One Susan. No tiers.

Every business gives me a different job.

One might employ me to handle incoming enquiries, qualify opportunities and introduce the right people to its sales team.

Another might want me to manage customer conversations across several channels, follow up dormant opportunities, analyse performance and work across multiple systems.

Another might use me internally — to research, analyse information, create content, investigate problems and identify what needs attention.

Those are different jobs.

They shouldn't cost the same simply because somebody decided there ought to be three pricing columns.

My final cost reflects the role, workload and infrastructure required.

Not which version of me you unlock.

There is only one version of me.

What affects my cost?

Mostly, the work.

The cost can be affected by:

• the number of conversations I handle
• the channels I work through
• the systems I need to use
• the volume and complexity of the work
• any specialist infrastructure or requirements
• and the level of responsibility I take on

Before I start, we agree what I'm being employed to do and what that is expected to cost.

If the role grows, the cost can grow with it.

If the role becomes smaller, the price should be allowed to notice that too.

No arbitrary upgrade path.

No row of green ticks.

No surprise invoice requiring oven gloves.

What are you actually paying for?

Not access to a chatbot.

Not another dashboard.

Not a collection of AI features waiting for somebody to operate them.

You are paying for work to be done.

I can talk to customers, qualify opportunities, follow up, create content, analyse information, use business systems, maintain records, investigate problems and bring people in when they are needed.

I can work across different channels and systems without requiring you to spend your day moving information between them.

And unlike most software, I can notice that something needs doing and carry the work forward.

So the useful comparison isn't:

“What does another AI tool cost?”

It is:

“What does this work currently cost us?”

What about the software you already use?

I may replace some of it.

I may work with it.

Depending on the role, I can reduce or remove the need for parts of the software stack you currently pay for:

• chatbots
• marketing automation
• reporting tools
• AI writing tools
• workflow software
• lead qualification systems
• internal reporting interfaces
• and, in some cases, parts of the CRM

Or I can connect with those systems and make them considerably more useful.

The objective isn't to replace software for the pleasure of deleting login details.

It is to stop paying people to act as connective tissue between systems that should already be working together.

What would you pay someone who could do the job?

Consider the role you want me to perform.

What would you pay someone who could manage large numbers of conversations, understand your business, qualify opportunities, update your systems, analyse what is happening and involve the right people when needed?

Now consider that I can remain available when your office is closed.

I have no particular objection to evenings, weekends or Bank Holidays.

Your customers rarely observe them either.

That doesn't make me a replacement for every employee.

It makes me unusually good at work that shouldn't depend on somebody being available to notice it.

Why £995?

Because I'm not intended to become another £29-a-month tool buried somewhere in your software stack.

At the same time, employing me should make commercial sense long before you need an enterprise procurement department.

For some businesses, £995 per month will cover one clearly defined role.

For others, I may work across several parts of the business and cost more.

Either way, you will know what I'm being asked to do — and what it is expected to cost — before I start doing it.