Understanding Credit Usage for Table Enrichment in Clay Workspaces | Clay

Understanding Credit Usage for Table Enrichment in Clay Workspaces

Hi Clay Team, I'm confused as to how this table ate up so many credits (over 35k): https://app.clay.com/workspaces/394677/tables/t_W62Dace8mYib/views/gv_PG2qwzSppPcT The only enrichment I did on this table (at least as far as I understand) is to find someone's LinkedIn profile from their Work Email. However, when I look at the Table History, I see 2 runs that ate up a huge chunk of credits (attached). I don't know what the difference between these two runs is (I really just tried to Enrich Person from Email; I did not do any sort of Company Enrichment). I'm also confused how this "Enrich Person and Company" Enrichment could have used 8 credits per row, when the only enrichment I did used a Waterfall where the main provider only costs 2 credits and was the one used for the vast majority of rows.

7 comments

Bo (.
·
·
Hey James - I understand your concern about the unexpected credit usage. Let me explain what happened with your table enrichment. Looking at your table history, I noticed that while you intended to only enrich person data from emails, you added in the process all the actions that we recommend. The high credit consumption occurred because different providers have varying credit costs - for example, Clearbit charges 8 credits per enrichment while Mixrank and Snov.io charge 2 credits. I've exported a CSV showing the detailed credit breakdown for each row. This will help you track exactly where the credits were used. To access the table, you can replace the TABLEID in the URL with the ID found in the CSV under “Credits Spent by Day and Table”: https://app.clay.com/workspaces/394677/tables/TABLEID Let me know if you need help with anything else! 😊 https://downloads.intercomcdn.com/i/o/w28k1kwz/1252108868/a720c62133e85ae5a4c509d2c99a/CleanShot+2024-11-14+at+_31U39l68aj%402x.png?expires=1731608100&signature=cb0eb5209fb0a13aed710ada6d33312aa98d59c98d9bfebcfcc37f79d3d43597&req=dSIiFMh%2BlYlZUfMW1HO4zUHSMgmAp%2BK7gUKrq0YSRNQvWzaFOf7kktUu4PK4%0AnzcI%0A
Channeled
APP
·
·
James C.
·
·
Hi Bo (. - I'm not quite following here. You said: "Looking at your table history, I noticed that while you intended to only enrich person data from emails, you added in the process all the actions that we recommend. The high credit consumption occurred because different providers have varying credit costs - for example, Clearbit charges 8 credits per enrichment while Mixrank and Snov.io charge 2 credits" Can you clarify this? Shouldn't the Waterfall just be using the lowest cost provider in most cases (e.g. the 2 credits one) instead of the 8 credits? It looks like most of the rows used the 2 credits provider as far as I can tell
Bo (.
·
·
Hi! Let me explain how the waterfall enrichment works, as I understand your confusion about credit consumption. The waterfall functions as a series of IF conditions. For example, with a setup of Mixrank -> Snov -> People Data Labs -> Clearbit, it works sequentially: 1. Tries Mixrank first (2 credits) 2. If no results, moves to Snov (2 credits) 3. If still no results, tries People Data Labs 4. Finally, attempts Clearbit (8 credits) if all others failed So when you see Clearbit charges, it means the lower-cost providers didn't find the data first. You can learn more about waterfall enrichment here: https://www.clay.com/university/lesson/enrich-people-waterfalls-clay-101 You can remove the providers by clicking on the trash icon as well
James C.
·
·
Bo (. Oh ok...I think I see what happened now. I was kind of confused by the way the data was labeled in the "View Table History" report, but I get it now. Thanks Bo
Bo (.
·
·
Glad I could help clarify that confusion! Let me know if you have any other questions - I'm here to help!
Channeled
APP
·
·
Hi James C.! This thread was recently closed by our Support team. If you have a moment, please share your feedback: