Live data from Hacker News

SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

landshark.io

11–20 of 172 posts

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#11
post #3

This is a pretty established distribution model often called "bottom up" approach, and it's particularly relevant to enterprise sales where you allow the users to start using the software without friction [something that was proper to "consumer" applications] and then allow management to pay for that software, or users to pull their corporate credit card and buy what their budget allows. One turn-off for us for machi…

>One turn-off for us for machine learning products was going to the website, wanting to try the software, and then finding a button that says "Schedule a demo" or "Schedule a sales call".

Share the sentiment but both of us are likely not the target audience for these kinds of funnels then. Decision-makers who go down the "talk to our sales team" route are more likely to sign big enterprise-y contracts in the end I guess

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#12
post #7

As a director at successful startup I see how we went from being able to buy new software in minutes by pulling credit card to multi stage procurement process of public company. All changes got good intention: 1. We need to be secure. Know what kind of data there. 2. We need check and balances for finance. 3. We need to be compliant. Etc. I would love if there would be open consortium that could provide a lot of serv…

In healthcare this is referred to as the Group Purchasing Organization (GPO) model.

Instead of waiting for sales orgs to band together, purchasers band together to negotiate and vet products and services.

This is a much better model, in my opinion, because it keeps the incentives on the side of the buyers, not the sellers.

Keep in mind, certain products still have to be vetted by the individual purchasers due to statutory requirements. But, as a buyer you narrow the scope of offerings you have to consider and you increase the likelihood that your in-house audit will pass. So, there's still a benefit even if you absolutely must inspect their facilities yourself.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#13
post #5

Y-Combinator backed company which does something along the lines of what you describe: https://onetool.co/home/

https://onetool.co/saas-vendors/

"Keep your competition out! onetool accepts a limited number of partners for each service and pricing-tier. Most of your competition will not be onboard if you are."

Read as, we'll only support a limited number of vendors who approach us first, regardless of which the best solutions are.

More likely, they will only recommend the vendors they get the biggest cuts from. As a user this is no use.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#15
post #11
post #3

This is a pretty established distribution model often called "bottom up" approach, and it's particularly relevant to enterprise sales where you allow the users to start using the software without friction [something that was proper to "consumer" applications] and then allow management to pay for that software, or users to pull their corporate credit card and buy what their budget allows. One turn-off for us for machi…

>One turn-off for us for machine learning products was going to the website, wanting to try the software, and then finding a button that says "Schedule a demo" or "Schedule a sales call". Share the sentiment but both of us are likely not the target audience for these kinds of funnels then. Decision-makers who go down the "talk to our sales team" route are more likely to sign big enterprise-y contracts in the end I gu…

>Share the sentiment but both of us are likely not the target audience for these kinds of funnels then.

Except I'm an engineer first who just happens to be able to make that decision, and I made the decision not to buy.

Here's the thing: we've been making bespoke machine learning products for large enterprise for quite long. Not huge contracts, but say mid six-figures on average. We sit down with our clients but the key word here is "bespoke", which warrants these meetings and communications and calls. We build these solutions from scratch to solve their problems with their workflows. Anything that's not bespoke or where we don't have to discuss regulatory matters or where that conversation is not required by law is a roadblock for my purchase.

One reason we're making our platform is to reduce that necessity and be able to deliver that value to companies without ever speaking to us. Heck that "speaking" is also included in the cost of the product, and all those "engineer.days" add up pretty quickly, making our client list exclusively composed of behemoths who sometimes happen to have internal ML teams but just need more help, or because we happen to have expertise on a problem and they're inexperienced despite their size. One of our biggest frustrations is that we could not serve smaller organizations, and I'm not even talking mom & pop's or SMBs, but even some organizations that seem large shy away from this kind of projects even though they want to leverage data.

I find that these companies and products are targeting decision makers who do not consult with their teams and buy products nobody will use. They're targeting dysfunctional organizations which, I'll grant you that, may be a large enough segment to build a business around. Not my ideal to wake up and earn a living, though, but that's another matter.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#16

Actually, AWS Marketplace is trying to do exactly this.

GCP has a similar capability.

One thing that is kind of amusing was that I was able to find a price sheet in the AWS marketplace for GCP-owned Looker that isn't available anywhere else.

Apparently the AWS solution not only works as a way to simplify your purchasing, it also works to produce better transparency in the market.

I'm not sure the product mix in either case is necessarily what the OP was talking about, though. For example, I don't think, e.g. SalesForce or HubSpot are available on either.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#17
Depending on how it’s implemented I could see this being a very good thing. My public sector clients esp. have a hard time buying any Saas as each one involves finding vendors, getting it approved, setting up payment, etc etc etc. obv they have a whole procurement department for that, but I could see their job being easier if all their aws, azure, and smaller saas came on one bill. The organization would still need to handle compliance and be sure POs were valid, fair pricing, no conflicts, etc. but do that against one vendor instead of 100. It would be difficult to get right though. Balancing buyer and seller interests while trying to get a cut. In fact the same org I’m thinking about was recently forced to do all purchasing through a 3rd party vendor and it slowed down and complicated purchasing even more...

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#18
post #3

This is a pretty established distribution model often called "bottom up" approach, and it's particularly relevant to enterprise sales where you allow the users to start using the software without friction [something that was proper to "consumer" applications] and then allow management to pay for that software, or users to pull their corporate credit card and buy what their budget allows. One turn-off for us for machi…

I dont like talking to sales people but I get where they are coming from. It might also be using the opportunity to do some discovery as to what people are using the platform for and who are those people.

But I agree that they should make provisions for people who just want to pay and get to business.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#19
post #3

This is a pretty established distribution model often called "bottom up" approach, and it's particularly relevant to enterprise sales where you allow the users to start using the software without friction [something that was proper to "consumer" applications] and then allow management to pay for that software, or users to pull their corporate credit card and buy what their budget allows. One turn-off for us for machi…

If it's an important service it's not a big deal at all to speak to someone, and frankly, even though they do this for price discrimination, the fact is they can incredibly helpful and save you a boat load of time and effort trying to understand the product in many cases.

Yes, some things should 'just be self serve' but many things, not so much.

Post reply on HN