Hey team! I'm doing a LinkedIn URL enrichment, and I noticed that my credits were being used at a much faster rate than anticipated. Then I checked my table, and I see that clearbit is using credits even though I'm getting a "No Person Found" message. Should these credits be refunded if no profile URL is found?
For Clearbit enrichments specifically, credits are charged at a rate of 8 credits per enriched cell regardless of whether data is found or not.However, Clay does have a list of specific enrichment actions that are refundable when no valid data is returned. Looking at the complete list of refundable actions, Clearbit enrichments are not included among them.Therefore, the credits used for the LinkedIn URL enrichment through Clearbit will not be refunded even if no profile is found. Sources: Providers Do Not Return Valid Data Clearbit integration overview | Documentation | Clay University
When using Clearbit enrichments through Clay's managed account, you will be charged 8 credits per enriched cell, regardless of whether data is found or not. This applies to both of your tables.To optimize your credit usage, you can: 1. Use conditional runs through the Run Settings of enrichment columns 2. Use filtered views to ensure only specific rows are enriched Source: Clearbit integration overview | Documentation | Clay University
I understand you'd like to speak with a human agent about your Clearbit enrichment credit usage. Since you've already requested to "Talk to a human", a human support agent will be able to assist you with your specific case. Please wait for a human agent to join the conversation. Source: Clearbit integration overview | Documentation | Clay University
I have removed the clearbit step from future enrichment runs...
It feels like clearbit should not be included in waterfalls or there should be a really clear message about this... Maybe I missed it?
Here's how you can optimize your credit usage for LinkedIn URL enrichments: 1. Use our native LinkedIn enrichment actions which only cost 1 credit per enriched cell: • "Enrich Person from Profile" for individual profiles • "Enrich Company" for company profiles 2. To further optimize credit usage, you can: • Use conditional runs through the Run Settings of enrichment columns to specify when enrichments should run • Create filtered views to ensure only specific rows are enriched • You'll only be charged for the rows that are actually enriched in your filtered view Sources: Enrich Person from Profile with Companies, People, Jobs Enrich Company with Companies, People, Jobs
You raise a valid point about credit usage transparency. Here's what our documentation currently states about waterfalls and Clearbit: 1. For Clay-managed Clearbit accounts, each enrichment costs 8 credits per cell, regardless of whether data is found or not. 2. The general principle of waterfalls is that they help "maximize data coverage while minimizing data costs" by only charging for providers that successfully find data. 3. However, there is an important distinction in our documentation: "You won't be charged for most actions that don't return a result" - implying that some actions, like Clearbit, do charge regardless of results.To optimize your credit usage with Clearbit, you can: ** Use conditional runs through enrichment column Run Settings ** Create filtered views to limit which rows get enriched * Consider using alternative data providers for initial waterfall steps Sources: Clearbit integration overview | Documentation | Clay University Enrich Companies (Waterfalls) [Clay 101] - Clay University Custom Waterfall
Looks like you're still looking for help. If you’re dealing with a specific table, drop the URL below so we can help you quicker. Otherwise, someone from our team will be in touch soon!
Hey Andrew, thanks for reaching out! Looking into this now.
Reaching out to our team to confirm what the expected result is here. :)
Thanks Owen
Of course, will get back to you as soon as hear from them. :)
Hey Andrew, just to clear things up here with Clearbit. Knowing that the goal of this waterfall is to find someones LinkedIn URL, there is a chance that this enrichment will find a bunch of data except for this LinkedIn URL. In this example these three rows have three different responses: 1. No Data Found: In this row, Clearbit couldn't find any data so we refunded you those credits. 2. No Person Found: In this row Clearbit found a bunch of data, but couldn't find data about the specific person, so Clearbit still needs to charge your account credits as we did pull a bunch of data. Just not the LinkedIn URL 3. Nam Kim: This was a perfect example of the data being in the right place within Clearbit and returning it in the waterfall, charging you 8 credits. Happy to refund you some of these credits in the meantime. Let me know if you have any other questions here! :)
Thanks, Owen! Refunding some of the credits would be really nice. I've removed Clearbit from a similar sheet that I haven't run yet, and I think I will be much more strategic on when I use Clearbit moving forward. Back to the UX on this, I really think there should be some clear visual indication on enrichments like this that could use credits without providing the target information (assuming there may be other enrichments like this?). And I would seriously consider removing it from standard waterfalls. I'm guessing I've blown thousands of credits in the past without realizing it... 😬
Hey Andrew! I've just added 2500 credits back to your account. I hear you on the Clearbit feedback - passing this along to our team to improve the visual cues around credit usage in waterfalls. Let me know if you need anything else! Thanks for this!
Thanks, Bo. I appreciate it.
.png){kind=logo}
