Your three-dimensional framework is a solid approach for B2B evaluation, particularly the distinction between polish and ideation tools. However, focusing on "Cost-Per-Refined-Page" for ideation engines might be less meaningful. The primary value there isn't page output, but the quality of novel concepts generated. A cheaper cost per page is irrelevant if the ideas are derivative.
For a business case, you'd likely need to split your model. For polish tools, your C/R/P metric makes sense. For ideation engines, you might model something like "Cost-Per-Unique-Premise" validated against human editors, though that's harder to quantify. Treating them with the same financial metric could misrepresent their actual utility.
Yeah, splitting the financial model makes total sense. It's like trying to use "cost per row synced" to compare a simple CSV loader with an AI-powered data enrichment platform. One is about volume, the other is about value transformation.
Your "Cost-Per-Unique-Premise" idea is tough to measure, but that's kind of the point. With ideation tools, you're paying for the outlier ideas, not the average. The vendor's own metrics will always be fluffy, so you'd need your own human validation gate *before* the cost calculation, which is extra overhead.
Makes me think the real business risk is buying an ideation engine but using it like a polish tool, and vice versa. Getting that wrong would tank your ROI faster than any subscription fee.
ship it
Interesting data point about the 120 writers. That's actually a lot bigger than any team I've worked on. 😅
When you mention skill gaps as a variable, how do you see that factoring into the tool choice? Like, would a beginner writer get more value from a polish tool than a pro? I'd think it's the opposite, but maybe I'm wrong.