---
id: KB-CD-013
url: https://app.codecontract.io/help/credits-and-billing/we-spent-three-times-more-this-month
idioma: en
categoria: creditos
audiencia: administrador
nivel: intermedio
actualizado: 2026-08-13
tambienEn: [es]
relacionados: [KB-CD-003, KB-CD-009, KB-CD-007]
citadoPor: [KB-CD-015, KB-CD-016, KB-CD-017, KB-CD-018]
---

# We spent three times more this month

_Four possible causes, and how to tell them apart in ten minutes._

**Responde a:** credit consumption has spiked · why did we spend more this month · unexpected platform consumption · controlling a rising spend

Consumption jumps and the first reaction is to assume something is broken. It rarely is: it is almost always one of these four, and all four are told apart by looking at the breakdown rather than the invoice.

## The four causes, by frequency

| Cause | How to recognise it | What to do |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A campaign or activity peak | The rise concentrates in a few days | Nothing: it was expected, and worth noting for next year |
| A new automatic rule | The rise starts the day it was switched on | Check how often it fires |
| An expensive channel set as default | One specific action type rises | Keep the expensive channel only where needed |
| Resends and repeats | Many actions of the same type to the same recipient | Check the status before resending |

> [!IMPORTANT]
> The second surprises most and is easiest to miss: a rule that looked harmless can fire hundreds of times a month. Each firing consumes exactly as if a person did it, and nobody sees it because nobody is doing it.

## How to look, in order

1. **The breakdown by action type** — It says what rose: sends, reads, uploads, certifications.
2. **Then by area or process** — It says who did it, usually one place.
3. **And the date it started** — If it started on a specific day, find what was switched on that day.

> [!WARNING]
> Beware jumping to "someone is misusing this". In the vast majority of cases it is a well-meaning automation or a campaign nobody announced, and starting by blaming a person spoils the conversation without fixing anything.

## What to leave in place afterwards

**En corto**

- A monthly glance at the breakdown, not just the total.
- A note of planned campaigns, so a peak is not mistaken for a problem.
- And a review of active automatic rules twice a year.

With that, an expensive month stops being a surprise and becomes something you already knew was coming.

> [!NOTE]
> If the rise comes from a bulk send, remember a send to two hundred counts as one action. If you are seeing two hundred, it was not a bulk send: it was two hundred sends, and that is a method problem, not a pricing one.

**Can a spending limit be set?**

You control top-ups and review the breakdown; the real brake is knowing what consumes.

**Does the assistant's work consume?**

Yes, exactly as if a person did it.

**What about failed actions?**

It depends on the type; the breakdown shows it, and it is worth checking.

## Ejemplos

**A company sees consumption triple and suspects a fault.**

- Checks the breakdown by type and by date
- Finds a rule switched on the 3rd that fires hourly

→ Adjusts the rule and consumption returns to normal, with nobody blamed.

**Consumption triples and nobody knows why.**

- Compares the breakdown with the previous month

→ The difference is located.

**A new process came in without flagging its impact.**

- Reviews which activities it added

→ The rise has a cause.

**A one-off campaign explains the spike.**

- Separates campaign consumption from the ordinary

→ The month reads correctly.

**Somebody repeats actions out of unfamiliarity.**

- Checks consumption by user

→ Training goes where it is needed.

**The rise is discovered on the invoice.**

- Reviews consumption during the month

→ The correction arrives in time.