5 ms·

Why would we not want "low volume" SMBs? Many of the SMBs on our platform grow to be much larger businesses. Ignoring a massive sector of businesses who might o

by smca 3y ago

Why would we not want "low volume" SMBs? Many of the SMBs on our platform grow to be much larger businesses. Ignoring a massive sector of businesses who might one day be the next "big thing" would be foolish for one thing and an unwise financial decision for another. That's why you can sign up as a small business on stripe.com today whereas on other platforms you need to talk to their sales team (and be generating serious revenue) before getting close.

friendzis 3y ago
> Why would we not want "low volume" SMBs? Because your costs are inversely proportional to business size.
sturza 3y ago
> Ignoring a massive sector of businesses who might one day be the next "big thing" would be foolish for one thing and an unwise financial decision for another. So Stripe would sacrifice enterprise high volume customers because they hope/speculate that low volume SMBs will one day be big, if they'd need to choose where to direct resources? I highly doubt it.
- true_religion 3y ago
  This all sounds like a false dilemma. Why do they need to choose between either one?
  - sturza 3y ago
    From the OP: https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/stripe.com https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/stripe.com. I don't think big orgs post comments.
- smca 3y ago
  It's not about speculating whether a given company would one day be big, it's accomodating for both for different reasons. Many of our "high volume customers" were one day not high volume, so saying we can't do both would be very short-sighted. And we see that in our data too: 1,000 new businesses joined Stripe every day last year. We also had 100+ companies process 1B+ in yearly volume. That captures everything from mom and pop shops to startups, and large enterprises like Amazon or Salesforce. We listen to them all to make sure we're still solving their problems. (Stripe itself was born out of listening to startups grumble about payments: http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html#:~:text=The%20most%20striking,of%20fixing%20payments http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html#:~:text=The%20most%20s....) It also helps reduce our dependency on any one sector of customers, similar to an index fund vs. stock picking. You don't get the same set of diverse businesses processing with e.g. Adyen—they just don't serve the long tail of the market in the way we do.
  - figassis 3y ago
    There’s some level of gaslighting going on here. It’s is possible for stripe to want to serve SMBs and also not have the resources to provide the necessary support an SMB needs when their account is in trouble in a timely manner. I’ve worked with larger startups that process on stripe, and stripe makes account execs available for most issues, and provides very good troubleshooting and advice that would be invaluable to SMBs like OP. Not claiming OPs business is in good standing, but to say that the issues mostly lie with the businesses is being a bit dishonest? I have seen many cases here on HN where after a post hits the front page, some C level or another well known stripe employee shows up and resolves the issue, proving that the customer was right in complaining. Do you believe they’d be able to get their issue resolved without hitting the front page, whether stripe wants their transaction fees or not? The issue most likely Stripe’s kyc/kyb requirements that only kick in once your account reaches a certain volume. You can view them via API (future requirements, due requirements, etc), and if the business does not provide or provide incorrect information, it may trigger deeper reviews that may or may not be documented. That’s likely when stripe takes a more careful look at the business model and numbers such as chargeback rates. The problem may lie in Stripe not providing enough info for why accounts are acted on. Corporate speak such as “violates our policies” will cause merchants to come to HN.
    - sturza 3y ago
      > It’s is possible for stripe to want to serve SMBs and also not have the resources to provide the necessary support an SMB needs when their account is in trouble in a timely manner. Exactly this, seen here: https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/stripe.com https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/stripe.com
  - sam0x17 3y ago
    > It's not about speculating whether a given company would one day be big Indeed, I think a lot of people miss the fact that the point of most small businesses is not in fact to become a billion (or even multi-million) dollar company. gasp Any company targeting small businesses needs to shed this delusion that small businesses across the board want to become huge or even larger. In fact I know of a few that already think they are too big and would downsize at the first opportunity.
xp84 3y ago
Why? My guess would be that like most companies you’re optimizing for short-term revenue, not long-term! Neglecting/firing low-volume customers who aren’t making you money this quarter so you can allocate those resources to your whales and not hire additional support staff improves this quarter’s numbers. Idk exactly what Stripe’s IPO plans are but as long as your exit is perceived to be a couple quarters in the future, there’s no incentive to worry about what companies might become the “next big thing.” That’s the next shareholder’s problem.

by smca 3y ago

friendzis 3y ago

> Why would we not want "low volume" SMBs? Because your costs are inversely proportional to business size.

sturza 3y ago

> Ignoring a massive sector of businesses who might one day be the next "big thing" would be foolish for one thing and an unwise financial decision for another. So Stripe would sacrifice enterprise high volume customers because they hope/speculate that low volume SMBs will one day be big, if they'd need to choose where to direct resources? I highly doubt it.

true_religion 3y ago
This all sounds like a false dilemma. Why do they need to choose between either one?
- sturza 3y ago
  From the OP: https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/stripe.com https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/stripe.com. I don't think big orgs post comments.
smca 3y ago
It's not about speculating whether a given company would one day be big, it's accomodating for both for different reasons. Many of our "high volume customers" were one day not high volume, so saying we can't do both would be very short-sighted. And we see that in our data too: 1,000 new businesses joined Stripe every day last year. We also had 100+ companies process 1B+ in yearly volume. That captures everything from mom and pop shops to startups, and large enterprises like Amazon or Salesforce. We listen to them all to make sure we're still solving their problems. (Stripe itself was born out of listening to startups grumble about payments: http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html#:~:text=The%20most%20striking,of%20fixing%20payments http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html#:~:text=The%20most%20s....) It also helps reduce our dependency on any one sector of customers, similar to an index fund vs. stock picking. You don't get the same set of diverse businesses processing with e.g. Adyen—they just don't serve the long tail of the market in the way we do.
- figassis 3y ago
  There’s some level of gaslighting going on here. It’s is possible for stripe to want to serve SMBs and also not have the resources to provide the necessary support an SMB needs when their account is in trouble in a timely manner. I’ve worked with larger startups that process on stripe, and stripe makes account execs available for most issues, and provides very good troubleshooting and advice that would be invaluable to SMBs like OP. Not claiming OPs business is in good standing, but to say that the issues mostly lie with the businesses is being a bit dishonest? I have seen many cases here on HN where after a post hits the front page, some C level or another well known stripe employee shows up and resolves the issue, proving that the customer was right in complaining. Do you believe they’d be able to get their issue resolved without hitting the front page, whether stripe wants their transaction fees or not? The issue most likely Stripe’s kyc/kyb requirements that only kick in once your account reaches a certain volume. You can view them via API (future requirements, due requirements, etc), and if the business does not provide or provide incorrect information, it may trigger deeper reviews that may or may not be documented. That’s likely when stripe takes a more careful look at the business model and numbers such as chargeback rates. The problem may lie in Stripe not providing enough info for why accounts are acted on. Corporate speak such as “violates our policies” will cause merchants to come to HN.
  - sturza 3y ago
    > It’s is possible for stripe to want to serve SMBs and also not have the resources to provide the necessary support an SMB needs when their account is in trouble in a timely manner. Exactly this, seen here: https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/stripe.com https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/stripe.com
- sam0x17 3y ago
  > It's not about speculating whether a given company would one day be big Indeed, I think a lot of people miss the fact that the point of most small businesses is not in fact to become a billion (or even multi-million) dollar company. gasp Any company targeting small businesses needs to shed this delusion that small businesses across the board want to become huge or even larger. In fact I know of a few that already think they are too big and would downsize at the first opportunity.

xp84 3y ago

Why? My guess would be that like most companies you’re optimizing for short-term revenue, not long-term! Neglecting/firing low-volume customers who aren’t making you money this quarter so you can allocate those resources to your whales and not hire additional support staff improves this quarter’s numbers. Idk exactly what Stripe’s IPO plans are but as long as your exit is perceived to be a couple quarters in the future, there’s no incentive to worry about what companies might become the “next big thing.” That’s the next shareholder’s problem.