I just spent a whole day evaluating Asana for my freelance business and fell in love with it. I decided to add my billing details and of course found out there is a minimum of 2 seats.
There is no mention of this anywhere on the pricing page, if there was I could have saved a whole day.
I imagine there are good business reasons for making this reason – solo accounts probably aren’t worth it for Asana – but please, make it clearer.
Hello @dmatthams and welcome to the Asana Community Forum 
There is a detailed overview on the pricing here: Sales FAQ - Questions about Paid Versions of Asana • Asana Product Guide and from my end I can see the reference to no solo accounts.
Hope that helps
I agree with you this is not advertised enough, just like steps (2-3-4-5-10-15…) aren’t either.
Thanks for getting back to me. But realistically – how many are people are going to see it tucked away there?
This isn’t for my benefit – I’m going to use another service now. I’m just glad I spotted it before the 30 day trial was up. I can imagine a lot of people commit to using it in those 30 days only to find out this limitation. I would probably cry.
As @Bastien_Siebman also noted, wait until you find out that there are ridiculous seat tiers. For example, you can’t have 6 users because they magically jump you to 6-10 and the price you pay is for 10. They’ve told me that this is for my “convenience” so I don’t have to keep adding seats when I add users, but that’s a load of hogwash, it’s all about forcing you to pay for more than you need/want. The other aspect of the argument is so that I don’t add more team members than I realized and have my bill be unexpectedly high due to inactive (but billed) uesrs.
I’m to the point where the buckets are 10 seats at a time and so rather than add team members as needed, now I tell teams “Don’t put that user in Asana unless absolutely needed!”. Simply charge per user, it’s easier for everyone.
I kinda agree, but also keep in mind that’s market practice, one of us checked and most apps work this way, even though that’s usually hard to get the info without being a client.
Some apps may work this way for larger team pricing. But if you only need one seat you suddenly realise you’re essentially being asked to pay ‘double’ what is stated by Asana on the pricing page, this feels unreasonable. Competitors like Monday make it really clear there is a seat minimum on their pricing page so expectations are managed. It just feels Asana isn’t really interested in single premium and business customers getting a fair deal. I’ve used paid versions of apps including ClickUp, Todoist and Trello and, as none of these have a seat minimum, Asana is immediately far more expensive than any of these competitors as I’m paying double (who all have comparable features). The Asana UI is nice and reliable but not to the extent I can justify paying so much more.
Yes you are correct Asana has to make it clear. But I do understand why they don’t want to allow for single seats 
Agreed! Just finished the free trial and the same thing
This has been a complaint for years apparently, so at this point, it’s intentional. Putting it into the FAQs section isn’t transparent enough.
Yes, exactly what’s happening to me right now.
Asana really need to step up and allow ACTUAL flexible pricing by doing per seat especially for small SME accounts
Why should I double the cost of Asana usage when I need only 1 extra user and have no view to increase by head count by an extra 4
pricing 5 then 10 is so ridiculous they know this and do nothing about it at their own perel
Can you elaborate on your understanding? Just for revenue reasons?
I’d love to. Keep it mind that below is my personal opinion, I do not work for Asana.
Note: everything below doesn’t make it ok to not be clear about the 2-seat minimum.
I make 4 assumptions, and then draw consequences if Asana allowed solo-users.
Assumption: Asana is a tool built for teams. While Asana can be used by a single user, most features are designed for teams
Consequence: a solo-user will get frustrated by the abundance of features they can’t get value from. They will email support about their need to hide some things, disable some features. The product team will inevitably be drawn to accommodate them and will steer away from the initial vision.
Assumption: a client with a very small budget is often, and rightfully, expecting a lot from those dollars
Consequence: every business owner knows this, a small client is usually more demanding than a big client. They expect a lot, they take a lot of time and energy, for a small gain.
Assumption: I believe Asana as a company is not fully automated, it has some manual steps when provisioning licenses, doing support or managing invoices.
Consequence: any new client generates some overhead. If they create 3 support tickets a year, and have a billing issue, the entire margin generated by them is gone in salaries for the Asana team. Ticketing system usually work as queue, and bigger clients go first, so Asana would have to grow the support team massively, as well as inevitably treat the solo-plans last. Those millions of people would then go on and complain online about a slow support.
Assumption: this is controversial and not backed up by any data, but I believe a one-person company usually doesn’t grow to a big team rapidly.
Consequence: Big teams are where the best margins are. If someone is not willing to pay for 2 seats of a game-changing tool at $10.99/month, it means they don’t even have $263 to invest on productivity. They won’t grow fast or far or they are not a client Asana is really going after even years later.
Justed wasted 30 minutes of my time trying to figure this out. VERY UNCOOL.
Be more transparent Asana!!!
