Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#151

Post by andyraskin »

contingencies wrote: post #138

The author misses the significant issue that this ultra-simplistic approach works only with the simplest USP businesses: established markets with a single environmental factor driving change and a single paradigm shift in response. More complex businesses, blue ocean (new market) businesses, businesses combining insights from multiple trends or with multiple layers of innovation will find this approach completely inf…

Could it be that your description of Zuora as a simple USP/single driving change business is actually a testament to the simple way they tell their story? I'm the author of the post, and every business I consult with is, as you say, "complex...addressing multiple trends or with multiple layers of innovation..." That hasn't stopped any of them from crafting a similarly simple story -- starting with a single change. Usually that means either (a) focusing on the most important one; or (b) naming a change that subsumes many of the others. Getting leadership teams to align around one change isn't easy, but I'm getting better at it :)

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#152

Post by lmg643 »

bhauer wrote: post #61
chank wrote: post #7

>Zuora came up with the phrase “subscription economy” to name the trend in which buyers increasingly choose recurring service payments over outright purchases. It's not a trend where buyers choose recurring payments, but where companies only offer services through recurring payments.

Thank you for this. It made me laugh and makes HN feel like HN. As I read the blog entry, I was struck by how much apprehension I had about the particular subject (Zuora and subscriptions) and not the theme (making a compelling sales presentation). I was tempted but decided to refrain from adding a comment about the subject and how much I find the "Subscription Economy" disappointing. After all, railing about an inci…

I am also heartened that the #1 and #2 comments on here retain the voice of sanity.

I think this piece and the pitch it references are borderline abuse of the history and context of subscription businesses.

I see the current trend in subscriptions as largely a revolution in pure technology service businesses, where subscriptions are a rational way to pay for them (dropbox, github), along with software producers and their customers maturing to the point that they can mutually acknowledge the need for up-to-date and evolving core capabilities, such as Windows and Office, which can reasonably be seen to require recurring support which has value. (But you can still get a lot done with non subscription versions of Word 2003 etc).

Newspapers, telephones and cable TV have long been subscription based. Subscriptions alone obviously were not able to save newspapers from crushing deflation in their ancillary revenue models of classified ads, which they lost to craigslist and others. Cable TV to date has been much more successful in evolving and preventing disruption in those ancillary lines (pay per view etc) and has maintained a subscription model.

As an aside - everyone thinks Netflix is so wise with their current subscription strategy, I am a paying streaming customer myself, but the number of times of late that Netflix does not have the movie I actually want to watch, but Amazon's pay-per-view model does, makes me realize there are limits to the subscription approach as well. Netflix's model of creating content to justify their subscription is going to stop working eventually, content is a "long tail" type problem and their strategy of self-funding content is going to be increasingly unworkable within a few years.

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#153

Post by toast0 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #98
enraged_camel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. I work in the enterprise software space. We definitely noticed a strong trend, starting around mid-2010, where prospective customers started shying away from one-time, upfront purchases and demanding a subscription model. The reason is simple: one is a capital expenditure, whereas the other can be categorized as an operational expense. With a subscription model, even if you end up paying more in the long ru…

I keep hearing this "capex vs. opex" argument from time to time; are there tax benefits to this, or something else that justifies putting the same costs under different label?

My understanding is that capex purchases must be deducted over time, but opex costs are deductable immediately. Moving tax deductions sooner is generally a good thing, although, as a sibling pointed out, moving the deductions later makes your current net income look more attractive, and there are many reasons that deductions in a layer year could be more advantageous in specific situations.

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#154

Post by ponyfleisch »

lmg643 wrote: post #152
bhauer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this. It made me laugh and makes HN feel like HN. As I read the blog entry, I was struck by how much apprehension I had about the particular subject (Zuora and subscriptions) and not the theme (making a compelling sales presentation). I was tempted but decided to refrain from adding a comment about the subject and how much I find the "Subscription Economy" disappointing. After all, railing about an inci…

I am also heartened that the #1 and #2 comments on here retain the voice of sanity. I think this piece and the pitch it references are borderline abuse of the history and context of subscription businesses. I see the current trend in subscriptions as largely a revolution in pure technology service businesses, where subscriptions are a rational way to pay for them (dropbox, github), along with software producers and t…

> Netflix's model of creating content to justify their subscription is going to stop working eventually, content is a "long tail" type problem and their strategy of self-funding content is going to be increasingly unworkable within a few years.

How so?

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#155

Post by manigandham »

Sales is a complex art, and a story that resonates is extremely important. People don't remember details, and they don't buy numbers or features. They buy solutions, and sometimes that's an answer to a problem that they didn't know they had.

Marketing to create customers requires that your audience agrees with your premise in the first place, otherwise you'll never get to step 2. However, of course everything is contextual and this approach is more about opening deals, especially at large enterprise organizations. This is not something you would send to a prospect's IT department, and is not meant to compete with a price-features matrix, but rather it forms your company's brand and creates trust and familiarity in your market.

I met the author Andy Raskin a few years back. He's a great guy and definitely understands marketing, and I highly recommend taking his course in SF if you get the chance.

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#156

Post by manigandham »

tjoff wrote: post #29
Illniyar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trend rarely happens on only one side of the demand-supply axis. There is definitely a trend towards subscriptions, especially for SMBs, but enterprise and individuals as well. It's so much easier to pay a monthly or yearly fee then up front, especially for companies - both in terms of cashflow , accounting practices and stability. Some companies has gone that route that have customers on both sides of the aisle -…

Sure they do. 3D TVs and bent TVs are two glaring examples of something people never wanted. The only way companies could uphold that view was by ensuring that no manufacturer had sensible alternatives - effectively forcing people that wanted a TV to buy it. And then pretending that the sales were proof that people wanted it. It is the exact same with the majority of subscription services. For a company I get that it…

Those companies that sell things people don't want will go out of business.

Good luck only selling 3D TVs when the next company will just sell normal TVs for less and actually make money.

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#157

Post by manigandham »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #98
enraged_camel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. I work in the enterprise software space. We definitely noticed a strong trend, starting around mid-2010, where prospective customers started shying away from one-time, upfront purchases and demanding a subscription model. The reason is simple: one is a capital expenditure, whereas the other can be categorized as an operational expense. With a subscription model, even if you end up paying more in the long ru…

I keep hearing this "capex vs. opex" argument from time to time; are there tax benefits to this, or something else that justifies putting the same costs under different label?

It's about cashflow. Capex is a major investment, and harder to account for by deducting over time.

Opex is much more reactive, both in accounting and in scaling costs of goods with actual sales.

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#158

Post by [deleted] »

prewett wrote: post #134
SkyMarshal wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question, what’s the difference?

I've always disliked it because a "deck" is stack of small, flat things, canonically, playing cards. A set of PowerPoint slides is not small (they are usually wall sized) and they are not an actual thing I can carry around. I think of a set of PowerPoint slides as a “PowerPoint presentation” or “PowerPoint file”. I guess I could let “slide deck” slide, because a stack of slides would be “deck”-sized, and I assume tha…

[deleted]

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#159

Post by contingencies »

andyraskin wrote: post #151
contingencies wrote: post #138

The author misses the significant issue that this ultra-simplistic approach works only with the simplest USP businesses: established markets with a single environmental factor driving change and a single paradigm shift in response. More complex businesses, blue ocean (new market) businesses, businesses combining insights from multiple trends or with multiple layers of innovation will find this approach completely inf…

Could it be that your description of Zuora as a simple USP/single driving change business is actually a testament to the simple way they tell their story? I'm the author of the post, and every business I consult with is, as you say, "complex...addressing multiple trends or with multiple layers of innovation..." That hasn't stopped any of them from crafting a similarly simple story -- starting with a single change. Us…

It could be, but it isn't.

Re: The greatest sales deck I've ever seen (2016)

#160

Post by simonebrunozzi »

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #59
Persuadem wrote: post #27

I disagree with two things in the article. 1. I disagree with the underlying premise of the article - the deck is unimportant. 2. I disagree with the reasoning given as to why it works. Firstly the deck is unimportant because - as the ex-employee quoted at the end said: the prospect is already sold thanks to the marketing and branding campaigns run by Zuora. The deck is superfluous. Secondly, the reasoning that Raski…

Speaking only for myself, when I'm an investor, I wanna know stuff like: - cost of customer acquisition - gross margins - revenue growth - size of market - yada yada That being said, a slick pitch deck is nice to see. It makes me feel good, which never hurts. I only invest on the fundamentals of the business. If a startup had great numbers AND their pitch deck sucked, I'd stikk give them the money. If I had specific…

It is a sales deck, not an investor deck.
Post reply on HN