[creativeSlumber]

> Pro pricing is $7.25 per active user per month

This pricing model makes no sense for a non-profit that is trying to teach coding to teenagers worldwide. They will have a lot of users (remember) who might only send one or two messages once in a while. having to pay $7.25, for some who just asked a single question, is essentially extortion for a non profit like that who's primary purpose involves reaching out to as many people a possible.

> then I think that means they have over 2,000 active members in their Slack which does not sound like a "small nonprofit" to me.

those are not employees, but most likely the people they are trying to help.

[tantalor]

Feels like Slack is not a good fit for that particular use case.

Would make much more sense to use Discord.

[sadeshmukh]

Discord has a terrible permissions model. In Slack, anybody can create bots and channels without Workspace Admin. Slack worked best for the usecase, by far.

[layman51]

Well now I'm convinced that this confusion is the root of the billing issue. Is there not a way that the clients (i.e. the students they are helping) could be added as some kind of "customer" instead of an "internal employee". If not, then yes I could see why it would be expensive.

[SigmaEpsilonChi]

The issue isn't really with being moved to a higher tier of billing. Slack doesn't owe us their service for cheap forever. The problem is that we signed a contract with them earlier this year for our current rate, then suddenly today we were told that we have to pay $50k immediately or all of our 11 years of data will be deleted. That's an absurd demand. It's a shakedown