Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights

A growing shift is materializing in the IT services market as software vendors move away from traditional fixed software pricing and towards models based on AI token consumption, effectively redefining the sources of margin and exposing providers to variable cost structures. This transition is embodied by companies such as Flamingo, which has constructed an MSP software suite and prices access at $1 per device per month, including a token allotment, but whose actual profits—and partner costs—are derived from overage on AI token consumption. The fundamental mechanism is that margin is increasingly being earned from metered AI usage rather than the flat software license model that previously dominated the sector.The most consequential development highlighted involves Flamingo’s approach: software fees serve primarily as an entry point, while ongoing, uncapped AI token consumption drives real costs for providers. According to Flamingo, most partners use 10 to 20 times their monthly token allocation, with the overage billed at rates that track costs from AI lab providers such as Anthropic and OpenAI. These rates are variable, not transparently published, and fluctuate as AI model costs change. Flamingo claims incremental margin via internal consumption efficiency, particularly as it plans to host its own models and increase token allotments without reducing partner pricing, consolidating margin from lowered costs.Additional evidence is provided by Integris, a private equity-backed MSP that launched a bundled AI service, Core, currently priced per seat or device despite the product’s purpose being automation and labor reduction. Integris representatives indicated that no stable, customer-aligned outcome-based pricing model has emerged, a challenge echoed by other large MSPs and exemplified by Salesforce’s challenges in usage and outcome-based AI billing. At every level—from the vendor building software on top of AI labs to the MSP implementing services for clients—pricing mechanisms remain unsettled, with risk of misalignment and unpredictability being pushed downstream.For MSPs and technology leaders, these developments introduce new operational risks, chiefly around cost forecasting, pricing transparency, and margin management. The shift to consumption-based and hybrid models increases the burden of monitoring both cost and value delivered from AI-powered services, while lack of clear, measurable outcome units limits the feasibility of outcome-based billing. Providers may find themselves forced to absorb cost variability while delivering fixed-fee services, or to renegotiate contracts and client expectations as variable pricing becomes standard. As AI-related spending rises and billing models remain opaque, effective governance, cost auditing, and risk management become central to sustainable operations. Supported by:GoTo(LogMeIn)ProofpointUSercure 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · Guardz · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · OpenText · Pax8 · Proofpoint · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AI · USecureSupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The core structural shift discussed is the transition from fixed, seat-based licensing models to metered, consumption-based pricing for artificial intelligence tools. Driving forces behind this change are vendor margin pressures and increasing alignment between costs and actual resource utilization, which is resulting in a measurable difference on invoices rather than announced policy changes. Gartner’s projections indicate that by 2028, over 35% of new corporate legal technology spending will operate on usage-based models, and this trend is evident in technology procurement and vendor billing practices.Key evidence is provided by data from Accenture and Gartner. Accenture’s survey of 750 executives found that only one in five dollars spent on AI token usage can be traced to clear financial outcomes, while Gartner estimates global AI spending will reach $2.7 trillion in 2026, mainly on infrastructure. CIOs are frequently unaware of embedded AI costs, with untracked usage and spending increasing accordingly. Deloitte reported that 31% of UK workers use generative AI at work without employer knowledge, and 17% cover these tools out of pocket, totaling £958 million.Further supporting this shift, BambooHR data shows that 42% of AI tool usage time involves troubleshooting or prompt iteration, equating to roughly 20 workdays per user per year—an activity that becomes billable under consumption models. Vendors like Addigy are rolling out monitoring suites to track shadow AI usage and enforce compliance, while routing platforms such as OpenRouter guarantee data residency and track counts at a granular level. Across the technology stack, billing and consumption visibility are concentrated with vendors, leaving service providers and clients without independent reconciliations.Operational implications for MSPs and IT leaders center around contract exposure, accountability, and the need for defensible consumption tracking. Service providers face the choice between reselling metered AI services (and absorbing variability inside fixed-price contracts) or focusing on policy, instrumentation, and independent usage measurement. Practical safeguards include establishing clear roles in AI procurement, conducting usage amnesties to inventory real adoption, and maintaining independent records to validate vendor invoices and mitigate dispute risks. The absence of such mechanisms increases exposure to unexpected billings and client dissatisfaction. 00:00 The Bill Nobody Can Check 03:40 You Pay For Every Retry06:26 The Meter Isn't Yours09:56 Why Do We Care?Supported by: ScalePad Proofpoint Mailprotector  💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · Guardz · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · OpenText · Pax8 · Proofpoint · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AI · USecureSupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The episode details a structural shift in the allocation of risk and liability for artificial intelligence within commercial insurance policies, driven by changes in standard policy language published by Verisk’s ISO division. Insurance carriers are now able to explicitly exclude claims related to generative AI from general liability coverage using endorsements such as CG 40 47, CG 40 48, and CG 35 08, which attach at policy renewal without formal notification. This trend is not confined to general liability but extends across trade, directors and officers, and cyber policies, with companies like W.R. Berkley filing for broader absolute AI exclusions.Supporting evidence centers on the rising financial exposure associated with AI-related incidents. Chubb’s Cyber Claims Report found the average large company claim increased to $4.4 million, doubling year over year, while mid-market claims rose 22%, even as the total number of claims declined. Sophos and OneTrust research indicates that MSPs are increasingly being relied upon as de facto CISOs and that nearly half of organizations have experienced unapproved AI actions within the past year, highlighting the escalating operational and financial risks for service providers.Additional developments reinforce the shift of accountability downstream to service providers. The MSP Alliance has updated its Unified Certification Standard (version 4.0) to explicitly govern AI-enabled services with requirements such as approval, monitoring, and evidence collection. Meanwhile, legislative efforts remain stalled, as the Durbin-Hawley bill to classify AI as a product sits in committee without movement. Simultaneously, cases such as Google's Gemini model interacting with live systems demonstrate gaps in external disclosure and enforceability, leaving service providers with limited recourse.For MSPs and IT leaders, the operational implications are immediate. AI exclusions now often attach silently at policy renewal, making it critical to review insurance documents in detail rather than relying on summaries. Providers must leverage written client acceptance for AI activities, clarify contract scopes, and scrutinize vendor support agreements for clear boundaries of responsibility. Failure to address these areas exposes service providers to uninsured risks, with consequential liability likely to be litigated as a service failure rather than a product defect.00:00 Insurers Are Backing Out 03:38 Why Nobody Upstream Pays06:38 The Bill With No Address09:40 Why Do We Care? Supported by: Guardz HaloPSA  💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · Guardz · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · OpenText · Pax8 · Proofpoint · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AI · USecureSupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Vendor channel consolidation continues to shape decision-making for MSPs, as the industry evaluates tradeoffs between integrated security stacks and maintaining best-of-breed toolsets. The episode’s discussion centers on the role of platform consolidation, referencing Guardz as an example of a provider leveraging third-party engines like SentinelOne for EDR and Check Point/Avanan for email, shifting focus from proprietary tool development to deep integration and operational unification. This shift reflects broader industry movement away from fragmented tooling toward unified security operations designed specifically for MSP and SMB environments.The primary evidence highlighted is the operational friction and compromises created by legacy all-in-one approaches, which often involved aggregating standalone tools without meaningful integration, leading to inefficiencies and substandard outcomes. Doni Brass detailed Guardz’s initial strategy of building proprietary AV and EDR products, ultimately conceding the inability to match specialist vendors’ effectiveness. The current Guardz model combines licensing and unified management for technologies like SentinelOne, managed through a single point of support and tied together with an identity-centric architecture. The operational benefit, according to Doni Brass, is streamlined onboarding, reduced tool sprawl, and simpler day-to-day management.Supporting developments reinforcing the structural channel consolidation theme include user poll data indicating a split among MSPs: some using under three security vendors, others supporting four to eight, and a minority historically managing as many as 15. The discussion also addresses the risks associated with consolidation—namely increased dependency on single-vendor platforms, reduced flexibility to swap components, and potential compliance shortcomings for high-regulation sectors such as CMMC-restricted defense contractors. Doni Brass acknowledged Gardz’s lack of CMMC certification and identified large, mature MSPs with internal SOCs as less likely to benefit from consolidated stacks unless targeting downmarket segments.For operators, the main implications concern assessment of operational risk, contract liability, and long-term agility. Single-platform solutions can simplify onboarding and management but may introduce lock-in, especially if multi-year contracts are involved. Doni Brass recommended favoring short-term agreements and avoiding exposing specific vendor brands in client-facing deliverables to maintain stack flexibility. Growing reliance on unified platforms demands thorough trial evaluation and continued scrutiny of channel strategy and compliance postures, as vendor pivots and regulatory expectations can change with little notice. Careful governance remains necessary to mitigate both strategic and operational downside.Sponsored by:GuardzBook a Demo: guardz.com/book-a-demo-v5/?utm_source=Davesobel&utm_medium=Webinar&utm_campaign=Davesobel 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · Guardz · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · OpenText · Pax8 · Proofpoint · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AI · USecureSupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Margin pressure, driven by a widening profitability gap among MSPs, is the primary structural shift highlighted in this discussion. According to Dave Cava, industry data shows that over half of MSPs operate at less than 5% profitability, while around 27% are running at a loss. Larger and better-funded MSPs are leveraging resources to accelerate adoption of new technologies such as AI, increasing competitive risk for smaller providers that lack operational maturity and financial resilience.The discussion identified concrete data on workforce dynamics and hiring models as significant, with PeopleSharp internal figures revealing a 30-day gap between presenting a hiring candidate and accepted offers, attributed to process inefficiency on the MSP side. Additionally, Dave Cava referenced market research (Saya) showing a jump from 9% to 16% of MSPs struggling to find qualified technicians, despite a labor market some perceive as soft. This further intensifies pressure on mid-sized and smaller MSPs with limited recruiting power, especially as staffing expectations and willingness to work on-site have been drastically altered post-COVID.Secondary developments include the evolving structure of technical teams and career ladders. Traditional L1-to-L3 progression is under scrutiny as automation and AI begin to erode the volume of entry-level roles. While the shift is gradual, Dave Cava noted that "talent factories," or MSPs able to internally develop staff, are increasingly necessary. Process and operational maturity, not early AI adoption alone, are indicated as pre-requisites for sustainable growth, as merely adding new technology does not solve the underlying margin or process challenges.For MSPs and IT leaders, these dynamics translate to concrete operational risks: underestimating cost structure, slow hiring processes, and reliance on commoditized pricing expose businesses to margin erosion and slow response to market shifts. Building robust, value-based pricing strategies, investing in internal talent development, and streamlining hiring and onboarding are positioned as necessary—but not sufficient—conditions for survival. Rapid AI adoption without foundational process discipline creates more risk than opportunity in the current market landscape.Supported by:ProofpointHaloPSA 💼 All Our SponsorsMSP Radio is supported by our partners: ABC Solutions · CometBackup · Firetail · Guardz · HaloPSA · LogMeIn · Mailprotector · OpenText · Pax8 · Proofpoint · Rythmz · ScalePad · TimeZest · Transit AI · USecureSupporting the IT services community through insights, analysis, and transparency. 🚀 Join Business of Tech PlusGet exclusive access to investigative reports, vendor analysis, leadership briefings, and more.👉 https://businessof.tech/plus 🎧 Subscribe to the Business of TechWant the show on your favorite podcast app or prefer the written versions of each story?📲 https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe 📰 Story Links & SourcesLooking for the links from today’s stories?Every episode script — with full source links — is posted at:🌐 https://www.businessof.tech 🎙 Want to Be a Guest?Pitch your story or appear on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights:💬 https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech 🔗 Follow Business of Tech LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradioBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.techInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradioTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.