Linking solves one specific problem: an organization that genuinely needs separate workspaces, and does not want separate subscriptions.
A parent holds the subscription, the payment method, and the license pool. Children draw licenses from that pool and are otherwise ordinary workspaces.
What is shared
- The subscription: one plan, one payment method, one invoice.
- The license pool: a license a child is not using is available to another child, and nothing is allocated in advance.
That is the whole list.
What is not shared
Everything else. Screens, content, playlists, labels, and members all stay inside their own workspace, exactly as they would if the workspaces were unrelated.
Linking is a billing relationship, not an access one. Being the parent gives you the invoice, not a way into a child’s screens: to see a child’s screens you have to be a member of that child.
That surprises people, so it is worth stating plainly. A parent Owner is not automatically an Owner of the children.
When it fits
A group where the workspaces must stay separate but the money should not:
Regions or brands that should not see each other’s screens, under one finance function. A franchise operation. An organization whose facilities each run their own signage. An agency with a client per workspace, billing centrally.
When it does not
Teams who should collaborate are the common mistake. If the reason for splitting was access, and it turns out they need each other’s content, they wanted one workspace with labels rather than two linked ones.
Sharing content across the group is not something linking does. A shared playlist does, and it works between any two workspaces whether or not they are linked.
Cost saving on its own is not a reason either. Licenses cost the same in a pool, so what you gain is one invoice and licenses that move without a purchase, rather than a discount.
Availability
Enterprise, on both sides.