We want to minimise confusion for existing users, and create an upgrade path for heavy users.
I'm glad that's your goal. I think your current approach unintentionally obscures what's actually happening for some of us. There are several ways your post could have been clearer. I'll go through them.
1. "Won't see much benefit"
"Professional subscribers who are happy with the current limited offering won't see much benefit from this change."
This is precise in a way that happens to be convenient. "This change" here refers narrowly to the feature unlock in section (b), namely access to Research and top models during the trial. That's a fair standalone point. But it sidesteps the other half of the picture, that Professional members' perpetual rolling Assistant access is going away. That part does affect us, and there's no upside to it for Professional subscribers specifically.
A clearer version would name both sides:
"Professional subscribers who are happy with the current limited offering won't gain much from the expanded trial features. They will, however, lose their ongoing monthly AI allocation once the one-time trial is exhausted."
2. Subscription benefit vs. trial benefit
You describe the current state as: "use the Kagi Assistant each month up to the AI cost value included in your subscription." Then you describe the future state as: "a Kagi Search subscription (Starter or Professional) would grant the same rights as signing up for a Kagi Assistant trial account."
This is confusing. A component of what Professional subscribers are paying for is being retroactively reframed as equivalent to something a free trial user gets. Calling it a "trial" implies the thing was never really ours, that we were just trying it out.
A clearer version would name the mechanism directly:
"Professional subscribers currently have a recurring AI allocation as part of their subscription. Under the proposed changes, that recurring allocation would be replaced with a one-time trial allowance. For light but steady users, this is a reduction in ongoing value."
3. "Minimize confusion" vs. the actual change
"We want to minimise confusion for existing users."
Luis
The stated goal contradicts the structural outcome.
A. Currently: pay for Pro, get X amount of AI use per month, it renews. Simple.
B. Under the new model: pay for Pro, get a one-time trial of a separate product that has its own subscription. When the trial expires, evaluate whether to add a second subscription or upgrade to a third tier (Ultimate).
This introduces more decision points, more subscription tiers, and a moving target. A more accurate framing:
"The proposed changes will add decision points and subscription tiers. We think the trade-off is worth it for the reasons outlined above, but we want to be upfront that it will be slightly more complex for existing users, not less."
4. "Simple pricing" vs. actual pricing landscape
"having simple pricing lets us focus on building product instead of managing plan complexity and billing flows"
If understand correctly, the goal is simple pricing: Search or Assistant, with Ultimate as the bundle.
The framing suggests simplification, but the actual tier count goes up. Currently there are three tiers: Starter, Professional, Ultimate. Under the new model there would be at minimum five: Starter Search, Pro Search, Assistant Trial, Assistant Paid, Ultimate. If Duo plans are in the mix, more.
A more accurate version:
"We're adding a standalone Assistant subscription, which means more tiers overall. The simplification is conceptual. Search and Assistant become distinct products But users will be navigating a larger menu of options."
5. "Upgrade path for heavy users" vs. impact on light users
"We want to minimise confusion for existing users, and create an upgrade path for heavy users.."
Luis
The upgrade path framing is accurate for heavy users. They were presumably already bumping against the AI cost ceiling and considering Ultimate. But the structural impact of this change falls disproportionately on light, steady-state users who are well-served by the current rolling budget and have no reason to upgrade. The justification points at one population and the impact lands on a different one.
A more complete framing:
"This change creates an upgrade path for heavy Assistant users. Light users who rely on a small but steady AI allocation will see a reduction in ongoing access. We think the trade-off is justified because [reason], but we want to name it directly."
I'm raising these because the way it's being communicated minimizes the cost to existing subscribers while overstating the simplicity of the result. On a personal level, being direct about the trade-offs would earn my respect and trust. Framing a reduction as an opportunity is a red flag.
Hope that helps.
