5 ms·

I like the idea, but you guys really miss the mark on costs. I don't know where you got the idea that any small business or startup would be okay paying this.

I like the idea, but you guys really miss the mark on costs. I don't know where you got the idea that any small business or startup would be okay paying this. Definitely out of reach for 99% of the businesses out there. -------------- From the website: -------------- $999/month Starting at $3.50+/case for most everything Starting at $1.25/minute for a voice operator 8 hours of coverage, 5 days a week -------------- My small project handles about 30 cases per day, I spend about an hour on the phone with customers, . Suddenly I'm at $6,399 MINIMUM. Nice try I guess.

busterarm 10y ago
That's 76,788 a year. Can you even hire someone to do product support for your startup in SF for that? Salary, Taxes, Insurance, Office space? I have strong doubts. And that would just give you _one_ person who can only do one call at a time. If you can't justify hiring an employee to do this, you aren't a target customer of this service anyway, I imagine.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  I KNEW this was going to be an answer. "OH IN SF YOU HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH MONEY FOR SALARIES so it makes sense if you're in SF." That's ridiculous and you know it is. Most businesses aren't in SF, most startups aren't even in SF. Yes, I know you think you guys are the center of the world. But there is a reason call centers are in lower income areas and its not because people are just getting around to decentralized support centers. Amazon has been doing this for.. nearly a decade already? Other companies do this in the Philippines. It has nothing to do with justifying an employee, it has everything to with justifying hiring 3-4 employees (or even 10) rather than one service who is just going to be a glorified answering service.
  - busterarm 10y ago
    Woah, guy. I'm not even in SF. Wouldn't work there for any amount of money. I'm just saying that the obvious immediate market for this to me seems to be towards b&m or medium-touch product sales businesses that are _in_ areas like SF. Many Bay Area startups are selling services to other Bay Area startups, that's just the reality of this sort of thing. If you're not their target market, you're not their target market. If you are looking to hire people and this ends up being a viable alternative you will save a ton of money. I worked in/around call centers for most of my first career, I know the score.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      > If you are looking to hire people and this ends up being a viable alternative you will save a ton of money. That's my point, its not a viable alternative ESPECIALLY if you are going to hire people.
  - liztsai 10y ago
    Most of the companies that we work with actually aren't in SF either. Think of it as an AWS analogue. If you are a company running some large predictable number of servers with a constant load, it's probably cheapest to just have a rack of servers, if the scale can cover the people to maintain them. If you have varying loads across different days and seasons though, AWS might make a lot of sense since you don't have to pay for servers sitting around idle. That flexibility comes at a premium. To take it a step further, if you're a slightly smaller company that values time and agility and doesn't have a large dev ops team in-house, you might want to use a PaaS, like Heroku.
ei8htyfi5e 10y ago
I'm not sure how you arrived at that figure, but it seems a bit high for the use case you described. Now might be a good time to clarify our pricing a bit and state that our pricing is not a one size fits all model. We analyze our clients ticket and call histories and find a price that works for both. The $999 is a minimum spend and from that we deduct cases and voice minutes. The minimum covers training and overhead to ensure we're not losing money for clients that are too small. We've also found that, in our experience, companies who tend to spend less than $999/month are sometimes still at the point where their support tickets are full of a lot of edge cases and are best handled in-house. We're aimed at small and medium companies, not individuals running small projects (yet). Someday in the future hopefully, but we're not there yet.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  I arrived at the figure by using the numbers I also shared in my post. I didn't know that the $999 was a minimum though, i just added it as a fixed cost. If you aren't ready for my small project, you aren't targeting small business. We have a small team and the revenue to support it, which is well into the average revenue statistically for small business. If you don't hire within SF, your numbers don't make sense.
  - ei8htyfi5e 10y ago
    We updated the website so it's a bit more clear. And for further clarification, your bill would probably be slightly higher than the minimum, but quite honestly, we wouldn't feel comfortable taking you on as a client for quite some time. As we grow and move downstream, we'll lower prices and expand our offering. It sounds like you're just downstream; nothing to get upset about. Just wait and eventually we'll make sense for you too.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      > It sounds like you're just downstream How would you know? You haven't asked me any questions at all? All you've done is make assumptions and then tell me you didn't want my business.

busterarm 10y ago

That's 76,788 a year. Can you even hire someone to do product support for your startup in SF for that? Salary, Taxes, Insurance, Office space? I have strong doubts. And that would just give you _one_ person who can only do one call at a time. If you can't justify hiring an employee to do this, you aren't a target customer of this service anyway, I imagine.

wheelerwj 10y ago
I KNEW this was going to be an answer. "OH IN SF YOU HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH MONEY FOR SALARIES so it makes sense if you're in SF." That's ridiculous and you know it is. Most businesses aren't in SF, most startups aren't even in SF. Yes, I know you think you guys are the center of the world. But there is a reason call centers are in lower income areas and its not because people are just getting around to decentralized support centers. Amazon has been doing this for.. nearly a decade already? Other companies do this in the Philippines. It has nothing to do with justifying an employee, it has everything to with justifying hiring 3-4 employees (or even 10) rather than one service who is just going to be a glorified answering service.
- busterarm 10y ago
  Woah, guy. I'm not even in SF. Wouldn't work there for any amount of money. I'm just saying that the obvious immediate market for this to me seems to be towards b&m or medium-touch product sales businesses that are _in_ areas like SF. Many Bay Area startups are selling services to other Bay Area startups, that's just the reality of this sort of thing. If you're not their target market, you're not their target market. If you are looking to hire people and this ends up being a viable alternative you will save a ton of money. I worked in/around call centers for most of my first career, I know the score.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    > If you are looking to hire people and this ends up being a viable alternative you will save a ton of money. That's my point, its not a viable alternative ESPECIALLY if you are going to hire people.
- liztsai 10y ago
  Most of the companies that we work with actually aren't in SF either. Think of it as an AWS analogue. If you are a company running some large predictable number of servers with a constant load, it's probably cheapest to just have a rack of servers, if the scale can cover the people to maintain them. If you have varying loads across different days and seasons though, AWS might make a lot of sense since you don't have to pay for servers sitting around idle. That flexibility comes at a premium. To take it a step further, if you're a slightly smaller company that values time and agility and doesn't have a large dev ops team in-house, you might want to use a PaaS, like Heroku.

ei8htyfi5e 10y ago

I'm not sure how you arrived at that figure, but it seems a bit high for the use case you described. Now might be a good time to clarify our pricing a bit and state that our pricing is not a one size fits all model. We analyze our clients ticket and call histories and find a price that works for both. The $999 is a minimum spend and from that we deduct cases and voice minutes. The minimum covers training and overhead to ensure we're not losing money for clients that are too small. We've also found that, in our experience, companies who tend to spend less than $999/month are sometimes still at the point where their support tickets are full of a lot of edge cases and are best handled in-house. We're aimed at small and medium companies, not individuals running small projects (yet). Someday in the future hopefully, but we're not there yet.

wheelerwj 10y ago
I arrived at the figure by using the numbers I also shared in my post. I didn't know that the $999 was a minimum though, i just added it as a fixed cost. If you aren't ready for my small project, you aren't targeting small business. We have a small team and the revenue to support it, which is well into the average revenue statistically for small business. If you don't hire within SF, your numbers don't make sense.
- ei8htyfi5e 10y ago
  We updated the website so it's a bit more clear. And for further clarification, your bill would probably be slightly higher than the minimum, but quite honestly, we wouldn't feel comfortable taking you on as a client for quite some time. As we grow and move downstream, we'll lower prices and expand our offering. It sounds like you're just downstream; nothing to get upset about. Just wait and eventually we'll make sense for you too.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    > It sounds like you're just downstream How would you know? You haven't asked me any questions at all? All you've done is make assumptions and then tell me you didn't want my business.