TWIS#25- SaaS officially crosses the chasm- largest enterprise deployment… ever

TWIS#25 This Week in SaaS

  • Big news- SuccessFactors signs biggest ever SaaS customer- 2.1 million seats and buys SaaS vendor CubeTree, then does an upgrade.
  • Eric Norlin puts the CastIron deal in a historical perspective- have we crossed the chasm?
  • SaaS based security for your SaaS vendor? WAF and they types of cloud security.
  • Joel York on SaaS Channels- still hard work!
  • Great deck from “the real world” of building SaaS businesses- Xobni and Dropbox on growing from 0 users to 2 million users in 2 years plus Xobni’s pivots
  • Sean Ellis on Steve Blank’s presentation to the SLL conference- “a must watch”
  • Jeff Kaplan’s interesting observations from his participation in the cloud conferences over the past few weeks
  • Evernote continue to share their growth stats
  • Lincoln analyses Ning’s pivot away from freemium and new pricing
  • In other news; Lithium, Google Apps integration, VMware acquisition

Events- The brilliant Simon Wardley, Canonical Cloud Evangelist (makers of ubuntu) is speaking at the EuroCloud UK event on the 19th of May near Kings Cross, London. Simon is probably best known for this presentation on Cloud (well at least to 23,500 people):

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okqLxzWS5R4

Despite being mere yards from my office- I have a triple clash :(

TWIS#25 This Week in SaaS

The big SaaS news this week was that SuccessFactors signed the highest scale Enterprise IT deal ever- 2.1 million seats! The customer is thought to be WalMart, although nobody is giving anything away.

Information Week interviewed SuccessFactors CEO Lars Dalgaard:

SuccessFactors said this huge customer had installed its products two years ago for 300,000 employees but has now agreed to increase that deployment seven-fold to all of its 2.1 million employees around the world in what company founder and CEO Lars Dalgaard called “something truly legendary.”

Speaking of the 2.1 million-seat customer, Dalgaard said, “This is a company that was being very skeptical about cloud computing, and thinking that the cloud wasn’t real, and then a couple of years ago we convinced them to do a trial for 300,000 people. Then not long after that they saw that this is literally–literally!–the way to run the company for the future. And for them to decide in an 18-month framework to jump on another product of ours for succession planning and then go global–global!–with 2.1 million employees, it was just mind-blowing.”

To put this Wal-Mart (my contention) deal in context: about 15 months ago, SuccessFactors won a global deal with Siemens for 430,000 seats, and at that time that was widely regarded as by far the largest deployment of an enterprise application. And now, just over a year later, that biggest-ever scale has been increased by a factor of five to 2.1 million, all in the cloud.

“Software has changed forever,” Dalgaard said. “Nobody would have believed a deal this big could happen and some big companies till don’t believe it but that’s okay because they’ll come around and they’ve been conditioned by their own experience, often bad, to have reason to think that this type of software deal just can’t happen.

“But in reality, 300,000 users is now a story of the past because we’ve proven with this deal that you can go all the way to 2.1 million employees. Nothing like that was ever done before–ever!–and the closest we can find is a client-server deployment PeopleSoft did for the U.S. Army for 600,000 people but you could never do 2.1 million with client-server.”

I think SaaS has arrived! Well done to SuccessFactors.

If this is not crossing the chasm, I don’t know what is.

Even the BBC covered cloud computing this week. Eric Norlin lends a historical perspective:

Anyone that’s been reading my blog posts here or over on Defrag has probably figured out that I’m a big fan of recurring cycles in history, industries, societies, etc. It’s always especially interesting to watch it play out in the tech world.

Yesterday’s acquisition of Cast Iron Systems by IBM seems like an indicator of where we’re at in the cycle for Cloud Computing. Let me break down tech industry development into 7 stages (this is the “successful trend curve,” not the “it crashed and burned” curve):

1. The pre-alpha stage: This is the stage where the new trend/niche doesn’t have a name yet. Normally, it’s growing out of the ashes or success of another industry movement, so people *try* to just call it that. For example, before there was “identity management” (in the enterprise) there were directories (and meta-directories). Hence, before IdM (identity management) was called identity management, it was called “directory services” — even though that name didn’t quite fit.

2. The “we’ve named it, but it’s all buzz” stage: Somewhere along the way, a name sticks. “Cloud Computing” – a helluva lot sexier than “Application Service Providers” isn’t it? Once the name sticks, you enter the stage of “all buzz.” This is where a ton of startups take root, and the common mantra is “technology X will *revolutionize*/permanently change/totally destroy the enterprise IT world [or whatever] and the big tech CO’s are clueless.” This is the time for visionaries and daring entrepreneurs. And, of course, some of the forward looking guys inside of the big vendors start paying attention. What this stage ALWAYS lacks is a) fully developed technology and b) customers.

3. The “um, we might have something real here” stage: In this stage the startups get their technology developed just enough that they begin to land customers. If the trend is lucky, the buzz word is now in full force and running headlong towards completely overhyped. Initial customers always arouses the big tech vendors — and they begin to make noises.

4. The “we’ve gotta get in” stage: This is the stage where the big tech vendors hear enough about this new thing from analysts and customers that meetings start to occur wherein an engineering guy says “holy sh&!, we’ve GOT to get in to this space.” The big tech vendors then do one of three things: 1) enter denial (ie, what we currently call “The Ellison”), 2) begin building something that will take 18-24 months to roll out (and be hopelessly outdated when it arrives), or 3) start buying startups from stages 2/3 (ie, the “CA” approach).

5. The end of early adoption stage: In this stage, the early adoption is in full force, and you can almost just *sense* that mainstream adoption is about to start happening. This causes the big tech vendors to wake up…which is to say, the CEO, COO and CFO finally go to that engineering guy and say, “holy sh&% this is gonna be big! why didn’t you tell us?” When this stage happens, an old, stodgy, been around forever tech company (*ahem* IBM *ahem*) makes a substantial acquisition (Cast Iron).

6. The “mainstream adoption/market gets real” stage: This is actually the longest stage, and it normally lasts 2-3x whatever stages 1-5 were. So, if stages 1-5 took 24 months to run through, stage 6 will take 48 to 72 months to occur. Some startups get REALLY big in this stage, some big tech guys make REALLY big acquisitions, and general mayhem ensues. In this stage, some tech conference will throw an expo around the topic and have 5, 10, or even 15 thousand people show up.

7. The “mission accomplished” stage: This is when you come out of the mainstream adoption curve, and the “industry” that has been built gets a) steady b) boring (to entrepreneurs) and c) profitable (for startups that ran the gauntlet). This stage usually lasts 2 years. At which point, the next trend will start.

Total time for stages 1-7: roughly 7 years.

Now, where are we in this cycle? Somewhere in the middle of Stage 5 (the “end of early adoption” stage). I don’t think we’ve seen the end of early adoption yet (indeed, I think it’s just beginning), but IBM’s Cast Iron buy lets us know where we are. Figure the early adopters need a year to play out (or so), and then we’ll move to stage 6 (assuming all stays on track).

What does that mean for the “cloud computing” industry? That there’s probably 4 years of REALLY explosive growth ahead of it, followed by 2-ish years of steady profitable stuff.

So he agrees I think- we’ve just crossed the chasm and we’re ready to go!

In addition to that big customer win, SuccesFactors bought CubeTree this week- Ben Kepes analyses:

Salesforce.com have got significant exposure of late with Chatter – despite it being beta (at best) there has been a huge flurry of interest from third parties too either integrate chatter into their applications, or built on top of chatter.Salesforce’s strategy seems to be one of land-and-expand – with Chatter being the tool to build adoption further up it’s product offering.

SuccessFactors (and other vendors for that matter) has remained somewhat silent through all of this. At the recent SuiteCloud conference (see disclosure) I took part in a session where CEP Zach Nelson was questioned about the role of social in what they do – he made it clear it’s a area of huge interest for them, but one they haven’t got anything concrete to offer at this stage.

With this acquisition, SuccessFactors get’s an already built and inherently social offering that they can then backend into their own application to find a way to use a similar approach as that taken by Salesforce with Chatter.

In terms of the numbers, the extreme long length of the earn out clause means that, for all intents and purposes, this is a $20 million acquisition. Not bad for a company that’s only had a product for six months or so but chump change to SuccessFactors and worth spending if for no other reason than to head off any competitors from making a similar acquisition.

Social is becoming big news in the enterprise.

As I write this, I’m hearing that they’re releasing an update too. All in a day’s work for a SaaS vendor.

Since infosec- I’ve had a heightened awareness of SaaS security, and this post caught my eye- why not buy in best of breed SaaS security as SaaS? Krishnan explains:

In fact, it is my gut feeling that many startups offering web 2.0ish applications or SaaS applications are completely ignoring the application security and it is just a matter of time before things blow up on their face. The IBM X-Force annual report in 2008 showed clearly how there was a 8X increase in the count of web application vulnerabilities (an exponential increase from 2004-2008) and at the end of 2008, 74% of these vulnerabilities were left unpatched. Most of the users have absolutely no idea about what is in store for them when the web applications they use are severely vulnerable. It is like a bomb waiting to explode and the costs of any attacks using these vulnerabilities could be devastating to both the vendors and their users.

In the traditional web application hosting era, we used web applications firewalls which adds a layer around the web server fending off any attacks based on the rules we add to the configuration of such firewalls. Mod Security is one such example for Apache web server and in my previous avatar of system admin, I have used Mod Security extensively to fend off attacks on PHP scripts running on our servers. Such web application firewalls served the purpose to a reasonable extent protecting web applications from attacks exploiting vulnerabilities (known and, sometimes, unknown using some of the Just In Time rules).

As web applications moved from traditional development model to a SaaS model, things got pretty complex. For one, it makes it difficult for cloud providers because they will have more than one client in a single hardware. The traditional web application firewall approach will not work here. Not only these firewalls are dependent on the hardware and, thus, adding to the complexity, they also consume quite a bit of resources. This makes it useless in a cloud based scenario.  A better way to do it is to implement the security measures into the applications itself so that the security also scales well with the cloud. It is not happening anytime soon and we need a different kind of solution to handle this requirement. Enter dWAF, distributed Web Applications Firewall. dWAF comes in the form of a plugin or even a SaaS service and seamlessly integrates with many cloud environments. These firewalls offer support for detection of vulnerabilities and protection from attacks in a seamless way without consuming much resources.

Art of Defence is available on Amazon and GoGrid as a SaaS solution or as a plugin. I’d be interested in what people think- certainly seems interesting to me. Reading Christopher Hoff’s post on types of Cloud Security put WAF into better context:

When my I interact with folks and they bring up the notion of “Cloud Security,” I often find it quite useful to stop and ask them what they mean.  I thought perhaps it might be useful to describe why.

In the same way that I differentiated “Virtualizing Security, Securing Virtualization and Security via Virtualization” in my Four Horsemen presentation, I ask people to consider these three models when discussing security and Cloud:

  1. In the Cloud: Security (products, solutions, technology) instantiated as an operational capability deployed within Cloud Computing environments (up/down the stack.) Think virtualized firewalls, IDP, AV,DLP, DoS/DDoS, IAM, etc.
  2. For the Cloud: Security services that are specifically targeted toward securing OTHER Cloud Computing services, delivered by Cloud Computing providers (see next entry) . Think cloud-based Anti-spam, DDoS, DLP, WAF, etc.
  3. By the Cloud: Security services delivered by Cloud Computing services which are used by providers in option #2 which often rely on those features described in option #1.  Think, well…basically any service these days that brand themselves as Cloud… ;)

At any rate, I combine these with other models and diagrams I’ve constructed to make sense of Cloud deployment and use cases. This seems to make things more clear.  I use it internally at work to help ensure we’re all talking about the same language.

I had to chuckle though- in HiFi circles WAF means Wife Acceptability Factor… :)

Joel York wrote a great post today on SaaS Channels:

SaaS channel partners have definitely received the short end of the stick compared to their software channel counterparts. With a few notable exceptions like Salesforce.com, Netsuite (and largest, but least recognized as SaaS, Google AdWords) there simply have not been enough customers or enough work to engender a thriving ecosystem of SaaS channel partners, at least not when compared to the sprawling extent of enterprise software channels. I think this is about to change.

Channels Always Follow the Money

There is one universal law that governs all channel management: CHANNEL PARTNERS MUST MAKE MONEY. The biggest channel mistake made by many a SaaS start-up CEO is to fall into the fantasy that SaaS channel partners are there to help your business. They are not. They are there to help themselves. And, how much money they can make boils down to a very simple formula.

SaaS channel money = SaaS channel value-add x SaaS application customers

And right here is the rub. The self-serviceability of many SaaS applications from customer acquisition through deployment significantly reduces the value-add for SaaS channel partners. In fact, if all SaaS vendors embraced SaaS Top Ten Do #3 – Accelerate Organic Growth, then the SaaS channel situation might be even more dire. Moreover, the number of SaaS applications with enough customers to drive SaaS channel development can be counted on your fingers and toes.

Food for thought if you want to use channels for distribution in SaaS, although I don’t agree with his conclusions about PaaS being a big channel opportunity…

More great content from the SLL conference- how Xobni and Dropbox got from 0 to 2m users in 2 years, and Xobni’s pivots:

Sean Ellis said- Steve Blank’s SLL Keynote – It’s a “Must Watch”

Some of my favorite quotes are:

Role of the Entrepreneur

  • Your job as an entrepreneur in a startup is to search for a repeatable and scalable business model. When you find it, your job is to build a company around that business model.
  • Search for a business model rather than write a business plan. Biz model is how a company makes money.
  • Customer and agile development is how you search for a business model.
  • You fail if you stay a startup – goal is to become a large company.  Search is bringing order out of chaos, pivoting all the time.
  • Goal is not to becoming the world’s most fun startup. Goal is to become a valuable company.
  • No business plan survives first contact with the customer.

Differences Between Startups and Established Companies

  • Startups search and pivot; companies execute.
  • Very different skills needed to execute a business model compared to those needed to search for a business model.
  • Customer development = hypothesis testing, minimum feature sets and pivoting.  Product management is very different than customer development.
  • You need to brainwash and deprogram product managers if you want them to perform customer development.
  • Key startup numbers are not: balance sheet, income statements and cashflow.  They are cash, viral coefficient, customer acquisition cost, burn rate, average transaction size…

Want more Steve?  Check out his blog.

And you can see that great Steve Blank video here.

Jeff Kaplan had some really interesting observations from the recent Cloud conferences:

Cloud Conference Observations

  • SaaScon: When was the last time you heard CIOs talk about being heroes in their organizations? Well, the CIOs who spoke at SaaScon repeatedly described how the SaaS solutions which they’re implementing in their organizations are generating an overwhelmingly positive response from their end-users and corporate executives. And, they admitted that this has made their jobs gratifying again.
  • Under the Radar: This was a terrific day of company presentations and American Idol-style judging sessions aimed at uncovering the next hot Cloud companies. Most of the presenters won’t become major players, but many may be acquired by bigger companies. While the remainder will die on the vine because of poorly conceived solutions or go-to-market strategies.
  • AlwaysOn OnDemand: It was a privilege to work with Tony Perkins and his staff to organize and co-host this first-time event. Tony is a living legend in the tech industry because of his association with the Red Herring publication and his very influential conference business. The AlwaysOn events have become important meetingplaces for industry leaders, investors and aspiring companies. The content of the OnDemand conference was also first-rate as you can see in the online videos.
  • State of the Cloud: What happens when a major financial institution decides that it wants to better understand the rapidly evolving cloud computing marketplace? Well, in the case of Fidelity Investments, they decided to put together a first-class conference aimed at top-level enterprise decision-makers. And, because of Fidelity’s tremendous influence, they were able to bring together a very impressive list ofspeakers and sponsors to examine various aspects of the cloud computing environment.

I think we’re seeing a real shift in the understanding of what Cloud and SaaS does for IT- turns them into heroes! More on this in the coming months. I’d missed the videos when I first covered the conference- delighted now to have found them.

Evernote continues to share their growth statistics:

If there is something everyone needs help with now and then, it is remembering stuff.Evernote does that very well via the iPhone, the iPad, Android phones, Blackberries, Windows PCs, and the Web. It just crossed the three million user mark in about 60 percent of the time it took to get to two million. Evernote took 447 days to get its first million users, 222 days to get to its second million users, and 134 days to get to its third.

Evernote lets you take pictures of things with your phone camera or clip pages on the Web and stores them in a searchable, chronological tape of geo-tagged notes. A full 79 percent of its daily mobile usage is on the iPhone OS, including the iPhone itself (63 percent), the iPod Touch (7 percent), and the iPad (9 percent). Android makes up 12 percent of daily mobile usage, and Blackberry is only 2 percent. On the desktop, Windows rules with 49 percent of daily desktop usage, followed by the Mac client (38 percent), and the Web (13 percent).

The key stat for Evernote’s business is how many people it can convert to its premium service, which costs $45 a year for more storage and features. There are now 59,000 paying Evernote subscribers, up from 35,000 when there were two million total users. It is still a modest number, but it is steadily growing and the conversion rate keeps getting better. But in order to justify the $25.5 million investors have put into the company, it is going to have to figure out ways to get more than 2 percent of its users to pay.

So the interesting takeaways for me are:

  • Revenue is about $2.65m- not that great for $25.5m invested
  • iPhone dominates the mobile usage- I wonder how much is desktop v.s. mobile?
  • They are still struggling to convert more than 2% of users- freemium still not paying

Lincoln covered Ning’s pivot away from freemium and analysed their new pricing:

Ning is an example of a company that is well funded (>US$100M), can spend heavily on marketing and user acquisition, and certainly seemed to have anaddressable market size that made Freemium look like a good idea. But it wasn’t.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems we see with companies using Freemium, and it appears that Ning was no different, is that they attract the wrong crowd. That base of free users that you look to as a group of hot prospects just waiting to give you their money; not so much. This isn’t always the case, but with Ning that was certainly in play.

So Ning pivoted; they changed focus at the business level and killed Freemium. No more free networks. And on May 4, 2010 they announced their new pricing. So lets take a look at the pricing page they put up and see if they really understand this whole “premium” SaaS business.

He doesn’t think they do…

In other news:

  • SaaS SocialCRM vendor Lithium Technologies buys ScoutLabs, a Social media listening company- interesting to see SaaS vendors buying each other to extend their functionality. Congrats to the founders.
  • Google Apps to finally become more connected and integrate more of the Google family- Reader, Picasa, Adwords and more- solves major pain of being an apps customer.
  • VMware buys GemStone– a scalable distributed data platform. Think solving the big data problem of cloud.

Have a good week!

Justin

jp@justinpirie.com

Also read...

Comments

  1. Interesting – for me I guess value in a group “should be” the ability to share information, ideas, best practices with my peers. Unfortunately it has never worked out that way for long as you point out. And frankly, the overhead involved in keeping the “noise” down is just too much most of the time. So – groups, forums, etc – eventually devolve to become noisy and you either ignore them or drop off.

    I have to admit the addition of lists has been one of the greatest things Twitter has done. I think of it as a filter system where I can quickly check information from sources “I” trust and want to hear from and “I” selected. It isn't that I don't value what may come from other sources in my follower pool. It is a way to focus on a limited subset and participate with them separately.

    I think subgroups “could” work this way to some extent, but still they lack some of the simple features that make the Twitter lists so valuable. I don't have to repost anything for my tweets to be in the stream on the lists I appear on. I don't have to do anything to appear on a list other than contribute value to the list owner. <<period>>.

    Without a lot more moderation than anyone has time for – I don't know how that simple idea coulld be translated to LinkedIn in its existing form. So, we're left with a “community culture” that needs to guide things and honestly – culture is a hard thing to cultivate. All I can imagine is that we keep posting things about the culture and promoting it. It won't end with this article I'm sure.

    Reply
  2. Interesting – for me I guess value in a group “should be” the ability to share information, ideas, best practices with my peers. Unfortunately it has never worked out that way for long as you point out. And frankly, the overhead involved in keeping the “noise” down is just too much most of the time. So – groups, forums, etc – eventually devolve to become noisy and you either ignore them or drop off.

    I have to admit the addition of lists has been one of the greatest things Twitter has done. I think of it as a filter system where I can quickly check information from sources “I” trust and want to hear from and “I” selected. It isn't that I don't value what may come from other sources in my follower pool. It is a way to focus on a limited subset and participate with them separately. Think of it like bookmarking or RSS subscriptions. It is a personal choice of what I need/want to be able to access efficiently.

    I think subgroups “could” work this way to some extent, but still they lack some of the simple features that make the Twitter lists so valuable. I don't have to repost anything for my tweets to be in the stream on the lists I appear on. I don't have to do anything to appear on a list other than contribute value to the list owner. <<period>>.

    Without a lot more moderation than anyone has time for – I don't know how that simple idea coulld be translated to LinkedIn in its existing form. So, we're left with a “community culture” that needs to guide things and honestly – culture is a hard thing to cultivate. All I can imagine is that we keep posting things about the culture and promoting it. It won't end with this article I'm sure.

    Reply
  3. Hmmm – you didn't mention Google's announcement of the “cloud OS” – Chrome which is supposed to be aimed – as their new browser is – at web-enabled (SaaS) applications. It is a big shot across the bow of MS which is still mired desktop legacy, fighting off players like Salesforce who encroach on their enterprise offerings, and trying to sell Azure without their traditional channel buy-in.

    We live in very interesting times as they say….

    Reply
  4. Agreed- my feed reader has gone mental with all the chrome OS posts but I need a couple of days to gestate on it I think. Web only operating systems…

    Reply
  5. the Chrome story is a little more than “web only.” As some one pointed out – it allows a level of hybrid approaches we have mainly seen in apps based on things like Adobe Flash and Flex. Meaning – some client-side app that does some of the compute specific to a user and saves backend cycles. There are also hybrids coming for enterprise apps that layer on external apps while doing the heavy lifting locally.

    When this is fully exploited, it will greatly increase the move to interapp communication and lessen the need for every app to “do it all in isolation” …. Mash ups by any other name….

    Reply
    • I completely agree- I'm still computing the implications for enterprise (to excuse the pun) – when all apps are run in the cloud- what that'll do to Microsoft's business…

      I guess the first requirement is fast, reliable internet, second apps in the cloud- although I'm guessing you can use TS/VNC if you needed access to a fat app. To me that sounds ideal for offices and then fuller OS's on laptops.

      Thinking about the compute requirements also could dent hardware refreshes but less processing means less power consumed too. Plus, Google has a certain trust factor- I was talking about it this evening and I suggested to someone that hates computers that they might try a Google OS and they were really positive about it- since Google is one of the few things they understand…

      Reply
    • Hey Mike

      This is an interesting perspective- no skype as yet on Chrome OS.

      Chrome OS only supports flash at the moment (no silverlight) and apparently skype won't run in flash… so no skype support on Chrome OS…

      hmmmm

      Reply
  6. Hey Mike

    This is an interesting perspective- no skype as yet on Chrome OS.

    Chrome OS only supports flash at the moment (no silverlight) and apparently skype won't run in flash… so no skype support on Chrome OS…

    hmmmm

    Reply
  7. Justin, good post, especially with all the links. I think we're all discovering that selling to ISVs is hard work and not for those without legs in terms of sustaining cashflow. Leave education to the bigger guys, except the bigger guys are almost all in the same boat of not knowing what they don't know. Is the answer that more ISVs will have to fail in their attempts to transition to SaaS before there will be a market for such consulting services, or ??? Walter Adamson @g2m http://xeesm.com/walter

    Reply
  8. Justin, good post, especially with all the links. I think we're all discovering that selling to ISVs is hard work and not for those without legs in terms of sustaining cashflow. Leave education to the bigger guys, except the bigger guys are almost all in the same boat of not knowing what they don't know. Is the answer that more ISVs will have to fail in their attempts to transition to SaaS before there will be a market for such consulting services, or ??? Walter Adamson @g2m http://xeesm.com/walter

    Reply
  9. Justin,
    great post – you cover a lot of topics. I truly think that we're seeing a sea change in how marketers think about buyers, driven by:
    – the change in the way buyers find information
    – the collapse in the difference between “brand promise” and “brand reality” driven by social media
    – the shift in many industries to recurring (or equivlent) revenue, rather than upfront, which necessitates a focus on account satisfaction/renewal/growth

    As this happens, it's driving a changing set of skills of marketers, from copy/creative skills to customer analysis, operations, and process – in order to understand buyers and deliver the right message at the right time.

    Great post, let's hope 2010 is the year we all think it will be.

    Steve

    Reply
  10. Hi Justin,
    Actually I was the one at the EuroCloud meeting that you couldn't identify. Whereas the Cloud term isn't well liked by the average CIO, the average SME business person “gets” the Cloud concept much more quickly than having to explain Software as a Service (or ASP or other alphabet soup). It's not perfect, and there is an argument to avoid the Cloud term too and just talk about online or web based solutions, but focus on the business benefits in simple terms – cheaper, more flexible, 24/7 acccess, removes IT headaches, faclitates collaboration etc. One of the continuing failiings of our industry is we are just too full of jargon when we sell this stuff.

    Reply
  11. Hi Justin,
    Actually I was the one at the EuroCloud meeting that you couldn't identify. Whereas the Cloud term isn't well liked by the average CIO, the average SME business person “gets” the Cloud concept much more quickly than having to explain Software as a Service (or ASP or other alphabet soup). It's not perfect, and there is an argument to avoid the Cloud term too and just talk about online or web based solutions, but focus on the business benefits in simple terms – cheaper, more flexible, 24/7 acccess, removes IT headaches, faclitates collaboration etc. One of the continuing failiings of our industry is we are just too full of jargon when we sell this stuff.

    Reply
    • Sean Ellis is superb- a blog well worth following…

      Just checked link traffic- 50% more clicks on Fridays than Mondays means people probably have more time to read stuff…

      Reply
  12. Justin, Thanks for another useful issue.

    I agree that, for most SaaS companies, controlling customer acquisition costs (CAC) and matching them to the lifetime revenue stream will be the key determinant of success. I would include “retention” in the equation (“CARC?”), in that companies typically cannot afford the cost to acquire customers more than once.

    The comment from Oracle SVP Anthony Lye that “Customers no longer trust vendors,” is disturbing. I would maintain that SaaS solution vendors unable to gain customers' “trust” are likely to fail. Vendors must convince prospective customers that they'll deliver the service and a stream of enhancements over the lifetime of the subscription. In other words, SaaS vendors are selling “promises,” not products. People typically don't believe – nor pay for – promises from people they don't trust. (I wrote more about trust and relationships here: http://saasmarketingstrategy.blogspot.com/2009/…)

    Reply
    • My Pleasure Peter- I'm just in the process of writing #5…

      I agree with you wholeheartedly about the importance of retention- that's why it has it's own measurement in the Bessemer Laws….

      Where it says “Customers don't trust vendors” shouldn't apply to SaaS vendors as their churn will be shocking and they'll be out of business very quickly. That rule hasn't applied in traditional software however….

      Cheers,

      Justin

      Reply
  13. Justin, Thanks for another useful issue.

    I agree that, for most SaaS companies, controlling customer acquisition costs (CAC) and matching them to the lifetime revenue stream will be the key determinant of success. I would include “retention” in the equation (“CARC?”), in that companies typically cannot afford the cost to acquire customers more than once.

    The comment from Oracle SVP Anthony Lye that “Customers no longer trust vendors,” is disturbing. I would maintain that SaaS solution vendors unable to gain customers' “trust” are likely to fail. Vendors must convince prospective customers that they'll deliver the service and a stream of enhancements over the lifetime of the subscription. In other words, SaaS vendors are selling “promises,” not products. People typically don't believe – nor pay for – promises from people they don't trust. (I wrote more about trust and relationships here: http://saasmarketingstrategy.blogspot.com/2009/…)

    Reply
  14. My Pleasure Peter- I'm just in the process of writing #5…

    I agree with you wholeheartedly about the importance of retention- that's why it has it's own measurement in the Bessemer Laws….

    Where it says “Customers don't trust vendors” shouldn't apply to SaaS vendors as their churn will be shocking and they'll be out of business very quickly. That rule hasn't applied in traditional software however….

    Cheers,

    Justin

    Reply
  15. Justin,

    Your “Startup Pyramid 2.0” is worth a longer discussion, perhaps in a future issue of TWIS.

    I'd agree that “Economics” deserves its own layer if it refers to a start-up's need to match costs to lifetime revenues. For SaaS companies, building a product that matches the product's capabilities with the market's needs is just the start. The more difficult challenge is delivering, marketing, and selling it for less than the revenue it will generate.

    Happy holidays to you as well,

    Peter

    Peter Cohen
    SaaS Marketing Strategy Advisors
    http://www.saasmarketingstrategy.com

    Reply
  16. Happy new year to you too, Justin. Your dedication to TWIS, even on New Year's Day, is impressive!

    The note on customer acquisition metrics used by Matt Breznia and Xobni is evidence that a company's engineers aren't only to found in the development group. Some have migrated over to marketing! In the more successful SaaS companies, I often see better connections between groups – marketing, sales, support, product management, development – and a greater understanding of each others' role in acquiring and retaining customers.

    Reply
  17. Much of what you are talking about here is customer experience satisfaction. Not only are the numbers important but finding out why the product is or is not selling is key. Monitoring the channels is important but at the end of the day what are customers expecting to find in your product. I think one big thing that we can take away from great market research as a SaaS vendor is our competition. What do they have what don't they have. And, for our target consumer which matters most.

    One thing I've never seen on a Web app which I think would be great if you are indeed the leader in the product line is a comparison chart against your vendors. Allow your user the transparency to see who you are competing with and why they should buy from you. You control the entire sale at that point, apples-to-apples.

    Reply
    • Yes- product / market fit is key. That pmarca post I mentioned midweek is inspirational- http://bit.ly/7FU5Tk if you haven't seen it.

      I have seen comparisons before- but it is a key takeaway from this post- you've got to help your customers understand where you're positioning your product. I saw this recently: http://bit.ly/6s8uRX comparing themselves against their competitors.

      Reply
  18. Justin thanks for mentioning GetApp.com. I agree that product management excellence is the most scarce resource and you have a lot to offer in this space. To any good SaaS company reading this comment: HIRE HIM!

    Reply
  19. Excellent interview and assessment from Lincoln Murphy. We risk a second dot com bubble if Freemium is the business model. And user organisations need to do a risk assessment in case an application they increasingly rely on starts to get flaky. Back-up strategy? Disaster recovery? PS. Is it just me experiencing capacity problems on Twitter this week?

    Reply
  20. Thanks for such an excellent interview!, I'm looking forward to reading the other blog posts on Freemium.

    My favourite quote: “Sure, now they have only half of the pie, but in the long run it will likely be a pie that actually gets out of the oven and makes some money!” — that one was completely priceless :-)

    Reply
  21. Great interview, important topic.

    Reflecting on this interview and the paper I sense that the 'sample set' of product startups must operate without substantial input from business end-users and buyers… Surely, the start-up's alpha and beta users can provide feedback not only on product features but also on questions of sales and marketing strategy.

    Reply
    • I agree- but I guess that's why they're buying Lincoln's talent…

      Personally, I'm a practitioner of Lean Startup and Customer Development methodologies which avert the need for these problems if done properly… If the product / market fit is good then you shouldn't have to give it away for free. Just like Marc Andressen calls it “market pull”.

      Reply
  22. Justin,

    I think you are spot on about the iPad affecting SaaS. I wrote a post about that this week http://bit.ly/doEd7x . I see the iPad and the upcoming Google Chrome OS tablet (rumored) as changing things dramatically. These device have less disk space than even a netbook and will take advantage of the cloud for applications and storage. This also helps us with all the devices we have everywhere. Why sync things, when you can just point to the cloud. This way you can use the device you need, when you need it. I forsee a lot of cool applications being served up through SaaS for these new tablets.

    Reply
    • Ron- great post!

      I wasn't aware of the Android tablet- thanks for giving me the heads up on that one…

      Talked about here: http://bit.ly/cINbU9

      Killed off??? :http://bit.ly/a9ZNki

      As I've said before, open beats closed every time and I can't wait for Google to bring out a tablet, especially if there as obsessed with the detail like they were on the nexus one. This brings the best of both worlds- attention to detail in the device and an open platform for innovation.

      It Makes No Business Sense Unless You Are Google: Oh wait! Google simply makes more money when more people go online, thanks to adsense. Whoa, what a coincidence! The only thing a web tablet would do is get people online.

      http://bit.ly/bKJrrS

      Thoughts?

      Reply
  23. I agree the “vision” of the iPad is in the right direction for device usability – but… This is first generation and we are missing a few things. First, it doesn't multitask – at all. Y0u can't receive email and takes notes during a meeting at the same time. Yes, there is push notification, but that isn't going to solve the basic problem that for most “knowledge workers” this is the equivalent of being disconnected – one app, one SaaS, one thing at a time.

    Second – as good as I expect the device “user experience” to be – I really don't believe most SaaS vendors have themselves reached an understanding of what an excellent online user experience means and what this type of device itself will enable. As we all know, this is just the tip of the iceburg – Goggle's aim is to enable their Chrome OS in tablets. In a lot of ways, Chrome OS is better suited to the types of tasks this environment will find a home in. I don't expect Apple to sit on its hands in this regard, but right now, the iPhone platform has some limitations that make it somewhat limited as a target device for SaaS. Limitations aren't bad though, as we all know, limitations spawn innovations quite well.

    Reply
    • Fundamentally I agree Mike- but what it represents is a major step forward for situational devices, just as the iPhone was for phones. Yes it lacks “critical” features, but yet I still love my iPhone and it does a better job for me than any phone EVER!

      I think we need to forget about it's shortcomings and focus on the value it'll be able to deliver to mobile workers and as a situational device. I certainly want one, if only to read blogs!

      JP

      Reply
    • Marc –

      I don't know exactly how much Plex is charging their customers, but it's not trivial. The basic idea is that if a customer wants a specific feature or function, Plex gives them a quote for it and then they decide if they want to pay for it or not. The interesting thing is that once the feature is done, it's available to all of their other customers as well (for no additional charge).

      It's a great model if you can get your customers to buy into it, and Plex clearly has. I don't think it would work in a broader market, but it does appear to work in their tight vertical and I can see why.

      Robert

      Reply
      • So to clarify- I think it clearly depends on your vertical, but it's a clever way to add functionality for no cost or a profit, while not forking your codebase (key to SaaS).

        By definition, not forking the code means the feature can be available to everyone if you so choose.

        There are however some pitfalls with this approach- it could feel like you're in the custom software business and lose focus on product / market fit if you're not careful.

        But if you're a small SaaS company, working in a tight vertical, design the new functionality carefully so to enhance your product/market fit, there is little downside to this approach, especially as the customer is tied in even more to your system…

        Reply
  24. Hi. This is Rick Chapman of Softletter, and I just thought I'd chime in here with a couple of observations.

    First, I'd like to thank Robert for his kind comments about SaaS University; we work hard to put on a very content filled event. Also, I'd like to remind readers of this blog that our early bird pricing for our events is $795; also, at every event, we give away to all the attendees a free copy of one our research reports and we charge for these. At Chicago every attendee received a copy of our massive SaaS Marketing Report, which breaks out 22 separate marketing activities as carried out by SaaS firms. We charge $449 for it. At Dallas, we gave away our direct sales compensation guide, which has a $400 price tag. These items are not loss leaders and are sold on a regular basis. Our events are designed to be very content rich and we think we're offering excellent value for the money.

    Also, we videotape the entire proceedings and make them available online to the attendees, so, for example while Robert wasn't able to see all of Ted's channel discussion at the event, he will be able to when the video is posted online.

    Now, as the issue of customer service. We have had speakers at past events discuss, specifically, SaaS customer service issues. For example, at Chicago, we had Matthew Gonnering of Widen address this topic specifically and in Atlanta and Boston Tom Appleton of DreamFactory.

    rick chapman
    http://www.softletter.com
    http://www.saasuniversity.com

    However, at Dallas, we decided to focus on the topic of understanding that your SaaS customer base needs to be thought of as a community of users based on the inherent nature of the SaaS model. Patrick's presentation went way beyond the issue of having customers pay for new features and discussed the community of users concept in greater detail.

    Once you understand the power of this concept (and implement it), you should also begin to think about how you provide customer support in different ways. For example, Patrick discussed how the Plex community has “taken over” the management of Plex's documentation and FAQs. Ultimately, your community becomes a highly self supporting, and self managing entity that a SaaS company truly “reports” to.

    Reply
  25. @justinpirie – correction – Citrix Online acquired Paglo and not Cisco.
    The blog post by Marc Benioff is an exact transcription of his Dreamforce speech – almost to the word. Chatter is an interesting spin. My personal belief – Professional collaboration is going to be more social, but I do not think feeds like Twitter are going to make much sense. But there is a tremendous opportunity for SaaS to be part of the professional conversations. How it evolves remains to be seen.
    Btw, Chatter is not a good name to use for professional conversations 😉

    Reply
    • Again- you're totally right and I'll correct it right away.

      I agree with you about chatter- I guess my point was Salesforce is the leader- and it's leading with network effects, so we should take note.

      Plus you're right- it's a rubbish name- almost as bad as the iPad 😉

      Reply
  26. I don't necessarily agree that you have to be able to sell direct over the web. If you look at the majority of the public SaaS companies that sell B2B, they enable you to have a free 30 day demo account but in order to buy they want you to talk with someone live. The web site serves as a critical lead gen engine to fuel direct sales motion.

    With that said, I agree with a lot in this post, especially the compensation issue. If you want channels to participate, I believe you need to give them a cut of the subscription business, not just in the first year but in subsequent years as well.

    Reply
    • You're right- and as I wrote that I wondered whether I'd be called out on that one… My example was a little bit wonky but I think the point remains valid for most people- public SaaS companies get away with it because they led the transition from Enterprise to SaaS and they had to have the salespeople. Now, they're tied into public company reporting and they can't possibly change those processes. I think the next generation of public SaaS companies will be different.

      Thinking about that point- what about Amazon and Google???

      As I said before, I think the public SaaS companies have trained some bad habits into everyone, just because they were able to spend so much money. They in particular are responsible for the “low TCO client-server application shoved through a browser” issues that instigated the change to SaaS but no longer works.

      Reply
  27. To pile on Lincoln's comment – a service-based channel that embeds the SaaS app in what they deliver is really a match made in heaven for a SaaS company. It takes real thinking to make it happen – but when that works, it becomes a leveraged model. The channel is then incented to both sell the SaaS application and to feed back what would make it even more beneficial to their service offering and their customers.

    On the other side, a pure sales channel play is very hard to make work. The incremental cash in a SaaS sale just doesn't have a lot of pull for a sales channel. Netsuite is trying to solve that problem by rewarding their SaaS sales channel in much the same way they do their normal licenses – but the problem comes with insuring the total lifetime value doesn't exceed the customer acquistion cost or you're bleeding cash everytime you acquire a cusstomer (as you point out). This can happen if the channel is selling but not to a profile that will actually get enough value to keep their subscription over the long run.

    Reply
    • Spot on Mike!

      I saw the Netsuite announcement after I posted this… That's a really interesting approach- my guess is that they're Customer Life Time Value is about 5 years and they win over the long term but are cash positive after about 14 months. Possibly worth a post on it's own…

      Reply
  28. disagree. People wrongly seems to put all SaaS offerings into the same bucket just because they are delivered from the cloud vs. purchased and installed on in-house servers. The truth is, all SaaS apps are NOT the same. some require professional services (integration, migration, customization, etc) and some don't. Those that do are particularly interesting to the channel. if its interesting, they'll invest in skills development and be proficient in selling it. Also, if that SaaS app integrates with an on-prem app that this VAR is also selling, you've got a winning Channel opportunity. Their differentiation in these cases is their professional services expertise.

    You compare the web with the channel as sales vehicles. I don't know why you'd do that. One has a salesperson and the other doesn't. You ask “How can we expect a channel to sell it when we can't get it sold on the Web?” I disagree with the premise of that question. Hence, the answer is simple. You can expect different results from the channels because they have salespeople, and the web doesn't.

    Reply
    • Kent

      You're right- some apps do require professional services, and for that there will always need to be people. But the newer, better designed apps require less and less of this- they automate and make intuitive what used to be delivered by pro services and only deliver high value adding pro services now.

      The problem I have with your assertion is that you work at an established vendor with a very established channel- which is not the case for most of the readers… You might be able to get this model to work but I can tell you from experience that most SaaS companies cant… SaaS companies shouldn't be told that they can move into that sort of position either… that's your competitive advantage and you're not going to give it up easily!

      On-prem / SaaS integration is less of an issue at the low end as it is at the high. In the middle the water is muddy at the moment but I think that will change as more apps get migrated to the cloud. Channel partners have to shift their focus from installing/ integrating/migrating to adding value. Focusing on that keeps them at the bottom of the value chain where they will die.

      So in answer to your last question- the web is the primary channel for 99% of SaaS companies. Because you were part of the first wave, selling low TCO software delivered through the browser, you've got used to selling like enterprise software and now you're owned by a public company, you're tied to their reporting and revenue expectations. This is not what the majority of SaaS companies can and should expect- most often their problem is having poor product/market fit and then expecting the channel to cover up their mistakes…

      Reply
      • Justin, There are a couple different areas of value-add oppty for partners. One is indeed integration/migration/customization. That may be limited with SaaS, agreed. I'm happy to report that at Cisco, our SaaS apps will require that hands-on work. Enterprise I/M, Email, to name a couple.
        The other value-add is in adding expertise to facilitate the business processes change that the app creates. This is the business consultant work rather than the Engineer work, and I think this is where we have agreement if I'm reading your comments correctly. I also think that this work is the most lucrative. As Technologies become more capable of drastic process change– and collaboration technologies do this– there will be growing opportunities to channel partners who can add the consultants to accelerate these changes. This is a huge step for the traditional channel partner.

        Its ALL about business outcomes. Those who can facilitate it– manufacturers and channel partners alike– will be the winners.

        Reply
        • I think we're definitely on the same page there- those who can transition away from being commodity providers to business value adders will win.

          I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed that you happily report your SaaS apps require that sort of work, as I think that'll put you and your partners at a disadvantage in the future, when this sort of function is automated.

          Reply
  29. Yep, SaaS is tough. Yep, building it thru the channel is a real challenge. However, the SaaS wave is too big to ignore and think that suddenly all of this software is going to be sold and supported by the developer of the app.
    At end of the day, contracts are messy. With SaaS, there's not a sku in sight– its all contracts, which means customization at the deal level….a mess as compared to a buy-for-9-sell-for-10-add-the-services-get-on-down-the-road model that comes with on premise, sku-based apps.

    The way I look at it, Service Providers have had channels forever, right? They might not be SaaS providers, but their XaaS offer is similar enough to take a page out of their channel playbook, which is primarily the page with the word “AGENCY” at the top. There are other ways to do it, mostly dependent on IT support mechanisms that nobody has built yet. IT development cycles, however, are long, and companies are assessing if channels will work, and hence if the IT investment is one worth making.
    SaaS and channels will work, because it has to. Last one to the finish line is a rotten egg.

    Reply
  30. I think Justin is dead on in these comments and they mirror our own experience at LeveragePoint. Of course mschvimmer is also correct, the lead is generated from the web but the sale is closed personnally. The comment by Michael Dunham about servies and SaaS being a good match also mirrors our experience, but with a twist. We believe in using our SaaS application as a channel to deliver services – the services flow through the application rather than being wrapped around it. In our case this means that service providers that build customer value models or who provide the data that drives them do so through our SaaS application. I feel that in the long-term this is the most powerful model.

    Reply
    • Yes and it's non-traditional channels that are benefiting most from that approach, not the VAR's and SI's who traditionally installed, migrated, customised and maintained. That value is disappearing and new channel partners who benefit from the core value of your product will help SaaS vendors win big.

      Reply
  31. Justin… great stuff, as always.

    I just wanted to comment on the excerpt from Sachin's post on “Scale Pricing with Customer Success.”

    Since B2B (Enterprise & SMB) SaaS is our specialty at Sixteen Ventures, we have a lot of experience in versioning, bundling, etc.. First, we work with our clients to ensure that they are solving a business problem for their target market. By doing that, we also help our clients realize that when they solve a real business problem, there is a real value put on that by the clients. This means it is very unlikely that SaaS vendors we work with are going to be in the game of competing on price… we don't want them to be the low-price leader.

    One of the main things we always tell our clients in an effort to ensure they are positioned in the minds of their target market correctly is to do what Sachin suggests; reward their growth and success. The SaaS vendor doesn't want to punish the client's growth. They don't want to give the client any reason not to continue to use the product as their business grows. In fact, by showing the client that they understand their business and the increasing complexities as they grow, the SaaS vendor further cements in the client's mind that they are the subject matter experts.

    So, while I agree in principal with what he said, we go a step further and that is to have our clients differentiate the pricing bundles or versions based on value-added features, services, etc. and to avoid “commodity” items like storage, CPU, or even users. Sometimes, for example, users are the key metric that is most aligned with the needs of the client, so it would be foolish to not use that, but often, metrics with little perceived value are used.

    By aligning the “step-up” between bundles or versions with the value perceived by the client, the SaaS vendor is in a great position and the client feels great about moving up. They don't feel forced or bullied which could cause them to churn out and churn is the bitter enemy of revenue. Also, being value-based allows vendors to charge more in many circumstances.

    Great stuff Justin…

    – Lincoln

    Reply
  32. Just had a great chat with Thomas, one of the founders of Onelogin- I'm really impressed with him and what he's achieved in such a short space of time. I was delighted to hear that they're well aware of the issues raised and they're firmly on the roadmap.

    Reply
  33. For an early stage enterprise SaaS company starting their channel strat early is important to build up sales and marketing capacity and insight into customer needs and value proposition.

    That's assuming that partnering with one or two companies early on can be called starting your channel strat. I think it can as it gives you the experience of working with partners, their expectations, necessary processes and responsibilities.

    And we partner with companies who are the trusted advisors of the clients. Accountants and lawyers in our case. As so many aspects of doing business is changing due to increased regulations (E.g. climate change) and better use of technology in typical business processes (E.g. RFID) businesses purchasing SaaS solutions in these spaces require the inclusion of prof services simply because they don't have the expertise in-house.

    Reply
  34. Justin,

    Great write up! It'll be interesting to see which legacy players will still be standing by 2020.

    In a piece I wrote on, “The End of IT 1.0 As We Know It Has Begun”, I arrived at similar conclusions. Lets see if they play out over this decade.

    For those with the resources, this is a great time to launch a new business using this paradigm shift. The legacy companies have been caught flat footed and they're still out to lunch!

    Keep up the good work!

    Reply
  35. Hey Justin, great reporting on the Google Marketplace. It is an interesting move and like Salesforce.com will help promote SaaS and further the mission of the cloud.

    As a B2B SaaS provider, the tough question I have is what size businesses are buying Google Apps? We target the Middle Market and I am not seeing much traction for the current cloud offerings from Google…I am not sure this marketplace will reach that audience.

    Don't you think it is targeted more at the SMB market?

    Jeff

    Reply
  36. Well done! And you´ve been picky. Great choice. I´ve been in Mimecast´s space before and they are clearly setting the pace. BTW, we´ve just launched a Q&A site dedicated to business apps, Cloud and SaaS: http://answers.getapp.com/. No doubt you´ll soon become an expert there 😉
    Very happy for you.
    Christophe

    Reply
  37. Justin,
    very thorough round up of the industry happenenings this week. I especially enjoyed the interview with Eric Domage on cloud security aspects. My eyes usually glaze over when the topic of security comes up because I find it very technical, but Eric put his points forward in a way that is easy to understand and make a lot of sense.

    Reply
  38. Interesting The examples show high CAC costs (referred to d.skoks) for an SaaS but what do you recommend doing if a startup’s CAC is high due to x reason a direct sales force for example? Aside from the above mentioned within the examples on how to drive CAC down or LTV upnnWhat would you or anyone following advise or strategically adjust to obtain the same objectives ( sales/rev etc) there needs to be some constructive comments around these half examples, for instance recommending not using a direct sales force is not really constructive because it might deter away from the sales/rev objectives, but a strategy, substitution to lower the CAC associated with the force could be something we could all discuss and benefit from

    Reply
    • Have you checked out TWIS#26?nn http://www.justinpirie.com/2010/05/twis26-this-could-change-your-life-understanding-sales-complexity-in-saas/ nnThe first question to ask- is there enough pain (value) to justify the high selling point of a direct sales force?nnIf there’s not- then you might need to reconsider… I’ve had this question posed so many times over the years- so I don’t wish to take assumptions based on your email- but they hint at the same underlying issues.nnSaaS is really an upside down business, distribution and user experience are much more important than the software. If you can’t nail those two- then you’re going to struggle to acquire customers…nnMarketing and Sales is almost more important than anything else

      Reply
  39. Interesting The examples show high CAC costs (referred to d.skoks) for an SaaS but what do you recommend doing if a startup’s CAC is high due to x reason a direct sales force for example? Aside from the above mentioned within the examples on how to drive CAC down or LTV up

    What would you or anyone following advise or strategically adjust to obtain the same objectives ( sales/rev etc) there needs to be some constructive comments around these half examples, for instance recommending not using a direct sales force is not really constructive because it might deter away from the sales/rev objectives, but a strategy, substitution to lower the CAC associated with the force could be something we could all discuss and benefit from

    Reply
    • Have you checked out TWIS#26?

      http://www.justinpirie.com/2010/05/twis26-this-could-change-your-life-understanding-sales-complexity-in-saas/

      The first question to ask- is there enough pain (value) to justify the high selling point of a direct sales force?

      If there’s not- then you might need to reconsider… I’ve had this question posed so many times over the years- so I don’t wish to take assumptions based on your email- but they hint at the same underlying issues.

      SaaS is really an upside down business, distribution and user experience are much more important than the software. If you can’t nail those two- then you’re going to struggle to acquire customers…

      Marketing and Sales is almost more important than anything else

      Reply
  40. Excellent blog Justin, very insightful. I think your 10 point plan is exactly what Partners should be doing. The GB Olympic committee did something similar about 6 years ago, taking someone else’s model (business plan/services/product – it applies across the board I think), in this case Australia’s, and put their own spin on it to offer their athletes (customers) a better chance of succeeding, fast forward 4 years to Beijing 2008 and GB surged past Australia in the Gold Medals department and now they look to GB as a model to follow despite it being an upgraded version of their own idea!nPartners can certainly retain their clients with a smart implementation of some or all of your points……. as you say, it’s not all doom and gloom!

    Reply
  41. Excellent blog Justin, very insightful. I think your 10 point plan is exactly what Partners should be doing. The GB Olympic committee did something similar about 6 years ago, taking someone else’s model (business plan/services/product – it applies across the board I think), in this case Australia’s, and put their own spin on it to offer their athletes (customers) a better chance of succeeding, fast forward 4 years to Beijing 2008 and GB surged past Australia in the Gold Medals department and now they look to GB as a model to follow despite it being an upgraded version of their own idea!
    Partners can certainly retain their clients with a smart implementation of some or all of your points……. as you say, it’s not all doom and gloom!

    Reply
  42. Justin, I think you’re on the right track… I recently wrote about this topic on my blog http://bit.ly/fAkVpf, Here’s the intro to that post:nnThe reseller channel generally does not work for SaaS companies, especially at the early stages (sub-$20M in revenue). This is driven by two things: n1. SaaS solutions generally don’t require an intermediary. They are easy to find (online), easy to deploy (nothing to deploy), and easy to use. This is obviously not the case with SaaS solutions that require a significant process change on the customer’s side, but more on that below.n2. SaaS license revenue stream in the first year (where the reseller needs to make the most of his money) is a fraction of what perpetual license products receive. So the reseller either has to settle for a fraction of the revenue he expects from his perpetual license vendors, or he needs to get a cut of subsequent year subscriptions (which would be a waste of your money).nnThe only way to engage an indirect channel in an SaaS delivery model is around the professional services that need to encompass your solution. In effect, the only indirect channel I’ve seen work for SaaS companies is the value-added service provider partner. This is where a partner delivers the business process re-engineering required to successfully implement your solution at a customer site. In that case, the service provider derives his revenue from the services billed directly to the customer… while deriving less revenue from the SaaS license margin you would provide on top of that.nn

    Reply
    • Great post Firas! I really like your thinking on channels.nnAs a counterpoint to your blog post, I would argue there are some cases where building a channel early can benefit, where I work we have a very successful channel model that started way before your suggested revenue target- but then the channel wanted to sell our type of solution. So the only exception to your rule is if the channel are actively seeking that product to sell, then I think it would be foolish to turn them away.nnHowever, I don’t think that’s a normal use case… The majority of SaaS apps are disruptive and are taking complexity away from the end user, an as such don’t need as many services to install and maintain. Being disruptive isn’t always a good thing if you want to build a channel…nnBut in essence you’re right, if you want a channel, you need to create what I call “channel pull”. Essentially you have to create direct demand in the marketplace before channel will start selling. If you don’t do that, the channel won’t sell anything…nnAnd your remarks on what it takes to make a successful channel work are absolutely spot on. We have a dedicated channel team supporting them.nnIn essence- from a SaaS vendor perspective, building a channel is not something that should be taken lightly. For me- “we’ll create a channel” should go in the same bucket as “it’ll go viral”…

      Reply
  43. Justin, I think you’re on the right track… I recently wrote about this topic on my blog http://bit.ly/fAkVpf, Here’s the intro to that post:

    The reseller channel generally does not work for SaaS companies, especially at the early stages (sub-$20M in revenue). This is driven by two things:
    1. SaaS solutions generally don’t require an intermediary. They are easy to find (online), easy to deploy (nothing to deploy), and easy to use. This is obviously not the case with SaaS solutions that require a significant process change on the customer’s side, but more on that below.
    2. SaaS license revenue stream in the first year (where the reseller needs to make the most of his money) is a fraction of what perpetual license products receive. So the reseller either has to settle for a fraction of the revenue he expects from his perpetual license vendors, or he needs to get a cut of subsequent year subscriptions (which would be a waste of your money).

    The only way to engage an indirect channel in an SaaS delivery model is around the professional services that need to encompass your solution. In effect, the only indirect channel I’ve seen work for SaaS companies is the value-added service provider partner. This is where a partner delivers the business process re-engineering required to successfully implement your solution at a customer site. In that case, the service provider derives his revenue from the services billed directly to the customer… while deriving less revenue from the SaaS license margin you would provide on top of that.

    Reply
    • Great post Firas! I really like your thinking on channels.

      As a counterpoint to your blog post, I would argue there are some cases where building a channel early can benefit, where I work we have a very successful channel model that started way before your suggested revenue target- but then the channel wanted to sell our type of solution. So the only exception to your rule is if the channel are actively seeking that product to sell, then I think it would be foolish to turn them away.

      However, I don’t think that’s a normal use case… The majority of SaaS apps are disruptive and are taking complexity away from the end user, an as such don’t need as many services to install and maintain. Being disruptive isn’t always a good thing if you want to build a channel…

      But in essence you’re right, if you want a channel, you need to create what I call “channel pull”. Essentially you have to create direct demand in the marketplace before channel will start selling. If you don’t do that, the channel won’t sell anything…

      And your remarks on what it takes to make a successful channel work are absolutely spot on. We have a dedicated channel team supporting them.

      In essence- from a SaaS vendor perspective, building a channel is not something that should be taken lightly. For me- “we’ll create a channel” should go in the same bucket as “it’ll go viral”…

      Reply
  44. I completely agree with Justin’s comment that “The good times, as we knew it in the IT channel are gone.” In fact, I would go so far as to say that the entire “channel” itself is in the process of becoming extinct. Most resellers were little more than order takers in the first place and in the world of SaaS there is little for them to do. The channel is just the latest link in the chain to be eliminated by the disintermediation of the Internet.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *