3 ms·

To sell enterprise SaaS products, expand the playing field

3 points by hackitup7 6y ago

Jugurtha 6y ago
>The overall idea is simple and can be illustrated with a product like Microsoft Office Maybe we can find a more speaking example in the context of selling SaaS to enterprise and bundling for our crowd than a behemoth such as Microsoft that can muster considerable resources. Examples: Slack bundling an IRC client, document viewers, audio, video, search, a database, etc. GitLab bundling repo management, CI, Wiki, task list, etc. I get the point of bundling though, so this is just a nitpick and wondering if we could find better examples. >Microsoft is able to compete against Slack because they bring the full weight of their office suite to bear. I don't think it's the best example of two companies competing. Maybe an addition to drive the author's point home would be Microsoft having acquired Yammer for internal communications, but that would be about acquisitions and not bundling. Even then, Microsoft could compete because they bring the full weight of Microsoft period. It goes with the point about enterprise being 'lazy', but also because Microsoft has an army of sales people who will take people out and a huge reputation. Slack didn't have a sales team in the sense of what the expression evokes. >When Microsoft approaches that same client, they pitch a single line item that encompasses the majority of day-to-day workplace activities. Slack naturally looks weaker on this expanded playing field. Again, we're comparing cars and pillows. A more apt comparison would be internal communications, and Slack clearly wins. It won with an approach of precisely avoiding the enterprise procurement trap, just like Yammer did, with a 'bottom up' approach where users start using the product without needing procurement or permission, and then these companies going to management to sell control over what the already active users in a namespace are doing. Even then, it wasn't until Slack raised a billion dollars that the really reluctant and sensitive organizations were onboarded, because Slack became expensive enough that it became unlikely a competitor of a client organization would buy the company they relied on for internal communications.

3 points by hackitup7 6y ago

>The overall idea is simple and can be illustrated with a product like Microsoft Office Maybe we can find a more speaking example in the context of selling SaaS to enterprise and bundling for our crowd than a behemoth such as Microsoft that can muster considerable resources. Examples: Slack bundling an IRC client, document viewers, audio, video, search, a database, etc. GitLab bundling repo management, CI, Wiki, task list, etc. I get the point of bundling though, so this is just a nitpick and wondering if we could find better examples. >Microsoft is able to compete against Slack because they bring the full weight of their office suite to bear. I don't think it's the best example of two companies competing. Maybe an addition to drive the author's point home would be Microsoft having acquired Yammer for internal communications, but that would be about acquisitions and not bundling. Even then, Microsoft could compete because they bring the full weight of Microsoft period. It goes with the point about enterprise being 'lazy', but also because Microsoft has an army of sales people who will take people out and a huge reputation. Slack didn't have a sales team in the sense of what the expression evokes. >When Microsoft approaches that same client, they pitch a single line item that encompasses the majority of day-to-day workplace activities. Slack naturally looks weaker on this expanded playing field. Again, we're comparing cars and pillows. A more apt comparison would be internal communications, and Slack clearly wins. It won with an approach of precisely avoiding the enterprise procurement trap, just like Yammer did, with a 'bottom up' approach where users start using the product without needing procurement or permission, and then these companies going to management to sell control over what the already active users in a namespace are doing. Even then, it wasn't until Slack raised a billion dollars that the really reluctant and sensitive organizations were onboarded, because Slack became expensive enough that it became unlikely a competitor of a client organization would buy the company they relied on for internal communications.