A: Hi Nigel,

Thank you for laying this out so clearly. I truly hear your frustration, and I want to sincerely apologize for the confusion. This is clearly a major point of friction, and it's on us for not making the distinction clearer.

Your feeling that this is "unethical" or "half-baked" is completely valid based on the impression you had, and I want to try and provide a better, more transparent explanation.

You are 100% correct that CNAME and Branding Removal are two different things, and it's frustrating that one doesn't automatically include the other.

1. Why Tier 4 Has Value (The CNAME vs. Limits): I'd like to try and re-frame the value of Tier 4. The primary value jump from Tier 3 to Tier 4 is scale. Tier 4 has nearly double the monthly messages (16k vs 30k) and 10 more Agents (20 vs 30).

The CNAME is an additional, complex technical feature bundled into that high-tier plan. Its purpose is to serve the bot's code from your own domain (e.g., chat.yourdomain.com). For many agencies and pro-users, this is a non-negotiable for their site's security compliance, adblocker avoidance, and technical trust. This feature is separate from the visual branding.

2. Why We Unbundled the "Branding Removal": Your point about us "not listening" is the one that concerns me most, because we are listening, and this deal structure was the direct result of a very difficult choice.

We had two options:

Option A: Bundle CNAME + Branding Removal into Tier 4, but the price for that tier would have had to be significantly higher for everyone.

Option B: Keep Tier 4 priced as low as we could (for the high limits + CNAME) and unbundle the visual "Branding Removal" as a separate, optional add-on for any user on any tier.

We chose Option B because we believed it was more flexible. This way, a Tier 1 user who just wants branding removal can get it for $10, without having to buy the most expensive tier. But I completely see how, as a Tier 4 buyer, this feels like you're being "double-dipped." That was not our intention.

We are taking this feedback extremely seriously. The volume of comments on this exact topic is clear, and I am taking this directly to my team for all future planning. Your point that the top tier should be "all-inclusive" is valid and has been heard loud and clear.

I understand that this explanation doesn't change the current structure of the offer, and I am truly sorry for the frustration and disappointment this has caused.

Regards,
Akshay