Web development , php , ajax , symfony, framework, zend
If you are building a SaaS (Software as a Service) venture, you should be thinking hard about your pricing strategy. It may be the single most critical decision you make. Pricing impacts your marketing, financial and organizational strategy. Are you selling an expensive, complex enterprise solution? Or a simple impulse purchase that an individual can make with a credit card? Will you offer a free, a.k.a.freemium, option?
You cannot fudge these decisions, you have to tell customers how much it will cost before they can commit. To provide input into this decision, it is good to learn what your peers are doing. So I researched 103 SaaS vendors to see how they handled pricing.
This guest post was written by Bernard Lunn, a serial entrepreneur. In 2010 he is focusing on how the Internet is disrupting the capital markets after the financial meltdown, and also on what is happening as SaaS crosses the chasm to the mainstream. In 2009 Lunn was the COO of ReadWriteWeb. In earlier times he has built ventures at the intersection of software, media and outsourcing. Comfortable with globalization, he has built ventures in Europe, America and Asia. You can follow him on Twitter.
How many SaaS ventures are there today? Nobody knows. I can see all of the public ones, and most of the ones that get serious VC money, and those that break through to some level of success. I found 103 of them. But I know that for every one I find, there are probably 100 more. But I think that I found 103 pretty important SaaS ventures and that 103 is a reasonable sample size. You can find the full list here. Here is how I categorize them by funding stage:
I looked at all 103 to see how many have an 800 number right there on the front page with a big invitation to “call us right now”. That is a sign that they have invested in an inside sales team that can take an inquiry and convert it to an action.
The answer is only 30%. That was lower than I expected.
Note: Some companies have an 800 number on their Contact Us page. I did not count those. Most will go to a switchboard or voice mail. If the number goes to a sales team that is hungry for leads, you will want that number as prominent as possible.
I expected more to use inside sales to convert to action. There may be three reasons for this.
I looked on the front page for a link about pricing and I dug down a level to find it there. Only 24% display pricing in the transparent manner that I think as the norm for SaaS (usually with multiple tiers). That is being generous; in our interpretation of “transparent” I included some who have one price with a line saying “pricing starts at x-dollars” that is really a come-on to get somebody to call.
I notice that Salesforce, the bellwether of the SaaS industry, has both transparent pricing (and a big 800 number invitation to call them). Other leaders with pricing transparency include Zoho, 37 Signals, Constant Contact, Xero and Timebridge.
That was the big surprise. Freemium is being discussed almost as the de-facto pricing strategy for SaaS. Note: I did not include a free trial as freemium. Most vendors have a free trial. Freemium means free forever, albeit with limitations.
Some experts are questioning this freemium orthodoxy. In particular I like the work being done by Lincoln Murphy (right), an SaaS expert at Sixteen Ventures. You can find his paper entitled The Reality of freemium in SaaS here. It is a good primer on freemium but once he explains the basic rationale, he goes on to suggest caution. His best advice is that you need to really understand what value you are getting back from your free users. He makes it clear that a no-think freemium tactic (“put it out there for free and figure out conversion later”) is often a disaster.
However, if freemium is the orthodoxy I expected more companies to offer a free option. The 6% freemium rate can be explained by either A: the vendors figured out what Murphy is saying and so don’t offer freemium, or B: the vendors are locked into old enterprise styles of selling and marketing. They may be SaaS-modern on the delivery side, but they are legacy on the sales and marketing side.
It is probably a mix of the two. The lack of pricing transparency indicates that B is more likely in most cases.
CAC (customer acquisition cost) is one number you should obsess about if you run a SaaS venture. Bruce Cleveland, the SaaS-focused partner at InterWest Ventures (see the ReadWriteWeb interview here) has a good post that outlines his definition of CAC. There are different ways to look at CAC, but I think Cleveland’s makes the most sense in the real world. Here is how he calculates the CAC Ratio: ($ Total Sales + $ Total Marketing)/$ First Year Contract Value.
He goes onto say, “The objective is to make the CAC ratio less than 1, which implies a customer acquisition payback of a year or less.”
That is controversial. Some would allow ROI over the years of Lifetime Value (LTV). Read his post why that is a bad idea operationally. (Cleveland was one of the original members of the Siebel executive team, so he talks from operational experience not MBA textbooks).
However, whether you measure CAC over one year or multiple years, the CAC ratio is how your investors will measure you. It will determine your capital efficiency, which determines how many times you need to go back to investors for more money.
I believe that vendors that don’t offer a clear path to revenue online (through transparent pricing and, for higher priced products, an inside sales) will struggle to have a best-of-breed CAC ratio.
Is a CAC Ratio below one feasible? What freemium strategies are working? Is it viable to hide pricing behind a lead generation form?
Freemium photo credit: ReadWriteWeb
Discuss
It happens all the time: Companies spend large amounts of money on focus groups and market research, only to have a new product fail when it’s introduced to the public.
Researchers at MIT are hoping to help change that, using some high-tech tools that measure the emotional reactions of people as they’re testing a new product.
Part of the problem, the researchers say, is that people have a tough time accurately describing how they feel about something.
“We know that self-reported feeling is very inaccurate,” said Rosalind Picard, an MIT professor who directs research into computing and human emotion. “We’ve measured when people say they like something, but their face is leaking all kinds of disgust.”
Prof. Picard and PhD student Hyungil Ahn haven’t finalized their research yet but hope to have it published later this year. They said they aren’t looking to subject product testers to any sort of invasive, secret tests.
“There are companies that want to read people’s feelings without people knowing, and that’s not how we work,” Prof. Picard said. Instead, they are hoping to provide tools that help people report their feelings more accurately. The idea is based on devices the MIT lab developed for autistic people, who also have difficulty accurately identifying feelings. Those devices include instruments that record people’s facial images and tell the users how often they are showing interest, confusion, agreement and so forth.
Prof. Picard said the product-testing study was spurred by requests from companies that work with their lab, a roster that includes such names as PepsiCo and Bank of America. Representatives from these companies saw reports on the autism research and mentioned that the devices could be used in product testing. Prof. Picard said Pepsi was one company that influenced the lab’s decision to conduct the research: “They said, ‘We’ve got this problem. We’re trying to make healthier products. … We test them with people, and everybody says they love it … and then it flops.’”
In addition to evaluating facial expressions, the researchers also are using instruments that measure the electrical conductance of the skin, which can help indicate interest and memorability but which also changes depending on whether a subject is stressed — something that might be helpful for testing a product like, say, potato chips. “Most of us overeat when we’re stressed,” Dr. Picard said. “It’s interesting to look at with regard to why someone might be eating more. If your customers are eating more during your test, is it due to stress or due to actually liking what they’re eating?”
In: gadgets
20 Jan 2010
After making lame excuses to the FCC for their suddenly doubled ETF, Verizon has now partially backtracked: The ETF is only doubled for phones people actually like! Cancel those dumb featurephones whenever you want! You’re welcome, America.
Basically, the new $350 ETF applies only to smartphones, which they seem to have trouble defining but which is easy for you and I to understand. The Droid, Droid Eris, and all BlackBerry handsets are subject to the hiked fee, while dumbphones with dumb names like the EnV and Krave will stick with the old $175 fee.
It’s still ridiculously high: As Adam wrote,
What they don’t address is why they’re justified in charging a fee that ends up being far higher than the difference between the actual cost of a phone and the subsidized price, especially if the contract is cancelled many months in. Isn’t that all the ETF is supposed to cover?
So thanks but no thanks, Verizon. Charging less for phones we don’t care about doesn’t help your case. [Electronista]
This blog delivers stylish and dynamic news for designers and web-developers on all subjects of design, ranging from: CSS, Ajax, Javascript, web design, graphics, typography, advertising & much more. Our goal is to help you communicate effectively on the web with an engaging website or functional interface.



