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

SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

landshark.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#161

Post by p_l »

numbsafari wrote: post #16
rweissgraeber wrote: post #10

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, tho…

A significant problem with GCP is how they only handle credit cards, and with various limitations, in many areas.

I had outages purely because I could not just wire the money - a common way of handling payments in Poland (I have even used bank transfers to pay for pizza takeout).

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#162

Post by slake »

mtnGoat wrote: post #83

Sounds more like certain purchasing departments need to modernize, not the other way around. IMHO. Not being able to use the right tools for the job, because some bean counters don't like complexity, is silly and shortsighted.

This is so true. The sheer administrative/legal effort and expense it takes smaller enterprise software vendors to execute a single sale is crazy. I'd happily offer lower prices if the process was easier.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#163

Post by slake »

GordonS wrote: post #112
pembrook wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why any smart Saas company is charging, at minimum, thousands of dollars per month for medium-large sized customers. They know the purchasing process will be the same headache regardless of whether the product costs $100/month or $10,000/month. If the company is large and the tool enables collaboration and time-saving, $10,000 is literally a rounding error for a company with 500+ employees in comparison to th…

I agree. Incredibly though, the same organisations will spend hundreds of man-hours quibbling over whether a dev team really needs a $20 app. Sometimes I really hate working for large companies!

This is so true. I've seen some companies however who allow end user teams to spend a certain budget using their corporate credit cards. But nowadays IT security and privacy restrictions anyway make every damn purchase a 8 month project at least

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#164

Post by slake »

thaeli wrote: post #152
pembrook wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why any smart Saas company is charging, at minimum, thousands of dollars per month for medium-large sized customers. They know the purchasing process will be the same headache regardless of whether the product costs $100/month or $10,000/month. If the company is large and the tool enables collaboration and time-saving, $10,000 is literally a rounding error for a company with 500+ employees in comparison to th…

I'm fortunate to work in an "enterprise" environment where managers have discretionary spending ability. A $50/month app doesn't require the huge purchasing process, just throw it on a company card and tell accounting what code to charge it to. Once you go over a certain threshold, the heavyweight purchasing process kicks in - but it's more justified when the dollar amounts are higher.

What's your company? I want to sell to you.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#165

Post by slake »

scruple wrote: post #123
eli wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately legal concerns about data privacy are pushing enterprises towards MORE of this stuff, not less.

Absolutely. And it is strictly security theater. We're delusional to think that checking the boxes on these arbitrary lists is making us "more secure." It's very frustrating to have a role in this game and find yourself completely unable to combat the bureaucracy.

This is so true. And big corporations push around smaller vendors to have so many compliances, insurance and other certifications in place, whereas larger vendors can get away with insane security and privacy lapses just because of legacy. Makes me mad.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#166

Post by slake »

hobs wrote: post #84
mtnGoat wrote: post #83

Sounds more like certain purchasing departments need to modernize, not the other way around. IMHO. Not being able to use the right tools for the job, because some bean counters don't like complexity, is silly and shortsighted.

Yeah, telling your customers that they should modernize is a great way to let someone else sell to them.

This is true, but truly the customer's own benefits are being compromised here. They can obtain better effectiveness at lower prices and push their margins, but procurement policy is not something companies want to mess with too much. It's also how they apply the same procurement policies to equipment purchases and software subscriptions. Some of those forms I don't even have a clue how to answer since it's so irrelevant.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#167

Post by slake »

alangibson wrote: post #93
mtnGoat wrote: post #83

Sounds more like certain purchasing departments need to modernize, not the other way around. IMHO. Not being able to use the right tools for the job, because some bean counters don't like complexity, is silly and shortsighted.

I've never heard a better plan for failure. "Hey $10B company, I'm gonna need you to modernize your purchasing department before we go any further."

Imagine that the company is paying 25% extra because of these policies.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#169

Post by throw_awy_1 »

alangibson wrote: post #95
OliverJones wrote: post #86

Oh come on! Big companies! and Atlassian! Being hard to do business with is so 1980s. FWIW, Stripe.com supports ACH (Automated Clearing House electronic funds transfer in the US) as well as payment cards. So a SaaS can take that kind of payment too, without lots of hassle. I haven't investigated Stripe's worthy competitors' ACH offerings, but they surely have them too. And, big company purchasing departments can defi…

It's not that can't set up a credit card or do ACH, it's that they won't. The reasons usually have to do with financial controlling rules that I can't begin to fathom.

It looks like Atlassian does take POs though. Is there something about the way they (or other SaaS) companies take POs?

How do I submit a Purchase Order (PO number) to Atlassian? (https://www.atlassian.com/licensing/purchase-licensing#order...)

To get started, complete our secure online Quote & Order Form. On the final confirmation page, check the PO number box to add your PO number. The PO number will appear on your quote or invoice (valid for 30-days). If you already have a quote or invoice, you can update the quote or invoice through my.atlassian.com via the Orders tab.

Atlassian is happy to reference a PO number on a quote or invoice for your internal tracking and record keeping. However, we do not accept purchase orders as a form of payment nor the terms and conditions commonly associated with purchase orders. We provide fully functional trial licenses for you to use while payment is being arranged. We are able to keep our prices low by offering standard product agreements to all our customers and do not offer commercial credit.

Re: SaaS Needs a Single Point of Purchase

#170

Post by cosmie »

glaucon wrote: post #146
cosmie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty much not going to happen. That said, what you can do is: - Provide a plan that fit within common purchasing card limits/tiers, to enable those who want to bypass the internal controls of their purchasing department and just slip it in on an expense report and be done with it. - Provide a plan that adds several zeros, to make it worth the hassle when you get a customer that does try to go through the off…

"common purchasing card limits/tiers" Strongly agree with you although what "common" means here is tricky. I imagine "common" in Local Government is different from tech giants ... and geography brings another whole dimension into it. Less of a problem if your product is strongly focused on one country and one industry. "Provide a plan that adds several zeros" I think this is ideal but I've noticed that this isn't gen…

> Strongly agree with you although what "common" means here is tricky.

Ha, true! I've never seen it done, but someone should really A/B test adding a "Expensing this product for work? Reach out for a custom payment plan that fits your needs!" message if their product is popular with a business crowd.

> is the supplier working out how much they can get and so requires the sort of sales management skills which many tech startups don't have.

So this is sometimes the case, but not always.

Is the standard plan enough for you, but you require us to invoice your AP department for payment? Or you a second login for IT with access to the login/audit logs, but otherwise don't need any "enterprise" features?

You can likely get it close to the listed rate, with a minor premium for the additional effort.

Will you be a high volume user, but capable of being self-sufficient with the self-service tooling? You can get tiered pricing based off of usage, no account manager, and a fixed rate for engineering time if you need any custom support.

Will you be a massive pain - requiring an in-depth security audit, require us to agree to potentially costly-to-comply-with contractual clauses, need an account person to do every little thing for you (plus constantly (re)train your staff/agency's staff), require a generous amount of engineering time baked into the contract, and split out the agreement between a base MSA and incremental SOWs for each actual usage internally? Your pricing is no longer based on the actual product itself, but on the uncertain but potentially massive amount of labor that's going to be required to support your account.

So "Talk to us" is as much the supplier trying to figure out specifically what sort of customer you are and what your needs are (and how much you'll ultimately going to cost them), as it is working out the pricing to go with that. Which is why you don't generally see an actual listed rate with several zeros added, because that is honestly only one of the potential outcomes and "Talk to us" leaves open capturing the other outcomes as well.

I've also had success using the "Talk to us" to get lower than list rates. Sometimes because my needs are such a tiny fraction of the intended usage of the plan with a list rate. Sometimes because I work for a company that does $10bn a year in revenue, and the company is hopeful that my usage of the tool will potentially domino into other users internally seeking it out. You're right in that many tech startups don't have a high level of sales management skills from the get go, but only the very last example above really requires true sales effort. The rest are just very low pressure sales needs that require minimal if any incremental effort to support, but just happen to not fit cleanly in the pre-defined plan templates you have listed.

Post reply on HN