4 ms·
It's better -because it's easier to scale- to sell a single 1M$ license than selling a thousand 1000$ licenses.
by pantulis 3y ago
It's better -because it's easier to scale- to sell a single 1M$ license than selling a thousand 1000$ licenses.
- toomuchtodo 3y agoMore efficient considering the typically long and drawn out enterprise sales cycle efforts as well.
- makeitdouble 3y agoThat's fine as long as your product stays competitive. But as you lose the smaller and middle-range customers, you're also missing on the trends of the market, while getting shaken up by the big players you can't afford to say no to. If one of your whales needs feature Y, no matter how exotic you think it could be, you'll have to implement Y, bloating your product for the rest of your clients. And while you're doing that, smaller competitors slowly creep up, eating up the bottom of you market, until you're stuck in a niche.
- mschuster91 3y ago> And while you're doing that, smaller competitors slowly creep up, eating up the bottom of you market, until you're stuck in a niche. So what, milking mega enterprise for ossified products is a decently profitable niche. IBM, SAP, that huge American company powering a lot of hospital IT, Cisco itself...
- hermanradtke 3y ago> that huge American company powering a lot of hospital IT Epic
- vdqtp3 3y agoCerner? BD? McKesson? AllScripts? There's a few contenders for sure.
- manvillej 3y agoEpic, ServiceNow, Workday, Basically every ERP technology every invented.
- mschuster91 3y agoServiceNow actually is quite decent... if you have a good management team, that is. I know a well run implementation and one that's a horrid clusterfuck no one wants to use (and because of that, they're implementing some AI chatbot, which I'm sure will piss people off even more).
- Atotalnoob 3y agoSnow has had a "chatbot" for a while. It was super expensive and what I dubbed a "choice bot" Where you are basically navigating a decision tree and the text box is extraneous
- hunter-gatherer 3y agoI'm in a fortune 100 and we are looking at replacing splunk for sentinel because of cost of splunk. I don't use either in my day to day and have no horse in the race, but if my company is doing it then the cost of splunk must not be trivial.
- nickstinemates 3y agoI completely disagree with both the spirit of the comment as well as the particular strawman presented. It is not better at all, by almost any metric other than overhead. Losing 1 of 1000 customers @ $1000 is very different than 1 of 1 customer @ $1M. One is easy to manage, the other leaves you dead in the water. In addition, you'd start to make concessions/unnatural decisions because you're so lopsided in diversity. And you're going to get completely fucked at renewal time. and, and and.. Good M&A teams know this. They build a risk profile when revenue is a component of the acquisition. The acquiring party gets to learn a lot about the fundamentals when putting deals together and it's all factored in. To put it simply: having a healthy balance of revenue from multiple sources is a premium. Those are opportunities to advance your relationship and grow. Too many eggs in too few baskets are major red flags that will have your revenue working against you.
- pantulis 3y agoAbsolutely valid point, thanks for your comment!