3 ms·

The definition for saturation isn't "is there are lots of strong competitors and other options?" or even "a given percentage of the market is our customer." In

by ericb 6y ago

The definition for saturation isn't "is there are lots of strong competitors and other options?" or even "a given percentage of the market is our customer." Instead, the rule is more like: is CaC sufficiently lower than Customer Lifetime Value so that each customer is profitable. This ratio tells you if your money-printing machine is working. As the low-hanging leads dry up, CaC gets higher. Your argument might be rephrased as "their customer lifetime may be shorter than they think." Possible. There's some amount of switching cost (lost history, webhooks and integrations) there, though.

Thorentis 6y ago
I disagree. Market saturation is absolutely determined partly by competition, and partly by how much consumers are , well, able to consume. In terms of competition, we've seen plenty of alternative pop up recently such as Mattermost and MS Teams, both of which have gained popularity. In terms of consumption, it is only feasible to really have a single chat application at a time, maybe two if one is being tested. Having more than 1 defeats the purpose of having an org wide chat. Maybe individual teams will choose their own in large companies, but the general assumption is you try and sell your chat solution to the company, not to the individuals. And so we have a situation where the presence of strong competition directly effects the consumption of the product (Slack's offering). My opinion is that Slack was previously somewhat synonymous with company chat, but that is no longer the case. They peaked, and now that Discord, MS Teams, Mattermost, etc. are viable alternatives, their market saturation is on the decline. They let their grasp slip away, and they will pay for it.
- saghm 6y ago
  > In terms of competition, we've seen plenty of alternative pop up recently such as Mattermost and MS Teams, both of which have gained popularity. Slack has still had a net gain in users in the time that those competitors have gained users as well though, right? If everyone is gaining users, that seems like a reasonable argument against the market being saturated.
- johntash 6y ago
  > In terms of consumption, it is only feasible to really have a single chat application at a time, maybe two if one is being tested. Having more than 1 defeats the purpose of having an org wide chat... I know you're talking about within an organization, but this made me realize how long it's been since I've used a client like Pidgin/Adium/bitlbee that could handle multiple chat protocols all from one client. I'm pretty sure the majority of the protocols I used to use in these apps aren't even around anymore (other than irc and xmpp).

by ericb 6y ago

Thorentis 6y ago

I disagree. Market saturation is absolutely determined partly by competition, and partly by how much consumers are , well, able to consume. In terms of competition, we've seen plenty of alternative pop up recently such as Mattermost and MS Teams, both of which have gained popularity. In terms of consumption, it is only feasible to really have a single chat application at a time, maybe two if one is being tested. Having more than 1 defeats the purpose of having an org wide chat. Maybe individual teams will choose their own in large companies, but the general assumption is you try and sell your chat solution to the company, not to the individuals. And so we have a situation where the presence of strong competition directly effects the consumption of the product (Slack's offering). My opinion is that Slack was previously somewhat synonymous with company chat, but that is no longer the case. They peaked, and now that Discord, MS Teams, Mattermost, etc. are viable alternatives, their market saturation is on the decline. They let their grasp slip away, and they will pay for it.

saghm 6y ago
> In terms of competition, we've seen plenty of alternative pop up recently such as Mattermost and MS Teams, both of which have gained popularity. Slack has still had a net gain in users in the time that those competitors have gained users as well though, right? If everyone is gaining users, that seems like a reasonable argument against the market being saturated.
johntash 6y ago
> In terms of consumption, it is only feasible to really have a single chat application at a time, maybe two if one is being tested. Having more than 1 defeats the purpose of having an org wide chat... I know you're talking about within an organization, but this made me realize how long it's been since I've used a client like Pidgin/Adium/bitlbee that could handle multiple chat protocols all from one client. I'm pretty sure the majority of the protocols I used to use in these apps aren't even around anymore (other than irc and xmpp).