What a recent credit card transformation can teach SaaS leaders about pricing and packaging

What is Bilt? 

Bilt Reward’s designed a credit card with one simple value proposition: earn credit card points on rent - the same way you would on groceries or flights.  

The idea wasn't new. However, paying rent with a credit card historically meant users had to absorb transaction fees that often exceeded the value of the points themselves (think spending $75 to earn $50 in rewards). Bilt removed that friction by covering the fee entirely and the proposition resonated. Within five years, over five million users had signed up. 

However, for Bilt, covering those fees created a structural problem. Credit cards make money through interchange, interest, and annual fees. If Bilt was covering every user's rent transaction monthly, it needed to generate enough revenue elsewhere to make the economics work.  

Bilt 1.0: Designed for Simplicity 

The answer was a usage requirement and an intentionally light one. Users were required to make five additional purchases per month to unlock rent points. The hypothesis made sense: if users spent beyond rent, the card would gradually become a part of their normal habit and the interest revenue that followed would offset the fees Bilt was covering. 

Many users gamed the rule instead - swiping for small, low-value transactions to hit the five-purchase minimum without meaningfully increasing their spend. The problem: small transactions often resulted in low interest fees because the card would be paid in full, so Bilt was still covering the full rent transaction fee each month while earning almost nothing back. The model was structurally underwater. Bilt’s banking partner, Wells Fargo, eventually terminated the relationship, citing losses of $10M a month. And without an issuing bank, there was no credit card. 

Bilt 2.0: A Fundamental Redesign 

To remain viable, Bilt rebuilt the model. Bilt 2.0 introduced: 

• Multiple card tiers, each with different annual fees and rewards structures 

• Usage requirements that scale with the amount of rent to unlock rent points 

• Bilt Cash as a second currency - earned on everyday spend and redeemable within the Bilt ecosystem, including to cover the transaction fees needed to unlock rent points 

The redesign addressed the economics, but customer reactions revealed three lessons worth unpacking. 

‍

Lesson 1: Bilt built a metric that reflected its own costs but not one its customers could reliably meet or accept 

Bilt changed the usage requirement to earn points on rent, moving from a flat five-transaction minimum to a spend threshold tied to rent. In other words: the more rent you pay through Bilt, the more you must spend on the card to unlock points. 

In principle, that logic made sense. Higher-rent users are more expensive to serve because Bilt is waiving larger transaction fees on their behalf. Those customers also earn more points, so the value scales too. Many businesses use similar logic in modern pricing models, especially in AI, where token- or workload-based pricing often scales with cost-to-serve.

But Bilt’s change wasn’t just a pricing metric shift. It was a gating threshold. Customers were not being asked, “Would you pay more for more value?” They were being told, “You don’t earn the value at all unless you behave differently.” That difference matters.  

Credit card spend does not naturally scale with rent. Many users spread spending across multiple cards, and some customers simply cannot shift enough spend to meet the threshold.  

The failure mode here isn’t just “customers don’t like the metric.” It’s “customers can’t reliably win.”  

This becomes especially acute for the exact persona Bilt is designed to serve: young professionals in expensive cities, where rent can consume a large share of take-home pay. For many, the idea of spending an additional rent-sized amount on top of rent is unrealistic, even if they want the rewards.

Lesson: A pricing structure can align with cost and value and still fail if customers cannot realistically unlock the benefit. At that point, the problem is not acceptability - it’s viability. 

‍

Lesson 2: Simplicity often beats optimization when customers must “do the math” 

Each change in Bilt 2.0 made sense in isolation. Multiple tiers give customers choice. Usage requirements based on rent aligns to value. Bilt Cash adds flexibility. 

But together, it resulted in cognitive overload. Users had to do the math just to feel confident they were using the card correctly. 

• Which tier should I choose? 

• How much do I need to spend this month to unlock points? 

• Am I better off optimizing for Points or Cash? 

When customers can’t quickly estimate the ROI, they hesitate, limit engagement, and lose trust. Complexity starts to feel less like flexibility and more like risk - “how will I get this wrong?” The product that once felt effortless now requires AI and Excel models. 

Lesson: Optimization only wins when it’s easy to understand. If customers need to calculate ROI, many will default to inaction. 

‍

Lesson 3: Customer migration is as important as the strategy itself  

Migrations are where good pricing strategies either compound trust or fracture it. Bilt's migration approach asked both new users and five-year loyalists to transition on the same timeline, learn new earning mechanics, and reassess how the cards fit into their financial life. For longtime users who had built habits around a simple product, that felt abrupt. 

Three principles make migrations work: 

1. Segment your customers: Tenure and loyalty matter. Customers who have committed to a product expect acknowledgment when the rules change. Chase's Sapphire Reserve update is instructive: benefits kicked in immediately for all cardholders, while fee increases only applied at each customer's next renewal date  

2. Be direct and communicate with empathy: No pricing model is static. The goal isn't to spin the change but rather to explain it clearly and acknowledge the tradeoff. In B2C especially, the range of channels available (email, in-app, social) should make messaging clearer, not noisier. 

3. Use value adds, carrots, and parachutes: if complexity increases, the perceived upside must increase as well. Temporary incentives, grandfathered benefits, or glide paths help absorb friction. Without meaningful offsets, customers experience the change as loss rather than evolution. 

Lesson: Pricing strategy changes are relationship changes. Treating everyone the same and forcing rapid behavior changes can erode trust even when the new model is directionally right. 

Final Thoughts 

The takeaway isn't that Bilt “got pricing wrong.” It's that even a well-reasoned model fails when customers can't understand the rules, accept the metric, or reliably succeed within it. 

Curious: when you’ve seen monetization changes go sideways, was it the model… or the rollout?