Explore how we've helped organizations recover costs and reinvest strategically.
Some details and figures have been slightly altered to protect client confidentiality.
An education nonprofit had been using Canvas as its learning management system for years, paying Instructure $120,000 in the current year based on approximately 10,000 enrollments at roughly $12 per enrollment.
The problem was structural. A common Instructure contract is designed for students taking a full course load year-round at $20–25 per student. For students with a lighter course load, Instructure offers enrollment pricing at roughly $12–14 per enrollment.
This nonprofit was on enrollment pricing because they offer semester-based programming. But since students are active on Canvas for only part of the year—not the full year the contract assumed—half of every dollar spent was paying for access nobody used.
Compounding the challenge: Instructure does not publish pricing information, a standard practice among learning management system providers. Without transparency into what other organizations pay, it is extremely difficult for a nonprofit to know whether its contract terms are fair or how to advocate for better ones.
With rapid enrollment growth, the problem was about to get much worse. At the projected renewal baseline of 15,000 enrollments, the next Canvas invoice would have been $180,000—and roughly half of that would still be wasted.
We knew that a peer nonprofit had been renewing Canvas on half-year contracts at under $10 per enrollment for years. This was significant for two reasons. First, it proved that Instructure could offer seasonal contract structures. Second, it pointed directly at a solution: instead of one annual contract for 10,000 enrollments at $12 each, the organization could run two six-month contracts per year, each covering roughly 5,000 enrollments at half the rate. Students would only be on the contract during the semester they were actually using Canvas, eliminating the half-year of paid access that went unused. That structure alone would have cut the bill in half.
Opening: Reframing the Contract
On the initial call with Instructure's account executive, we explained the operational mismatch. The framing was collaborative, not adversarial: the nonprofit wasn't seeking a special discount or asking for unusual consideration. The contract structure simply didn't match how Canvas was being used.
The account executive acknowledged the misalignment and introduced a pricing concept we hadn't been aware of: average monthly active users at $50/MAU. Under this model, paying for a MAU would mean a student in the spring would essentially reuse an MAU slot from the fall. Further, seasonal spikes during active programming periods would be balanced by quiet summer months, and the annual cost would reflect actual usage rather than theoretical access. The organization had already signed a $120,000 contract for the current year. Under MAU pricing, that same year would have cost $50,000.
This possibility only opened up because we were willing to explain the operational reality in detail and because we knew that Instructure had a mechanism to solve it.
Verifying Savings: Financial Modeling
We pulled monthly active user (MAU) data from the organization's data warehouse, going back several years. The data confirmed what the semester-based programming implied: usage spiked dramatically during active programming periods and dropped off in others.
Average MAU across the most recent contract year was under 1,000—a fraction of the 10,000 enrollments the contract was built around. The enrollment-based pricing model was fundamentally misaligned with how the platform was actually being used.
Complication: The Handoff
After speaking with the account executive, we were handed off to a renewal manager who wasn't on the initial call and proposed standard terms from their playbook, not realizing a different structure had already been discussed. The proposal that came back did not mention average MAU pricing at $50/user, but used per-seat pricing at $70/seat for 800 seats with a 10% overage penalty and a three-year commitment (standard deal).
On the surface, 800 seats at $70 appears to be a $56,000 contract—a significant discount from $120,000. It would have been easy to sign but we built a financial model that backtested all three pricing structures against several years of actual Canvas usage data. The model revealed that per-seat pricing with overage penalties would have actually cost $85,000 once seasonal spikes triggered the penalty clauses.
Projected usage across pricing models
This verification step is an important part of considering usage contracts. Without accurate usage data modeled against the proposed terms, a $56,000 contract value can look like a $64,000 savings. With the data, it's clear the actual savings would have been roughly $35,000—less than half of what the headline number suggested.
Resolution: 2.5 Weeks of Firm, Polite Persistence
Over the next 2.5 weeks, we sent a series of detailed emails to the renewal manager explaining why the proposal didn't work. The core arguments were precise and consistent:
During this exchange, we also gathered market intelligence to understand our broader options. D2L Brightspace offered average MAU pricing at under $50 per active user.
The switching cost analysis was clear: the savings gap between enrollment pricing and usage-based pricing was so large that even migrating to a competing LMS would pay for itself within a single year, with savings compounding every year afterward.
We arranged a call with all three Instructure representatives: the original account executive, the renewal manager, and the customer success manager. Having everyone in the room was essential—the drift that had occurred during the handoff needed to be corrected with full context.
We came prepared with the financial model, the competitive quotes, and a clear briefing document so all participants could start from the same understanding of the history.
On the call, the account executive acknowledged that she had made a mistake. Average MAU pricing was not yet available for this account type, and she apologized for the confusion. We would be stuck with either per-seat or enrollment pricing options.
Enrollment pricing was not an option as it was the source of misalignment. But per-seat pricing has an interesting characteristic in that it can simulate average MAU. Through the financial model, we understood that per-seat pricing becomes functionally identical to average MAU pricing under two conditions: 1) every month's usage exceeds the contracted seat count, and 2) there is no overage penalty. If those two conditions are met, the seat count simply becomes a minimum payment floor, and total annual cost equals actual usage—exactly what MAU pricing would produce.
Instructure's team did even better than that. Recognizing the mismatch and cost to the nonprofit, they offered:
When the final contract arrived, a per-seat overage clause was still present—and Instructure's deal desk said it couldn't be removed. Rather than reopening the negotiation, we read the clause carefully. It stipulated that overages would be invoiced at an amount mutually agreed upon in writing, with Instructure retaining sole discretion to apply a 10% penalty on the invoiced amount. Reading between the lines, we knew the account executive had gone to bat for us. She and the organization's technology leadership agreed via email that invoiced overages would be $0 for the contract term. The clause stayed in the contract but was rendered moot by its own terms—10% of $0 is $0.
We entered those numbers into our calculator. The result: $40,000, with no hidden surprises. The deal was better than even the MAU model would have delivered ($70,000 based on projected usage), reflecting Instructure's integrity and genuine interest in retaining the relationship.
Both sides acknowledged that this arrangement is a bridge. Instructure intends to move the organization eventually to an offering called Canvas Career, which supports average MAU pricing natively. The workaround achieves even better economics in the meantime—a testament to what happens when a vendor's team owns a mistake and demonstrates genuine willingness to keep a client's business.
Growth protection: Under the original enrollment model, the organization's Canvas bill would have scaled with enrollment regardless of whether those students were actively using the platform. The new structure aligns cost with usage, eliminating a pricing model that effectively punished the organization for succeeding at its mission.
Preparation. Several years of monthly active user data, modeled across three pricing structures, with a one-year growth projection. When the final offer came, we knew immediately it was good—because every scenario had already been modeled.
Persistence. 2.5 weeks of detailed emails with the renewal manager, never letting the conversation drift from the core issue. When the proposed terms didn't match what had been discussed, we documented the discrepancies precisely and consistently.
Politeness. Every communication was framed as misalignment, not accusation. “Our contract doesn't match our reality” rather than “you're overcharging us.” This created space for Instructure's team to be generous rather than defensive.
Technical Fluency. Understanding the mathematical relationship between per-seat and average MAU pricing unlocked the breakthrough. When MAU pricing wasn't available, we recognized that a per-seat model with no penalties and a low seat count produces identical economics. This allowed both sides to reach the right outcome through a structure that Instructure's billing system could actually support.
This same approach resolved the final contract hurdle. When the deal desk couldn't remove an overage clause, we found that the clause's own language—requiring mutual written agreement on overage invoicing—provided the mechanism to neutralize it.
Network Intelligence. Knowing that a peer organization had negotiated half-year Canvas contracts made it possible to challenge Instructure's claim that annual contracts were the only option. Competitive pricing from D2L Brightspace helped validate our position when the renewal manager's proposal drifted from what had been discussed. Instructure does not publish pricing, which means organizations negotiating in isolation have no way to know what's possible. Shared intelligence changes that.
Average MAU pricing is dramatically better for organizations with inconsistent or seasonal usage. The gap between enrollment-based and usage-based pricing was so large at this organization's scale that even migrating to a competing LMS would have paid for itself within a single year.
When vendors don't publish pricing, nonprofits are left to negotiate blind. This case demonstrates the value of peer intelligence—knowing what other organizations pay, what contract structures exist, and what alternative metrics are available. That information shifts the conversation from “can we get a discount?” to “can we get a contract that matches our operations?” The latter is a far more productive question for both sides.
This case also shows that vendor negotiations don't have to be adversarial. Instructure's team ultimately offered a deal that was better than even the MAU model would have produced, because we created the conditions for a collaborative outcome: transparency about usage, clarity about what was fair, and enough preparation to recognize a good offer when it arrived.
The $140,000 saved annually isn't a one-time windfall. It's recurring capacity that the organization can redirect from a software vendor to its core mission of serving students—every year.