We don't know (but the norm is) if the original contract had a sunset clause.
Almost every special rate I have ever negotiated had specific clauses about when the rate will end, even if there was no specific date there's always something about "rate is reviewed annually" or similar.
I am constantly surprised by the number of people with "manager " in their title who don't know how to read a legal document.
The other thing is you cannot build anything sustainable by depending on the charity of a single company.
If a special rate that better fits an organization's usage patterns is "charity", then any rate that is not extracting the maximum amount of money from the customer is also "charity", no?
To some degree, reduced rates for non-profit organization and schools are not offered because large companies want to be nice, but because they want to catch future customers.
> If a special rate that better fits an organization's usage patterns is "charity", then any rate that is not extracting the maximum amount of money from the customer is also "charity", no?
Maybe, but that's not what happened here. It wasn't "a rate better suited to an organisation's usage patterns", it was, more precisely "A heavily/1% reduced rate."
No reasonable person can have the expectation that a discount of $195k on a $200k bill is going to continue forever!
No one is ever going to pay per-seat for tens of thousands of teenage volunteers. If you're an unusual customer (nonprofit, with lots of volunteers and program people in the slack) you might end up with a long term special deal recognizing those circumstances (charging you for employees but not others).
The biggest issue is the abrupt change in policy. Slack had wanted Hack Club's patronage and had supported it. (Shoot, getting Slack visible to tens of thousands of future decision makers instead of Discord where these users all naturally congregate was a major win!)
To abruptly demand a massive immediate payment after a month's worth of mixed signals, from a small nonprofit, is messed up.
> it was, more precisely "A heavily/1% reduced rate."
It's more a tacit admission by Slack that their pricing model can't possible work for orgs that don't match a strict employer-employee model.
Nobody would agree to pay per-seat for every customer who uses a support tool, for example (which is much closer to the model this nonprofit is operating)
Saying that only the 50 workers need to pay $100 a year, and not all the program participants, is a perfectly reasonable amount of money to pay for a chat server.
It doesn't matter that an alternate method of counting would be a lot more. They paid a reasonable amount for what they got.
$200k for this service is a joke, not the 'real' price.
> Saying that only the 50 workers need to pay $100 a year, and not all the program participants, is a perfectly reasonable amount of money to pay for a chat server.
Then they should have chosen a chat server that has that as the business model.
The decision maker didn't. They chose a product that did not offer that option, then negotiated the $200k down to $5k.
Slack was obviously unsuitable for them because Slack does not offer what they wanted (free for non-employees), but the decision maker blundered on. And now they want sympathy.
> Then they should have chosen a chat server that has that as the business model.
> The decision maker didn't. They chose a product that did not offer that option, then negotiated the $200k down to $5k.
And in doing so Slack added that business model. And seemed happy about it.
> Slack does not offer what they wanted
They offered it to them.
> And now they want sympathy.
They deserve plenty of sympathy for Slack not giving them any reasonable warning as they torpedoed the deal. And it's not like they were draining Slack's resources or doing anything that made this an emergency.
No, you don't. You have lawyers to assist managers in legal matters. But you can't simply throw a contract at a lawyer and ask "What do you think?" All the terms need to be understood by the manager. It is however reasonable to ask a lawyer "What does this say in normal language?" and "Is there any provision in this thing that sticks out as being really out of line or would trip us up if we had to litigate it?" Understanding a contract is not difficult. I've negotiated contracts with some of the largest companies in the world over my career and it only worked because I was also reading the contracts and interacting with the lawyer as a partner.
Almost every special rate I have ever negotiated had specific clauses about when the rate will end, even if there was no specific date there's always something about "rate is reviewed annually" or similar.
I am constantly surprised by the number of people with "manager " in their title who don't know how to read a legal document.
The other thing is you cannot build anything sustainable by depending on the charity of a single company.