 minutes. That isn’t a vanity metric — it’s part of the safety model. Smaller changes are easier to understand, easier to observe, and easier to roll back. Feature flags let us separate deployment from release. Automatic rollback and heartbeat-driven detection help us recover quickly when a change hurts customers. These are the very DORA metrics we hold ourselves to in order to balance CI/CD speed with stability.
“Fast shipping is not the opposite of reliability. Done properly, it is one of the ways you stay in control of change.”
The bar is high. Engineers are expected to understand the impact of their changes, watch them go live, and act quickly if something looks wrong. Resuming service is not the end of an incident. We expect teams to understand the root cause, fix the contributing systems, and prevent recurrence. That’s how scale stays safe over time.
Scheduled maintenance should be extraordinary. Historically, database maintenance was a main reason for maintenance windows: upgrading a database, changing instance sizes, performing failovers, or moving large tables could require customer-impacting downtime. With the move to Vitess and PlanetScale, we changed what routine database improvement looks like. We can upgrade, scale, and improve critical database infrastructure without turning that work into planned customer-impacting downtime — and we do this in practice, not just as a goal.
This matters because customers rely on our platform for live operations. If their support team, Messenger, Help Desk, or AI Agent is unavailable, the impact is immediate. Scheduled maintenance cannot be treated as a casual operational convenience.
“Our posture is simple: routine infrastructure improvement should not require planned customer-impacting downtime.”
Scheduled maintenance should be exceptional, non-routine, clearly communicated, and minimized in frequency, duration, and customer impact. That’s the practical benefit of the architecture work: better scaling is not only about handling more traffic, but also reducing the operational moments that might inconvenience customers.
What this means for customers is simple: be skeptical of vague scale claims. The question isn’t whether a vendor says they can scale — it’s whether they can explain how, where the limits are, what they measure, how they recover, and what they’ve changed after learning from production. We understand the scaling properties of our systems, have clear levers to add capacity at the right layers, design for customer isolation and fairness, monitor customer outcomes directly, and use real production events to make the next one safer. Scale is never finished. Every large customer event, traffic spike, migration, and incident teaches us something about the real behavior of the system — and we use that data to keep improving. That’s what you should expect from a platform you depend on during your busiest moments.
There’s a question that runs underneath every AI Agent evaluation: what can it do?
Two years ago, that was the right question to ask because Agents were limited and capability was a genuine constraint. The gap between what organizations needed and what the technology could deliver was wide. I felt that gap acutely in early pilots—plenty of ambition, not enough dependable execution.
That gap has since narrowed considerably, and yet most organizations are running their Agents well below what’s technically possible. I see teams lean on answering and routing, but stop short of looking things up, taking actions, or resolving complex, multi-step problems—especially where data, process variance, or risk come into play.
The standard explanation is that AI isn’t good enough yet—models must improve, or vendors must ship more features. But after studying organizations across industries actively expanding their AI automation, I’ve found that this explanation holds up less often than people assume. The blockers tend to be elsewhere.
The teams I’ve observed weren’t primarily constrained by what their AI could do; they were constrained by what their organization was structured to let it do. In other words, the ceiling wasn’t the Agent’s capability—it was organizational readiness, governance, and risk tolerance.
“Readiness” for AI breaks into five distinct types, and most organizations have some but not all of them. Below is how I assess them with product, operations, and engineering leaders.
Content readiness is whether you can explain your product and policies clearly and consistently. Most companies can. In practice, that means up-to-date knowledge bases, unified policy language, and clear versions that Agents can cite and apply.
Scope readiness is whether you’ve defined the edges: when should AI engage, and when should it step aside? Edge cases multiply, intent varies by customer segment, sensitive topics surface mid-conversation, but most teams can work through this with effort. Clear guardrails reduce ambiguity and shrink risk.
Procedural readiness is where things start to get harder. This is about whether you can articulate your processes clearly enough for something other than a human with years of tacit knowledge to follow. The happy path is rarely the problem. It’s the failure paths, decision branches, variations that have never been written down because they’ve always lived in someone’s head.
Data readiness is the first real cliff. Can you reliably identify the right user, account, or object at the moment a decision needs to be made? Is the data trustworthy in real time? Are the APIs stable, accessible, and actually connected? For most organizations, the honest answer is “partially, but we’re not always sure when it breaks.”
Execution readiness is the highest bar. Not just technically (can the Agent make the change?) but organizationally. Who owns it when the wrong refund gets processed? Who detects it? Who recovers? Does someone with authority actually accept the risk?
Most companies have the first two, some have the third, fewer have the fourth and fifth. When I map this with teams, we often discover that their Agent’s ceiling is really a reflection of operational maturity and data plumbing, not model quality.
We studied companies across six industries – energy, healthcare, ecommerce, gaming, financial services, property management – all trying to expand what their Agents could do. The pattern was consistent: teams set out to automate real actions—looking up account status, processing changes, handling transactions. In most cases, the AI could technically do it, but at a certain point (somewhere between guiding a user through a process and looking something up on their behalf) they hit a wall.
One team tried to automate application changes but couldn’t reliably identify which application to modify across their internal systems. Another explored billing automation but couldn’t access live account data due to regulatory constraints. A third needed to verify status across third-party vendor systems their Agent couldn’t reliably reach. I’ve seen similar constraints surface around CRM integration, data governance, and vendor SLAs—none of which are model issues.
In most cases, the team redesigned around what their infrastructure could support. They moved toward guiding—walking users through processes step by step, rather than executing changes on their behalf. It worked, it resolved conversations and delivered real value, just differently than anyone planned. In customer support, this often looks like consultative flows that shorten time-to-resolution even without direct writes.
Most Agent evaluations are built around capability. Can it handle complex queries? Does it support multiple channels? Can it integrate with our systems? These are reasonable things to evaluate for, but they produce a capability score, and that doesn’t tell you whether your organization can actually use what you’re buying.
The teams that got to deeper automation, the ones executing actions early, didn’t have “better AI,” they had more standardized operations. Actions that were already well-defined, consistently applied, and exposed through stable systems with clear rules. Automation wasn’t inventing new behavior, it was triggering actions that were already tightly controlled elsewhere.
Readiness enables capability, not the other way around. Which reframes the evaluation question from “can the AI do this?” to “are we actually ready for it to?”
Something that gets lost in most conversations about AI readiness is that organizations are often further along than they assume, just not for the kind of work they were planning for. A team that set out to automate refunds but can reliably guide users through complex troubleshooting has genuine capability deployed. They’re operating at the level their readiness supports, which is a starting point, not a deficit.
The more useful frame isn’t “are we ready?” – it’s “what are we ready for, and what specifically stands between here and the next level?” The gaps tend to be concrete: a missing API, data that lives in three systems that don’t agree, a process that’s never been documented, or an ownership question nobody has answered. These are solvable problems. They just require a different kind of investment than buying a more capable Agent.
What nobody has worked through seriously yet is how organizations actually build readiness. Does it develop naturally through using AI at shallower levels first? Or is it mostly a function of prior decisions, like system architecture choices made years ago, operational maturity that accumulated over time, engineering investments that have nothing to do with AI? When readiness does increase, what actually changes? Does the support team develop it? Does engineering grant it? Does it require executive sponsorship and investment in infrastructure with no obvious AI label on it?
In my experience, progress comes from a joint effort: product to define scope and guardrails, operations to codify procedures and edge cases, engineering to harden APIs and observability, and leadership to underwrite risk with clear ownership. When those pieces align, agentic AI moves from guided assistance to safe, auditable execution.
Until there are clearer answers, the pattern is likely to continue. Companies will buy capable Agents, plan ambitious rollouts, and find that the harder work is building the organizational infrastructure. The Agents can do the work. The question is what it takes to let them.
AI agents are only as valuable as the measurable outcomes they deliver. In my role leading product strategy at HighLevel, I’ve learned that the fastest way to earn executive trust is to translate agent performance into clear revenue impact, cost savings, and risk reduction. The challenge isn’t enthusiasm for AI; it’s creating a disciplined, repeatable way to prove business value.
Here’s the three-step playbook my teams and I use to quantify the value of agentic AI, align stakeholders, and scale what works.
Step 1 — Define value outcomes and success criteria. Start with a driver tree that ties agent outcomes to company-level goals. For revenue, target conversion lift, average order value, and expansion (e.g., trial-to-paid, self-serve upsell). For cost, focus on containment/deflection rate, reduced handle time, and lower cost to serve. For risk, measure error rates, hallucinations, security/policy violations, and customer complaint rate. Convert these into outcomes vs output OKRs, set baselines, and pre-commit to thresholds for launch, scale, or rollback. This ensures the team is accountable to business KPIs, not vanity metrics.
Step 2 — Instrument comprehensively and establish baselines. Instrument the full journey: prompts, responses, human-in-the-loop events, escalations, feedback, and downstream conversions. Capture both leading indicators (time-to-first-value, containment rate, self-serve completion) and lagging outcomes (NRR, churn, LTV/CAC). Use behavioral analytics, session replay, product tours, and in-app guides to contextualize what users do before and after agent interactions. Baselines matter—freeze a control period so improvements are truly incremental.
Increase revenue, cut costs, and reduce risk with Pendo’s Software Experience Management platform. Optimize the entire software experience to drive adoption and improve engagement.
Step 3 — Experiment, attribute, and risk-adjust. Treat every agent capability like a hypothesis. Run A/B tests or holdouts with a precomputed minimum detectable effect so you can ship confidently. Attribute outcomes to the agent by linking events to conversions and support deflection, and calculate ROI as (incremental revenue + cost avoided – total operating cost, including model/API, labeling, and oversight). Apply AI risk management by tracking false positives/negatives, escalation rate, and policy breaches; adjust ROI with a risk score so the “cheapest” agent isn’t inadvertently the riskiest. This is eval-driven development in practice: define success, measure, iterate.
Operationalizing the playbook requires crisp reporting. Stand up Agent Analytics dashboards in your unified analytics platform that roll up per-agent KPIs, funnel performance, cohort trends, and experiment results. Review them in QBRs and with frontline teams to connect numbers to lived customer experience. When metrics improve, amplify with product-led growth motions—targeted in-app guides and lifecycle nudges to get more users into high-value agent flows.
What does this look like in the real world? Early on, we celebrated “tickets deflected” and missed that some conversations quietly increased churn risk. After we adopted this three-step approach, we saw the full picture: a modest dip in deflection quality was offset by a larger lift in expansion revenue and a meaningful drop in time-to-resolution. The risk-adjusted ROI was unambiguous, and the CFO greenlit broader rollout.
If you’re building or scaling AI agents, anchor on outcomes, instrument ruthlessly, and insist on experimentation. With the right measurement discipline, you’ll know exactly which agents deserve more investment, which need redesign, and which should be retired. The result is a portfolio of agents that reliably drive adoption, engagement, and durable business value.
Customer experience is now a core product strategy lever, not a downstream support function. In my work leading product teams, I’ve seen that the fastest path to durable growth is aligning CX strategy with product, data, and go-to-market—especially when we’re building AI-powered solutions that must scale responsibly.
Amanda Sime is the Customer Experience Strategy Lead at Amplitude. She shapes CX strategy and partners across orgs to design and scale AI-powered solutions.
That mandate captures what high-performing organizations are doing well: connecting behavioral analytics, product discovery, and customer success into a unified operating system. When CX leaders partner tightly with product and data teams, we turn insights into action—using Amplitude analytics to identify friction, journey mapping to prioritize moments that matter, and a unified analytics platform to close the loop from hypothesis to measurable outcomes.
Practically, the playbook looks like this in my teams: start with rigorous journey mapping and retention analysis to pinpoint where value realization lags; run targeted A/B testing to validate interventions; and deploy in-app guides and product tours to accelerate user activation. Layer in session replay and behavioral analytics to understand intent, then operationalize learnings into repeatable workflows that improve time-to-value and customer success. This is how we make product-led growth concrete rather than aspirational.
AI Strategy adds both leverage and responsibility. We design AI-powered experiences with privacy-by-design, clear value propositions, and eval-driven development so we can measure lift, not just ship features. Cross-functional partners—from support to solutions engineering—become critical here, ensuring we scale responsibly while improving the signal-to-noise ratio of feedback flowing back to product roadmapping.
The outcome I aim for is simple: faster cycles from insight to impact. With tight cross-org alignment, a shared metrics framework, and disciplined experimentation, we can transform CX from reactive problem-solving into a proactive growth engine. If your team is ready to operationalize this approach, start with one high-friction journey, build a sharp driver tree, and let data, not opinions, guide the next iteration.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.
Today I’m introducing Operator, an Agent that works across both Fin and the Intercom helpdesk to help you manage your customer operations.
In practical terms, Operator manages help content, builds automation, does the ongoing work that determines how well Fin performs, and runs the operational work your human team doesn’t have time for. That combination is precisely what modern support teams need to move from reactive firefighting to proactive, consultative support.
Why does this matter? Running a customer operation means managing AI and humans simultaneously, and doing this well requires more capacity than most teams realistically have. I’ve felt that strain firsthand—competing priorities, constant context switching, and a never-ending queue that blurs strategic focus.
On the AI side, Fin’s performance is largely influenced by what surrounds it: the accuracy of your help content, the quality of your Fin configuration, and how well you understand what’s working and why. When product teams ship daily, keeping your help center current means finding every affected article before customers notice the gaps. When Fin gets a conversation wrong, diagnosing it requires reading through what happened, identifying the root cause at the configuration level, making the fix, and verifying it worked. Analyzing why your resolution rate dropped means pulling conversations, finding patterns, and tracing the cause back to something actionable. And beyond individual fixes, there’s the ongoing question of what to automate next – what your human reps are still handling repetitively, whether it’s worth building a Procedure for it, and how to test it before it goes live.
On the human side, the demands are just as continuous. When an incident hits, someone needs to identify every affected customer, draft the right response, and send it before the problem compounds. Team leads need visibility into rep performance across hundreds of conversations to coach effectively and prep for 1:1s. Reps need to know what to prioritize without spending the first part of their day figuring it out. In fast-moving environments, that operational overhead wastes energy you should be investing in better customer outcomes.
Meet Operator, the agent that explains your customer conversations. This Synthesia testimonial shows how simply asking Operator reveals what happened and makes refining Fin faster for support and enablement teams.
Too often, the work outpaces what teams can manage, so it happens reactively, or not at all. Operator was built to change that, giving teams a new way to understand, manage, and improve their customer operations. Here’s how I put Operator to work across AI workflows and human-led processes.
First, I use Operator to ask my data anything. Your support operation generates more useful data than most teams have time to process. Operator gives you direct access to it. You can ask it any question about what’s happening in your operation (why a metric changed, what’s driving escalations, how the team performed last week) and it returns structured answers with charts, breakdowns, and the ability to dig further. It analyzes samples of real conversations on the fly to surface patterns and identify root causes. If your head of product wants to know what customers are saying about a new release, you can ask Operator rather than spending half a day pulling a report together. It also works across your entire operation, analyzing Fin’s performance, your human reps’ performance, and customer sentiment.
Crucially, I don’t start from scratch every time. Give Operator ongoing work, like analyzing your automation rate every Monday, flagging anything that needs attention, and posting the report in your Fin workspace. It’ll run the analysis, write the report, and deliver it without you having to go looking for it. That’s the kind of agentic AI leverage that compounds week after week.
Second, I keep the knowledge base current without writing a single article. Your knowledge base is only as useful as it is accurate. When product teams ship fast, keeping pace with content updates is a substantial, ongoing job. Give Operator a brief about anything, from a new feature or policy change to release notes, and it finds every article in your help center that needs updating, drafts the edits in your tone of voice and style, identifies content gaps, and drafts new articles to fill them. It even handles localized versions. Every change is formatted as a proposal (Operator’s version of a pull request) for you to review, edit, and approve before anything goes live. It feels like adding several knowledge managers to the team overnight, without the ramp time.
See why teams choose Fin Operator for customer operations: accurate analysis, trend insights, and conversation debugging—going beyond basic LLM connectors. A Raylo testimonial spotlights daily, real-world impact.
Third, I build, test, and ship improvements to Fin directly through Operator. When Fin gets a conversation wrong because of a content gap or misconfigured rule, Operator can debug it by reading through the conversation, identifying what caused the problem, proposing a fix, and running simulation tests to verify it before you approve. You see what changed and why before anything goes live. Beyond debugging, Operator has deep knowledge of every Fin feature and capability, so you can ask it directly to help you configure whatever you need. If you need a Procedure for a specific query type, describe the outcome you want and Operator builds it, including triggers, multi-step instructions, edge case handling, and a simulation test, all from a single prompt. The same applies to configuring Guidance rules, data connectors, monitors, and workflows. You don’t need to know which feature solves your problem or how to configure it; you just describe what you want.
For teams looking to increase their overall automation rate, Operator can handle that strategically too. Ask it to analyze where your biggest automation opportunities are and it surfaces them by volume, along with an estimate of the weekly team time each one is consuming. Pick one, and it builds the solution for you to approve. That’s consultative support, productized.
Finally, I use Operator to effortlessly manage the human side of support. When an incident hits, Operator identifies every affected conversation, drafts targeted responses, and sends them proactively, turning what would normally be hours of reactive triage into minutes of review and approval. For ongoing management, a team lead prepping for 1:1s can ask Operator to pull each rep’s metrics, flag outliers, and surface what’s worth digging into. A rep coming back from a meeting can ask what to focus on next and get a prioritized queue based on urgency, customer value, and wait time. And because Operator sees patterns across everything your human team is handling, it can surface the conversations they’re still resolving manually, flagging your next automation opportunity before you’ve had time to go looking for it.
Here’s why this works. Operator isn’t a general-purpose AI model given access to your data. It’s built on a library of purpose-built tools that encode expertise specific to support operations, like how to pick the right attributes for a given analysis, search a knowledge base semantically, debug Fin’s reasoning in a specific conversation, or write and test a Procedure that will actually work. That specialized toolkit is what makes its recommendations trustworthy and its execution reliable.
Elevate customer service with Operator. The bold headline and vivid knot logo introduce a modern AI platform that streamlines workflows, speeds resolutions, and scales support operations without extra headcount.
The proposal (pull request) system makes this possible. When Operator updates content, adjusts configuration, or modifies how Fin behaves, it creates a proposal – a structured diff of what’s changing and why. You review it, edit if needed, and approve before it takes effect. Operator does the cognitive work; the human stays in control of what goes live.
More than 200 early users are already trying Operator, and every one of them is finding new use cases. It’s a genuine step change in capability, and I expect it will change the way support teams run their operation. We’re working towards a vision of Operator being increasingly agentic, expanding across every new role Fin takes on.
Operator is available in early access now. If you’re ready to transform your customer operations across Fin and the Intercom helpdesk with agentic AI, start here: https://fin.ai/operator.
Only 10% of the plastic we manufacture gets recycled. For a century, we have relied on mechanical and chemical methods that were never designed to close the loop. As a product leader, I look for step-change technologies that break through entrenched ceilings, and biology—specifically engineered enzymes—has emerged as that missing piece.
Recently, I dug into the work of Rhea's Factory and spoke with their founders, Arzu Sandıkçı (co-founder and CEO) and Mert Topcu (co-founder). Arzu brings deep expertise in molecular biology and enzyme engineering. Mert brings 20 years in tech, including a decade at Google as a product manager. Their combined perspective—domain science plus product rigor—shows up in every design choice.
Rhea's Factory has built an AI platform that uses protein language models, multi-step agentic pipelines, and proprietary wet lab data to design novel enzymes that deconstruct plastic polymers into their original monomers—selectively, at low temperatures, and at industrial scale. That stack matters: it layers foundation models with domain-specific constraints and real-world data to systematically explore, evaluate, and scale candidates.
Here’s the crux: traditional recycling mostly just chops polymer chains into shorter fragments. Enzymatic recycling, by contrast, breaks plastic all the way back to its original monomers. Think of a necklace and pearls analogy—mechanical methods snip the chain; enzymes cleanly return the pearls. The result is true circularity: you can remake high-quality plastic without downcycling.
Selectivity is the superpower. Enzymes can target specific plastic types even in mixed waste streams, operating at low temperatures in a controlled, low energy reactor process. That combination of precision and energy efficiency is why this approach can be both greener and economically competitive.
The field accelerated after the discovery of a plastic-eating bacteria in Japan, which opened the door to enzymatic recycling. Advances in protein structure prediction—“AlphaFold” and the Nobel Prize in Chemistry—transformed what’s possible in enzyme engineering, and created space for AI-native design loops to flourish.
On the AI side, the team evolved from a human-orchestrated pipeline to an agentic AI scientist. Problem statements serve as inputs, multi-step protein generation builds on foundation models, and guardrails at each pipeline step keep the AI pointed in the right direction without limiting exploration. It’s a textbook example of agentic AI applied to a highly constrained, safety-critical domain.
Crucially, wet lab feedback closes the loop. Why wet lab data—even just hundreds of proprietary data points—can be enough to train a powerful domain-specific prediction model is a reminder that quality and relevance can trump sheer volume when you’re operating in a narrow, high-signal domain. The team measures success in the lab first, then scales what works.
I appreciated their take on exploration: there are moments when Mert sometimes wants the model to hallucinate. Running high temperature settings helps explore the full enzyme design space, and the guardrails ensure those forays remain productive rather than random. In other words, controlled creativity beats blind search.
The business constraint is unambiguous: enzymatic recycling must compete economically with cheap, oil-based plastic production. That framing forces disciplined choices around energy use, throughput, and yield—factors that directly determine unit economics and the path to industrial reality and cost parity.
What’s next is equally compelling: a process agent to optimize end-to-end system performance, a 5,000-ton demo plant in California to validate scale, and enzymes for new plastic types. I’m especially intrigued by enzyme blends for mixed plastics and the practical insight into why clamshells aren’t recyclable—precisely the messy corner cases that decide whether circularity works outside the lab.
From a product management lens, several patterns stand out: define clear problem statements as inputs to the agentic orchestration; use eval-driven development to enforce stage-by-stage quality; build a proprietary data moat with wet lab results; and tie milestones to industrial metrics (conversion, selectivity, energy per ton) rather than vanity outputs. This is AI Strategy in action—aligning model capability, data leverage, and operational design to deliver outcomes, not just demos.
Most of all, the ambition to explore an enzyme design space that “makes everything nature has ever evolved look like a tiny dot” captures the promise of this approach. Pairing agentic AI with rigorous lab validation doesn’t just make plastic circularity plausible—it makes it programmable.
Founders should bet on first-time executives. I’ve seen it pay off repeatedly, and a recent deep dive with Praveer Melwani, CFO at Figma, reinforced exactly why. Praveer joined Figma in 2017 as the company’s first business operations and finance hire—when the team was around 30 people and not yet charging for the product—and stepped into the CFO seat in 2022, helping to lead the company’s IPO in 2025. His journey from IC to CFO isn’t just a career arc; it’s a blueprint for scaling leadership capacity in high-velocity environments.
What struck me first was the clarity of the step functions that took him from operator to “whole-company” leader. Early on, he optimized for doing the work—building driver trees, stress-testing go-to-market assumptions, and putting the basics of board management in place. As the business matured, he shifted from answering questions to defining them, owning capital allocation, and shaping the operating cadence. That evolution—from execution to orchestration—is exactly the arc I look for when I’m hiring first-time VPs.
Another takeaway: Figma started acting like a public company three years before its IPO. That wasn’t optics; it was operating discipline. Quarterly rhythms, tight controls, an audit-proof close, and forward-looking narrative management helped the company move faster, not slower. In my experience, this kind of public-company readiness clarifies trade-offs, compresses decision cycles, and strengthens cross-functional trust—especially between product, finance, and go-to-market leadership.
We also unpacked what separates world-class finance leaders from a traffic-cop CFO. The latter enforces rules and guards budgets; the former uses first principles decision making to direct resources toward asymmetric upside. World-class CFOs help the company understand risk in a post-ChatGPT world, design SaaS pricing that matches product reality, and build reliable instrumentation for outcomes—not just outputs. They’re partners in product strategy as much as stewards of the balance sheet.
On pricing, I appreciated the courage behind selling the exec team on AI consumption pricing. Consumption SaaS pricing introduces variance, but it also aligns value with usage and accelerates time-to-value—especially for AI-driven features whose unit economics evolve rapidly. It requires tight stakeholder management, robust telemetry, and a crisp value proposition, but when executed well it can unlock both growth and discipline.
One of the boldest moves: Figma intentionally cut its 90% gross margin to invest in AI. That’s a masterclass in capital allocation. The reflex to protect margins is strong, but durable advantage often comes from compounding learning loops, not short-term optics. Framed correctly, AI Strategy isn’t a cost center—it’s an option on multiple future S-curves. The key is to define decision guardrails, instrument usage, and keep a living risk register for AI risk management.
I was also intrigued by how AI is changing the CFO craft itself. Tools like Claude Code are now part of the financial leader’s toolbox—useful for scenario modeling, policy drafting, and exploring new domains without slowing down the team. Paired with strong data governance and controls, this is where FinOps meets executive leverage: faster cycles, tighter experiments, and better communication with product and engineering.
Leadership transitions can catalyze phase shifts. When a COO leaves or a company re-architects its operating model, great executives don’t just fill gaps—they redesign the system. That’s when clarity about swimlanes, escalation paths, and decision rights matters most. The lesson for founders: hire for adaptability, not just pedigree, and look for people who can turn ambiguity into momentum.
Hiring leaders in functions you don’t deeply understand is a common founder challenge. The best antidote is a first-principles test for hiring VPs: can the candidate map the business model, define success metrics, and explain trade-offs in plain language? Do they show how they’d build the team, not just run it? Can they teach you something new in 30 minutes? I use this pattern across executive hiring because it scales better than relying on domain buzzwords.
Another practice I recommend: build an internal board of peer CFOs and operators. Regular, no-agenda check-ins create a community of practice that shortens feedback loops and surfaces non-obvious risks. It’s one of the most efficient ways to de-risk capital allocation and sharpen strategic narratives ahead of real board meetings.
We talked about scope versus depth: how deeply in the details should a CFO be? My view aligns with what I heard here—be in the details often enough to validate the model and coach the team, but not so deep that you become the bottleneck. The executive job is to raise the quality of decisions at scale, not to personally make every decision.
There were personal lessons, too—from the nine-year working relationship with Dylan Field to foundational team-building insights from time at Dropbox. Strong teams are built on crisp roles, tight feedback loops, and a bias for writing things down. That muscle—organizational development through clarity—is what separates resilient companies from merely lucky ones.
If you’re a founder weighing whether to back a rising operator or recruit a “proven” exec, this story tips the scale toward the former. Bet on slope, not just intercept. Create the scaffolding—public-company behaviors early, transparent metrics, and a culture that rewards learning—and your first-time executives will scale with the business. Done right, it’s the highest-LEVERAGE people decision you can make.
Revenue leaders are starting to use AI to generate better leads, capture peak buyer intent, and scale their pipeline without a linear increase in headcount. I see it every day in my own teams: when we get the foundations right, AI doesn’t just answer questions—it accelerates qualification and turns curiosity into pipeline.
Done well, an AI-first inbound sales experience engages buyers 24/7 in any language, qualifies leads intelligently, and routes high-intent prospects to the right conversion path. But behind that experience, there’s an unsung hero: knowledge management. I’ve learned the hard way that even the smartest Agent underperforms if it’s not fed the right information.
A Sales Agent is only as good as what you give it to work with. If you’re using an Agent, like Fin, to run inbound sales motions end to end, it needs an extensive pool of knowledge to draw from. You need to feed it accurate answers on pricing, features, and plan fit, and clear rules for how to qualify and route each prospect. Without it, your Agent can’t do its job, and your sales team is back to answering the same questions manually and triaging leads that could have been handled automatically.
In this guide, I walk through everything you need to know about building and maintaining the knowledge base that powers your Sales Agent—what to include, how to launch, what to measure, and how to iterate so results compound over time.
What is knowledge management and why is it so important?
Definition: Knowledge management is the process of creating, organizing, sharing, and maintaining knowledge in your business.
Knowledge is your sales agent's edge. This Fin testimonial shows how organizing and optimizing content removes friction in the funnel, lifting conversion and unlocking millions in pipeline and revenue for growing teams.
Your public website and product pages are classic examples, but those are just the tip of the knowledge management iceberg. In an inbound sales motion, knowledge management involves a range of activities such as creating resources (FAQs, pricing overviews, competitive battlecards, case studies, internal sales materials), identifying gaps in documentation and qualification criteria, implementing systems that make information easy to access and use, and developing processes to keep everything current. In my experience, these elements are what allow an Agent to move from merely answering questions to recommending the right plan and explaining why it fits.
Why knowledge management matters even more in the age of AI
Your knowledge base is no longer just static collateral for buyers to read. It powers your Sales Agent and entire inbound motion. It’s the key to accurately answering complex prospect queries, guiding product discovery, qualifying intent in real time, and accelerating the path to pipeline. Two realities shape my approach:
1) Your Agent is only as strong as what you “feed” it. Your Agent is only as good as the knowledge and content that it has access to. A lack of information, poorly structured sales materials, or out-of-date pricing documentation all prevent it from providing clear and correct answers to your buyers, leading to poor buying experiences that degrade trust and cost you deals. No large language model (LLM) knows your business like you do. It doesn’t understand your prospects’ specific needs, pain points, pricing tiers, or use cases. That knowledge is unique to you and your organization, which means you need to map it all out and explicitly feed it to your Agent. You need to feed it facts about your product, and also give it the context behind those facts so it can guide buyers to the right solution rather than just answering their questions.
2) Every investment of knowledge has compounding results. Making the switch to AI isn’t just adopting a new tool. It means adapting to a new ecosystem. Think of it as a flywheel. Every piece of knowledge you add makes your Agent more effective. It generates better conversations and data, which tells you what to add or refine next. The more you invest in it, the faster it compounds.
Smart sales teams don’t copy what already works for service—they connect to it. This Fin quote card reminds readers to reuse trusted knowledge, cut duplication, and keep content manageable for faster, more accurate selling.
“You have to think about AI like a new sales rep. On day one, it needs coaching, guidance, and feedback. But over time, as you refine the inputs and learn from real conversations, it becomes more autonomous and the level of coaching required decreases significantly.” Pascaline Albin, Director of Sales Development at Fin
Every upfront investment you make in your sales knowledge has long-term, revenue-generating impact. Whether you hire someone to do this work full time or give your sales reps time away from the inbox each week, the ROI speaks for itself. I’ve routinely seen small content improvements unlock big conversion gains.
Think of it this way: say it takes 30 minutes to document a new competitive battlecard or update pricing information. That 30-minute investment results in hours saved for your sales team, highly engaged buyers who get instant answers, and actionable data to optimize your inbound motion.
Calculate: Average time to compose a response × frequency of question = time saved for your team. More importantly, that’s time your SDRs and AEs can reinvest in multi-threading into accounts, running complex evaluations, and closing high-value deals that actually move pipeline.
Calculate: Number of prospects who ask this query × average time to respond = total time saved for buyers.
Give your sales agents the knowledge they need from Day 0. A friendly portrait sits next to a bold statement on using Fin's AI Customer Agent to optimize content, guide reps, and turn buyer intent into pipeline and revenue.
“For sales funnels, identifying knowledge gaps or friction can result in a huge improvement in conversion. When you optimize Fin with the right content, the incremental improvements have a big impact on our bottom line and can lead to millions of dollars in pipeline and revenue. That's why knowledge management is an integral part of our training and optimization process.” Tommy Dunton, Senior Manager of Sales Development at Fin
The best way to start generating that data is simply to start. The sooner you begin, the sooner you can capture insights about what your buyers want and need from your inbound sales experience. I prioritize quick deployment, fast feedback loops, and continuous iteration.
What to include in your knowledge base
Wrangling and prioritizing all of your internal and external sales documentation can feel daunting, but with the right technology, it doesn’t have to. The ideal platform provides data-driven insights to show what buyers actually ask and a centralized place to create, manage, and optimize your knowledge content. For example, with Fin for Sales, you get access to a leads report that gives you insight into disengaged prospects. Intercom’s Knowledge Hub enables you to create a single source of truth for your public-facing collateral and internal sales materials. Using Content Targeting, you can segment this information so your Sales Agent only uses the exact content you want.
1) Pricing and product FAQs. What it is: answers to the most common discovery questions buyers have, from pricing and plan differences to implementation, integration, and security or trust topics. How to source: analyze your sales inbox and early discovery calls. Where to use: public website, Sales Agent, and proactive outbound messages.
Give every seller instant, trusted answers with an AI-powered knowledge base that unifies docs, FAQs, and playbooks into a single source of truth—accelerating ramp, boosting call confidence, and improving every customer conversation.
2) Competitor comparisons and battlecards. What it is: guidance for handling competitor mentions, addressing friction, and highlighting unique value propositions. How to source: talk to top-performing AEs or your product marketing team. Where to use: internal snippets for your Sales Agent and internal sales materials.
3) Case studies and social proof. What it is: proof points that help buyers build business cases and gain confidence, speeding deal cycles. How to source: collaborate with customer success and marketing on ROI stories. Where to use: Sales Agent, website, and sales collateral.
4) Specific use cases and buyer personas. What it is: targeted content for cohorts with similar pain points and jobs-to-be-done (e.g., engineering teams, startups). How to source: combine product marketing’s value propositions with real discovery conversations. Document the exact probing questions your best SDRs and AEs use so your Agent can uncover context in real time. Where to use: website and Sales Agent to enable contextual solution matching.
Content formats and sources
When sourcing knowledge, cast a wide net. You likely have more relevant content than you realize, and almost any information is useful once framed correctly. With Fin, you can use public articles (product FAQs, pricing overviews, feature benefits), internal articles (internal sales materials, internal FAQs), snippets (short-form text like promotions or battlecards), website pages (synced from your marketing site), and PDFs (whitepapers, technical specs, detailed sales materials).
Turn conversations into revenue with a clear Sales Performance view. Track rising KPIs and follow leads from Chat and Email through Qualified, Disqualified, and Recovered to outcomes such as Sales Qualified, Pro Plan, or Free Plan.
Create a knowledge management process that fuels your Agent: 5 steps
Step 1: Audit what you have. Start by reviewing your current materials to prevent your Agent from learning outdated information and to identify gaps. If you’re already using a Customer Agent, much of that content can pull double duty for sales—no need to start from scratch. Make your existing content available for your Sales Agent and build sales-specific content on top, like pricing comparisons, competitive battlecards, customer case studies, and qualification criteria that wouldn’t apply to service conversations. If you’re starting fresh, audit pricing, product FAQs, feature details, competitor comparisons, case studies, and buyer use cases.
Put yourself in your buyer’s shoes. Walk through the same steps your prospects take, including their first interaction with your Sales Agent. Before going live, test it yourself. If you’re using Fin, you can do this using the built-in Preview panel to validate answers, routing, and missing topics or objections. Confirm that your Agent asks the right probing questions about goals, fit, and urgency before making a routing decision.
“We're moving incredibly fast at Fin with our Customer Agent, which means optimising our content, guidance and experience with Fin is a constant focus. Before we launch new products, we're testing Fin for Sales to ensure it's got all of the knowledge it needs to make sure the customer experience is perfect and we can convert that intent into pipeline and revenue from Day 0 of that launch.” Tommy Dunton, Senior Manager of Sales Development at Fin
Seek input from across your GTM organization. Don’t rely solely on sales. Involve marketing, growth, revenue ops, and sales ops to align content with campaigns and routing logic, and to integrate with systems like your CRM. Your SDRs and AEs bring real-world objections, use cases, and competitor insights that win deals—and those should feed directly into your Agent’s knowledge base. Judging fit is as much art as science, and your best SDRs can teach the Agent to interpret subtle signals.
Scalable selling starts with better knowledge. This graphic pairs a monochrome portrait with a bold Fin quote showing how training agents and curating a strong knowledge base compound AI performance over time.
Step 2: Plan and prioritize. Decide where to start by focusing on questions your team still answers manually that, if documented, would help your Agent capture more qualified intent. Identify the content your reps share most (demos, explainers, case studies) and ensure the Agent can access it. Look at leads reporting to find early-stage questions, stuck points, and high-volume disengaged outcomes, then strengthen objection-handling content. Prioritize based on pipeline value—build competitive battlecards and enterprise-tier documentation before free-plan details. Use reporting to find funnel drop-offs and content that hasn’t been updated recently—refresh pricing immediately if it has changed.
Allocate time and resources. Treat your Sales Agent like a core GTM channel, not a side project. Assemble a cross-functional project team with clear roles. The Agent owner translates sales strategy into prompts, routing logic, integrations, and rollout. The optimization owner reviews performance data, identifies drop-offs, and drives changes to content or Agent behavior. Early alignment ensures your Agent operates as a professional extension of your sales team.
Step 3: Go live and learn. Deploy broadly across your marketing site and pricing pages to accelerate learning. Within weeks, you’ll see where the Agent guides discovery and qualifies buyers versus where it stalls. Investigate drop-offs—often these point to missing answers or weak probing questions. If your Agent and knowledge base live in the same platform, you’ll get full visibility into your qualification funnel and content performance across touchpoints.
Track metrics to measure success. Monitor completion rate (conversations reaching a clear routing decision), pipeline created (opportunities generated through Agent-handled conversations), meetings booked (qualified prospects routed to a call), and customer satisfaction (quality of the experience). These metrics show what content is working and where to improve.
Step 4: Iterate and improve. Expect gaps early on. That’s good—it surfaces what buyers need to convert. When the Agent gives a poor response, the root cause is usually missing, outdated, or shallow content. Close the gaps, then monitor your metrics and conversation reviews to keep compounding improvements.
Your Sales Agent runs on great content. This Fin-themed graphic pairs a professional headshot with a bold statement highlighting how strong knowledge enables discovery answers and timely updates across the GTM motion.
Build ongoing maintenance into your workflow. Knowledge management is continuous. As your product, personas, and goals evolve, so must your content. Define owners, review cadences, and working time to refresh and create content—don’t wait for launch week chaos. Encourage a “knowledge management” mindset by logging content requests from SDRs and AEs when they hear new objections or discover probing questions that uncover true pain points.
“Training Agents to get better over time is fundamental to using AI. Fin learns from our website and help center, so the quality of those resources directly impacts its performance. The more we’ve invested in our knowledge base, the more success we’ve seen with Fin and those gains continue to compound.” Beth-Ann Sher, Senior AI Knowledge Manager at Fin
Step 5: Build knowledge management into future launch plans. Make Agent-ready sales content part of every product or pricing launch checklist. Partner with engineering, product marketing, and revenue operations to update catalogs and your Agent’s knowledge base on day zero. Then review early discovery conversations to add resources, address new objections, and fine-tune contextual solution matching.
“Content should no longer be an afterthought. It is one of your strongest GTM levers because your Sales Agent relies on it to handle discovery questions and stay up to date on your latest offerings.” Beth-Ann Sher, Senior AI Knowledge Manager at Fin
Best practices for Agent-friendly knowledge management
A pull-quote from Fin explains why one platform matters in sales: centralize conversation data, lead reporting, and agent configuration to spot funnel drop-offs, learn which content works, and elevate the buying journey.
Use the terms your buyers use. Language varies by industry, persona, and role. Analyze discovery calls and on-site searches to capture how buyers actually speak and train your Agent accordingly. Test internally across SDRs, revenue ops, and marketing to reveal variations and content gaps.
Simplify language and remove ambiguity. Machine-friendly language is buyer-friendly. Avoid jargon, spell out acronyms, and clearly explain key product terms so value propositions land.
Keep the experience consistent and on-brand. Ensure product terminology, feature names, and pricing tiers are consistent everywhere. Proof for tone, spelling, grammar, and use standardized templates to build trust.
Add context to your answers. If your internal FAQ is full of “yes/no” answers, expand on the why. Restate the question, provide business context, and equip the Agent with follow-ups that keep the conversation alive and uncover goals and constraints.
Add text to images and videos. Show and tell—always include clear explanatory text so your Agent and all users, including those with accessibility needs, can benefit.
Introduce Fin for Sales to your team with this clean hero banner: bold headline, signature blue spiral, and a clear 'Start free trial' call to action—inviting readers to explore an AI customer agent built for revenue.
Create a scannable structure. Use clear headers and lists in your source content so both Agents and humans can navigate quickly. Avoid dynamic elements that hide crucial details.
Collect bite-size information in FAQ articles. Package tactical intel—seasonal promotions, short battlecards, edge cases—into concise snippets so your Agent can retrieve and deliver them instantly.
A connected Agent turns every conversation into insight. When a Sales Agent is connected to your CRM and enrichment tools, every interaction, qualification signal, and piece of sales content flows into a connected system. “A single platform matters in sales. When your conversation data, lead reporting, and Agent configuration all live in one place, you get much better visibility into your qualification funnel. You can see where buyers are dropping off, what content is working, and can improve the buying experience.” Fred Walton, Senior AI Conversation Designer at Fin
Every conversation makes your knowledge base sharper, showing you what’s resonating, what’s missing, and where to invest next. That’s the retrieval-first pipeline mindset I push with my teams.
Make knowledge management a core sales function
Behind every high-performing Sales Agent is a comprehensive, machine-friendly knowledge management process. Without it, even the most capable Agent will struggle to deliver the pipeline gains AI can deliver. This isn’t a one-time project; it’s a continuous investment. The teams treating knowledge management as a core sales function are building systems that improve with every conversation, turning inbound demand into a compounding growth engine.
When I consider where product development is headed, one statement captures the mandate perfectly: "Eric Carlson is a Principal AI Engineer helping to shape and build Amplitude's next generation vision of of agentic and data driven product development." That vision resonates deeply with how I lead teams—anchoring strategy in behavioral analytics while enabling agentic AI to act on insights with speed, safety, and measurable impact.
Translating that vision into execution starts with clarity of outcomes. I frame driver trees that connect customer value to leading indicators—activation, engagement depth, and retention—then instrument product telemetry with Amplitude analytics and behavioral analytics to surface the moments that matter. From there, we operationalize learning with A/B testing and feature flags, ensuring each hypothesis gets a fair, observable run and that we can safely ramp what works.
Agentic AI changes the operating model. Instead of static dashboards, we design autonomous workflows that observe signals, reason over context, and take action—grounded in a retrieval-first pipeline and governed by eval-driven development. For product managers, this demands fluency with LLMs for product managers and practical prompt engineering, plus rigorous AI Strategy around data governance, privacy-by-design, and risk scoring so agents remain trustworthy under real-world conditions.
Cross-functional cadence is everything. I partner closely with Principal AI Engineers and product trios to blend continuous discovery with execution: rapid user interviews to reveal intent, opportunity solution trees to prioritize, and outcomes vs output OKRs to align incentives. The result is a system where insights are unified, decisions are explainable, and agents improve through tight feedback loops across analytics, experimentation, and production telemetry.
If you’re building toward an agentic, data-driven future, invest in a unified analytics platform, shorten the path from signal to action, and measure learning velocity as carefully as feature delivery. With the right foundations, agentic AI becomes more than a feature—it becomes a force multiplier for product strategy, customer value, and sustainable growth.
Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.
Sometimes a corporate rename lands with such obvious inevitability—and such lateness—that it feels like a quiet confession. As a product leader, I’ve wrestled with that timing question: move early and risk confusion, or wait and risk stagnation. In this case, the industry finally received the clarity it has been circling for years.
The announcement was clear: “we’re changing the name of our company to Fin.” Crucially, the name Intercom will continue as the customer service software platform that many of the best brands rely on as their primary help desk. The team also “just launched a complete rebuild, Intercom 2,” and is doubling down investment in that product. In other words, the company brand now matches its leading customer agent platform—Fin—while Intercom remains the flagship product line.
From a product strategy and brand architecture perspective, this move aligns the corporate identity with the growth engine. I’ve seen too many winners of a prior era cling to yesterday’s positioning while markets shift under their feet. The phrase that keeps echoing in my mind—because it’s true in practice—is that “the only path to success in the future is through destroying your past.” Culture, pricing models, product lineup, investment priorities—those can evolve. But until the company name evolves, the market’s mental model often does not.
It’s telling that three years ago, when the team effectively created the service agent category, they led with Fin and kept Intercom in the background. That wasn’t indecision—it was smart category design. Humans don’t frequently remap old concepts; we add new ones. We don’t wake up reinterpreting what a chair is, but we do invest energy to understand a new kind of drone or an intelligent software agent. New categories deserve new names, or they’ll be dragged back into old expectations.
This is where product positioning meets competitive differentiation. Newcomers without legacy baggage enjoy a clean slate; they never have to convince the market they’ve changed because they never had an old position to defend. Even with provably superior technology, an incumbent can find itself explaining rather than advancing. I’ve led naming and repositioning work where the hardest task wasn’t shipping new capabilities—it was unseating the entrenched narrative in customers’ heads.
So, “baggage be gone.” Fin is clearly positioned as the future of the customer agent category and is poised to become the largest part of the business. Intercom, as a product brand, very much lives on—and with “Intercom 2” now in the world, the product roadmap and investment thesis are unambiguous. The core takeaway for product management leadership: align corporate naming with your category-creating bet, then let go. That’s how you turn momentum into market leadership.
For leaders working through similar decisions, here’s the lesson I’m taking to my own teams: rebrands aren’t about logos, they’re about narrative clarity and execution velocity. When the corporate name and the breakout product share the same story, go-to-market motions get sharper, customer understanding improves, and AI strategy integrates more naturally into customer support workflows. Naming follows strategy—not the other way around.
I recently spent time with the debate behind the "product builder" trend—asking whether it’s the future of product management or just another wave of tech FOMO. The conversation featuring Teresa Torres and Petra Wille is a useful prompt, but what matters most is how we translate these ideas into healthy product practices inside our own organizations.
Here’s my take: the product builder movement is neither a mandate nor a fad—it’s a tool. The right question isn’t "should product managers code?" but whether leaning into building advances outcomes for our customers and our teams. In practice, that means letting interest and skill—not pressure—set the pace.
Petra captured it perfectly: "Just because I can do it — is it something I enjoy doing? And do I have enough experience to really get into the flow?" Those two tests—joy and depth—are underrated filters. I’ve seen PMs light up when prototyping or vibe coding a thin slice, and I’ve also seen well-meaning dabbling create hidden complexity that slows everyone down later.
Org design determines whether this works. It’s not about the tools—it’s about clarity of roles, healthy interfaces between product, design, and engineering, and explicit guardrails for where experiments stop and production begins. AI has raised the stakes: "AI can make unskilled work look polished. That’s a feature and a bug — executives see the shine, engineers inherit the mess." If you’ve ever watched a glossy demo turn into weeks of refactors, you know exactly what this looks like.
To avoid that trap, I deliberately separate the three layers where AI is changing product work: personal productivity, team process, and product strategy. Treating these as different stacks keeps expectations clean: a prompt that accelerates personal workflows isn’t the same as an AI-enhanced process that reshapes delivery, and neither automatically produces durable product advantage. Don’t conflate them.
Discovery remains stubbornly human. "Why discovery still requires talking to your customers (sorry)" is more than a friendly nudge. AI can broaden our search space and sharpen analysis, but it doesn’t replace qualitative conversations or the judgment that comes from pattern recognition across real customer contexts. Continuous discovery and disciplined customer interviews are still the most reliable compasses we have.
Where does "vibe coding" fit? It’s great for roughing out concepts, de-risking slices, and communicating intent when words or static mocks won’t cut it. Tools like Claude Code make this faster than ever, and familiar stacks like Ruby on Rails lower the bar for spinning up functional prototypes. But remember the design system trap: AI can make bad decisions look good on the surface. If you don’t control for architecture, accessibility, data contracts, and handoff quality, your team pays the integration tax later.
In well-set-up orgs, the output-oriented muscle memory gets rewired. When AI frees up time, strong teams reinvest it into better problem framing, sharper opportunity solution trees, and tighter product strategy—rather than simply chasing more output. That’s a leadership challenge, not a tooling problem, and it shows up quickly in how teams make trade-offs.
Here’s how I operationalize this with empowered product teams: we articulate clear boundaries for prototypes versus shippable code, define decision rights for when PMs or designers "build," and align on review gates that protect quality without stifling speed. We also make the three AI layers explicit in roadmapping and retros, so improvements to personal workflows don’t get mistaken for strategic advantage.
My distilled guidance echoes the episode’s throughline. The product builder trend isn’t a mandate — it’s a tool. Let enjoyment and skill guide who on your team leans into it. Organizational readiness determines whether AI empowers your team or creates chaos. Don’t conflate personal efficiency, process change, and product impact—they require different responses. Discovery fundamentals haven’t changed; AI helps you go deeper, not skip the work. And the real takeaway on product builders: not everyone has to build, but everyone can if they want to.
If you want to hear the full discussion that sparked these reflections, listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. Then tell me: where will you apply builder energy in your team—and where will you deliberately say no?
Resources & Links: Follow Teresa Torres: https://ProductTalk.org. Follow Petra Wille: https://Petra-Wille.com. Mentioned in this episode: Claude Code, Vibe coding, Ruby on Rails.
One more quote I loved because it centers autonomy and craft: "It’s a tool in our toolbox. We can decide who on our team has fun with it, wants to do it, wants to contribute." That’s the mindset that sustains both momentum and morale.
