Posts Tagged ‘SaaS’


Not bad for a recession, that’s what I say.  The news from Cloud9 Analytics and Mayfield Fund says a lot about a lot.  First, the nearly moribund venture capital industry is showing signs of life after a couple of long, quiet years.

Last year, 2009, was the worst venture capital year since 1997 measured by the amount of cash invested (about $17.8 billion) and cash raised (about $15.2 billion).  That’s right in 2009 the industry invested more than it raised and that hasn’t happened in a long, long time.  For a benchmark, in 2000 the industry invested just over $100 billion and then you know what happened.  A more typical annual tally in the last decade was between $20 billion and $30 billion.  So the fact that Cloud9 was able to raise $8 million is very interesting news.

Of course, a C-round is an important marker because it means the company is maturing and becoming ready for a liquidity event.  The short event horizon is a sign that the VC’s a stepping carefully into the water again.  When we see a stampede to A round companies it will be a different story.

So, what about Cloud9 makes it appealing?  I think a couple of things.  First, they offer SaaS based analytics but that’s not enough these days.  SAS got into that market a month ago and they’re the gold standard and there are many others doing something with analytics as a SaaS service.  But the thing I like about Cloud9 is that they’re articulating, or starting to, a vision of more strategic use of analytics for the small business through the small enterprise.

SAS can be excused from this conversation, but there are a lot of analytics vendors out there that haven’t gotten beyond the idea of selling people on the tactical use of analytics.

So this announcement has legs and it shows hope that the venture capital industry in resurgent and that analytics is gaining more traction where it’s needed.

Incidentally, the hot markets for venture funding, in order are Biotech, Software, Industrial/Energy, and Medical Devices according to PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association who compiled the data referenced here.


I had the pleasure of attending two events last week, Microsoft Convergence 2010 in Atlanta and the Salesforce-VMWare VMForce.com announcement in San Francisco.  Each event was useful and informative in its own way and I am pleased to have witnessed each first hand.  I have written exhaustively at least I’m tired about each of these so rather than another recitation of events, I want to spend this piece drilling into one aspect.

Terminology was common and different in the two events and it’s worth looking at.  The term de jour is cloud computing and it has been current for at least ten minutes more like about two years.  We know it’s the “in” thing because until very recently both Salesforce and Microsoft were using it albeit in very different contexts.

A couple of years ago, Salesforce and a few other intrepid vendors began using cloud computing to describe the confluence of SaaS applications, increasingly available infrastructure and the ability to “mashup” components to make novel solutions.  Cloud computing meant Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), SaaS or software as a service and PaaS or platform as a service.  For instance, Google Maps, running on Google’s server farm, plus your prospect list in SFA, running on Salesforce’s farm, could yield a map or satellite photo of a territory with markers indicating prospect locations.  In one vivid and visual screen a person could see and strategize a set of sales calls, for instance.

Cloud computing was fun and it replaced SaaS, more or less.  To be SaaS seemed to imply an application ran for the benefit of those who were earthbound in a building or within the constructs of the enterprise.  To be in the cloud was to let your imagination soar, to combine and recombine in limitless ways to produce new functionality, to go where no man has…er, you get the idea.

Cloud computing was fine and wonderful until many vendors either entered the space with their own ideas or when they discovered that they couldn’t exactly do it without serious reconfiguration of their product sets and business models.  Cloud computing was a disruptive innovation.

Not to worry, the inevitable commoditization of the term then began in earnest.  Like watching the sky on a windy day clouds could morph into wonderful shapes and thus cloud computing could be many things.  That’s about when Microsoft entered the fray with Steve Ballmer’s famous quip that “we’re all in” meaning that the software giant was making the biggest bet that it could on cloud computing.

“All in” for Microsoft means that their vision of cloud computing is essentially infrastructure as a service (IaaS) the ability to tap into a server in the sky on which you’ve bought space to run a conventional application.  With Microsoft’s market power it is likely that cloud computing will come to mean whatever the company wants it to mean and that means cloud computing will look more like time-sharing than a mashup.

This brings us to last week.  While Microsoft was all in, in Atlanta, Salesforce was way out on the west coast announcing an alliance with VMware.  You’ve seen the news no doubt, that the Force.com platform is being enhanced to provide Java runtime services for legacy applications through this association.  It demos well and if it runs that way I think we’ve got another important brick in the wall of new-fangled IT.

In his introduction, Salesforce CEO, Marc Benioff, called the alliance the beginning of a new era in “Mobile Internet Computing”.  When he uttered those words my ears pricked up and it made me wonder if we were witnessing the birth of new terminology yet again.

Salesforce and its close allies and partners have managed to stay one step ahead of the terminology commoditization curve for the last ten years and it wouldn’t surprise me if we were about to get another new term.  In this way, Salesforce has managed to use accelerating terminology commoditization to its benefit saving its marketing budget for more important things and always managing to pigeon hole its competition as retrograde.

I have only heard Mobile Internet Computing once and it may not stick but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did.  The thing I don’t understand though, is why Microsoft continues to fall into the same trap of letting someone else name a trend and then spending lots of its own money popularizing it.

An alternative for Microsoft might go like this.  Microsoft has four ERP systems and one CRM system and you could make a good argument that it is an ERP company and that ERP ought to be an on-premise application except in rare cases.  I am not saying I agree with it because there are other benefits of cloud computing we’re not talking about here.

But the ERP worker is usually someone who works in the finance or a related department.  This worker does the job at a desk in an office and has little use for a SaaS application.  So why the big push to call this cloud computing?  Selling infrastructure services isn’t really cloud computing so why call it that?  Why not define yourself in terms of what you do rather than in terms of what others make up?

If Microsoft wants to compete in cloud computing CRM that’s fine.  It could easily develop a hybrid model for integrating front and back office applications and not have to fight an uphill battle with its ERP customers over where their data is stored.  It would be a novel position and one that is immediately appreciated by its ERP customers.


RightNow fired what may be the first salvo in an escalated competition for customers in the SaaS market today.  Other vendors and customers will have to decide for themselves whether to follow.  Company CEO Greg Gianforte cited numerous ways other vendors were making life hard for customers saying that SaaS was originally supposed to be low cost, easy to get into and out of and a dream to deploy.  In his estimate, the SaaS industry has not always lived up to all that.

First the good news.  RightNow identified a handful of issues it thinks the SaaS industry could improve for customers and the company says it is writing all of the following into its standard contracts.

  • No penalty for adjusting the number of seats a customer buys.  The company said it would let customers adjust up or down the number of seats it buys with no penalty.  Currently, most agreements operate like Hotel California, you can add seats any time you like but often you can’t rev down if, for example, economic conditions deteriorate.
  • Three year price commitment plus a three year renewal cap.  Gianforte said this would give customers six year price stability.  This needs details.  You can always say you won’t increase prices 50% but that’s not very comforting.  Hopefully, there’s something like a cost of living adjustment tied to core inflation or something like it.
  • Annual termination for convenience.  There’s no lock in and customers can leave any time they want without cause.  No complaints here.
  • Gianforte also introduced the concept of seat month — like rollover minutes in the cell phone industry.  The idea has merit especially for companies with big seasonal swings in the number of agents it employs.
  • Cash service credit for not meeting service levels.  This is a biggie since a lot of vendors don’t offer SLAs.

My take

RightNow conflated some issues blaming traditional vendors for perceived SaaS problems.  For instance when it talks about other vendors it focuses on SAP, Oracle and Salesforce.  Gianforte said SAP has a 60% shelfware rate.  That might still be true, I know it was pretty high a few years ago but that was for conventional software.  SAP is not a SaaS powerhouse the last time I checked.  The same is true for Oracle, the announcement didn’t make any distinction between Oracle’s premise and SaaS business.  At one point Gianforte called Oracle the “Poster child for bad customer relationships”.  Ok, maybe, but I’d like to see some stats.  I was at OpenWorld the last few years and it looked like there were thousands of reasonably happy people there.  Interestingly, there was no mention of Microsoft as a competitor.  Whatever, at the end of the day you need to filter.

But the interesting point for me is that none of this preamble was needed.  The SaaS industry could certainly use some of these adjustments to the basic relationship as Ray Wang noted in a recent paper titled a “SaaS Bill of Rights”.

It’s too bad Gianforte doesn’t run an airline.  Imagine an airline CEO saying bags fly free (Southwest does that but who else?), you can have enough room for both knees and we’ll feed you.  For some people, that’s about what the RightNow announcements amount to.

The adjustments Gianforte introduced amount to risk sharing between the vendor and the customer.  That was what SaaS was supposed to be but the original benefits have commoditized so a new round was needed, at least according to RightNow.

This risk sharing is something I think we will see a lot more of and it won’t be in software only.  I expect we’ll see some creative forms of risk sharing in all sectors just to keep the gears moving in a tough economy.  Risk sharing started with the reintroduction of layaway by Kmart at the start of the recession and I think we’ll see more creativity in the B2B space.

RightNow’s announcements also reveal a turning point in the SaaS industry.  When the industry was younger, vendors needed as much revenue as they could get to build infrastructure and to plant the idea that SaaS was safe in people’s minds.  For many that’s mission accomplished at this point, so they probably have a little excess cash flow to fund these initiatives.  But that also closes a door for the industry.  These givebacks will reduce the cost of a seat (seat-month as RightNow would say) and act as a barrier to entry for other vendors.

It had to happen at some point.  From here if you want to be a SaaS application provider you might have to layer on someone’s platform such as Salesforce.com.


What exactly is Cloud Computing?  The question just doesn’t go away and as the year starts SugarCRM has just released a white paper — “The Sugar Open Cloud” —offering its definition and its argument for why its vision is superior.  I am not sure about either.

Full disclosure: I like SugarCRM and have a lot of respect for what they are trying to do.  The idea of open-source CRM is very appealing and can be very successful — like open-source operating systems (think Linux), open encyclopedias (like Wikipedia) and open source web servers like Apache.  All of these open source products are very good in their own right and highly sought after.  Let me give just one example of open-source success — Apache has 52% of the market for web server software.

In his new book, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us,” Daniel Pink says that one of the key values to those who contribute to open-source technology is the sense of accomplishment that goes with participating in a project whose goal is the greater good, to solving a really tough problem.  To this idea, I would also add customers leveraging products like Salesforce’s Service Cloud to provide accurate support aid to their fellows using social media, search, email and other modern technologies.  They get no pay other than to stamp their name on a solution and that’s a surprisingly effective motivator.

The only issue I have with open source is the business model and how you make money with it.  Well, how do you make money with it?  It’s a question that has vexed me and probably a lot of B-school kids, professors and practitioners for a long time.  The psychic rewards are good but they just aren’t enough.

It is with this frame of mind that I read the Sugar white paper.  The paper says that we have entered the third phase of the evolution of whatever you wish to call SaaS.  First there was the ASP model that crashed and burned for economic reasons — you couldn’t get enough client-server users onto a server to be cost effective.  Then there was multi-tenant SaaS, which has had our attention for the first decade of the century.  Now, according to Sugar, there’s “multi-instance distributed SaaS”.

According to the paper the multi-instance version is superior for many of the reasons we heard when multi-instance went by the name of “hybrid” such as you could deploy it in an on-demand way (single or multi-tenant) or in a traditional premise-based configuration.  What’s different with multi-instance is the freedom to pick your infrastructure provider, and here the waters get murky.

Sugar claims its solution is superior because it enables users to choose which servers the applications run on such as Microsoft Azure or Amazon EC2.  This is superior to vendor lock-in according to the paper which makes the incredible and self-contradicting claim, “In the first phases of SaaS (ASP and multi-tenant SaaS models) customers had no options around who hosted their business applications as the software vendor was the only service provider.”

Really?  Two pages earlier the paper displays a table of data titled “The ASP Model” the bottom row lists Key Providers as Corio and USi.  I was a CRM analyst (still am) when those companies roamed the earth and neither one was a software house.  The big dog in that period was Siebel and they didn’t care who hosted their product.

Sugar makes the point that Cloud Computing is becoming an indeterminate term, meaning that the definition is set in Jell-o.  That’s fair.  The Cloud needs to have three parts — infrastructure as a service (IaaS), software (SaaS) and, now, a development platform (PaaS).  Companies that want to offer infrastructure or software only or to cobble together best of breed Clouds are free to do so and I am sure you can get a lot of value that way, though you will need to invest more effort and cash to accomplish your own integration.  But don’t worry, there’s an (Sugar Cloud Console) app. for that.

What concerns me about all this is what manages to not be said.  Cloud Computing is largely an economic issue and a necessity at that.  It’s about a great deal more than lowering the cost of computing so that a larger audience in emerging markets can access technology.  And it is certainly about more than where data is stored.  From what I have seen about hackers stealing sensitive data, corporate IT departments are the last place I feel comfortable storing my personal information.

Cloud Computing is not about the tired arguments about where data is stored or the “freedom” to move it from one vendor to another — that base has been covered.  The Cloud is about ubiquity of computing access and that’s an economic driver.  Historically, when computing power has become abundant and cheap innovations such as relational databases, the graphical user interface and the Internet have swallowed it up.

The new ubiquity spawned by Cloud Computing — all three components — is spawning new, fast and, above all, mobile business processes, not just applications.  This may not seem like much but in a world that is growing increasingly “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” as Thomas Friedman would say, this is the bedrock of sustainability.  In this context arguments about where data is stored and vendor lock-in seem trivial.


I was talking to Jason Lemkin, CEO of EchoSign the other day when something he said gave me an idea.  EchoSign is a cool bit of SaaSware that manages the document signing process across the Web eliminating the need for sending copies of contracts overnight to complete deals.

There is a niche for this because no company that sells an on-demand product, for instance, can afford to overnight the volume of contracts needed to support the business.  There simply isn’t enough margin in selling ten seats of your software and most SaaS deals are still of the small seat number variety.  So along comes EchoSign and the problem becomes very cost effective to manage.

On top of the signing process, a product like EchoSign also provides long-term benefit by becoming the archive for the contract.  If you’ve ever found yourself wondering what the terms of a deal actually were, you know that can be very helpful.

But the point of this story is the C: Drive and all that it has come to mean.  Everyone has a C: Drive, it’s where your stuff lives whether we’re talking about your PC at work or at home.  I have an iMac and Apple calls the drive something else and I don’t remember what it is because I just turn the thing on and it works and I don’t mess with operating system stuff any more.  It’s very liberating.

At any rate, Lemkin’s point is that the C: Drive has become a black hole because we don’t know what’s on it — you might know what’s on your C: Drive but you don’t know what’s on your office mates’ drives and they don’t know about yours.  All this got me thinking that there is a heck of a lot of potential intellectual property hidden on the C: Drives of the world.

You could have a contract or a thousand on your C: Drive but your company might not know how to access them on the day you call in sick.  Surely the networked Q: Drive would be better but many companies grow their computing infrastructure organically and you see where this is going.  Yes, the intellectual property goes into a black hole.

Now, IP isn’t something that any of us has given a lot of thought to with regard to the operation of our work PC’s but maybe we should.  Maybe the C: Drive and harvesting intellectual property are ideas whose time has come.  There are companies already harvesting IP but maybe they don’t know it.

Companies like Kadient, Oracle and Salesforce.com all have facilities for capturing the IP generated by sales people in the sales process.  Think about it, whenever you develop a presentation, a proposal or respond to an RFI or RFP, you are creating IP that is unique to your company.  The IP is valuable only if it can be reused.  Sales people do an OK job of reuse by trading things in email.  But that’s one step removed from sneaker net.  Imagine how much more effective they’d be if they stored things on a network drive and if there was functionality to also capture metadata (this presentation helped win three big deals)?

I am beginning to see the same kind of IP potential in service systems.  Salesforce’s Service Cloud is a big IP generator and it has the cataloging and analytics you need to support reuse.

Of course, none of these ideas is going to change the world, but in an environment where we routinely seek to maximize value and utility, it strikes me that advanced systems based on cloud computing concepts and social media offer more than simply the usual litany of better, faster, cheaper.  They expose value where there was none in the form of IP.

None of this says that cloud computing is the only way to derive this new value, as I said a network drive might work well in some instances.  But cloud computing improves not just the storage of the IP but its re-use and it is in re-using what was done before that you derive additional value.

As I am looking at it, the ability to harvest IP from materials that were once stored in — oh, let’s call it the Chaos Drive — is a major unintended consequence and benefit found at the intersection of cloud computing social media and multi-tenancy.

Final thought, last week Apple introduced the iPad and immediately, wags started asking the inevitable pointless question — What’s it good for?  I don’t know.  But I do know that new products like that get the creative juices going in right brained people and it wouldn’t surprise me if, like cloud computing, iPad develops some unintended consequences/benefits.  Can’t wait to see what they’ll be.

CRM @ C

Posted: December 9, 2009 in CRM, Technology
Tags: , , , ,

Finally, Paul Greenberg’s new edition of CRM at the Speed of Light hit the streets last week and with it my description of him as our Walt Whitman remains in tact.  To promote the continuing franchise the fourth edition’s cover has the same design as the third edition but with a different color scheme.  But that’s about the only similarity between editions; everything between the covers of edition four is new.

This time, Greenberg’s sub-title tells us he’s focusing on “Social CRM Strategies, Tools, and Technologies for Engaging Your Customers.”  That’s a mouthful worthy of the more than 600 pages he dedicates to the task — and that doesn’t even count the chapters that are available only online.

Before we go on, let’s have a moment with the truth squad.  Paul Greenberg is a friend and he graciously invited me to make a few very small contributions to the book, so my discussion here might look to some like self-promotion.  If that’s how you think then you might want to go rearrange your sock drawer.  If you read on just know that that there is a good deal of agreement between Paul and me as well as many of the analysts that follow the market.  That’s not to say we all think so much alike that if you sent ninety-nine out of one hundred of us to a Maoist re-education camp it wouldn’t matter.  It would.

CRM at the Speed of Light has always occupied an important niche in our world.  It continues to be the source for authoritative definitions and explanations of what CRM is and where it is going.  If you are within the CRM inner circle you might want to conclude that definitions and categorization are no longer needed.  But if you talk to real people trying to make sense of the world through a CRM lens you quickly discover the great service this book provides.

The centrality of the customer and the importance of “relationship” over “management” — two criticisms from CRM’s past — are noted and form the motive force of this book.  Greenberg’s gift to us is to take a four-dot-oh look at a two-dot-oh market and to help us see where it’s all going.  Paul covers ideas like Social CRM and customer experience with equal ease.  And while we might disagree on some of the specifics of how these things relate to the CRM market at large (see I can be independent) it all coheres.

One of the greatest assets of the book is Greenberg’s style, which is intelligent and conversational.  In fact, conversational is a poor word choice because Paul’s natural chattiness comes through the page and into your mind so that at times you forget you are reading rather than listening to a smart and entertaining monologue.

CRM has become a big topic.  It’s roughly a fourteen billion dollar market and the nuances in even what companies call it and how vendors address the market can be significant.  Nonetheless, Paul does a good job of building categories and running down the differences until they make sense.

A good example is chapter nine on user communities.  We think we know what communities are and in a folklorish way we do but Greenberg does a great job of teasing apart the differences as well as the pros and cons of managed and unmanaged communities, outcome-based social networks and a lot more.  But even more importantly, he then dives in and advises us about managing communities and offers important do’s and don’t’s.

In trying to categorize this book I was left with the feeling that it most resembles a text from medical school that details the causes and cures of diseases one after another.  Few people read those books straight through but use them as reference guides, for example, when a young doc might be trying to nail down a diagnosis.  I expect that it will end up on the book shelves of many mid-level executives and even their bosses who want a good reference to enlighten them about the technologies that can help them run their businesses.

But CRM at the Speed of Light, fourth edition, is also a book that you’ll want to read every page of if you have an abiding interest in the subject.

On the road (again)

Posted: October 28, 2009 in CRM
Tags: , , , ,

Colorado Springs is an interesting place.  Despite the name there are no “springs” it’s an arid place in a valley surrounded by the southern Rocky Mountains and Pikes Peak National Park (for sticklers Pikes really should be Pike’s but the official U.S. naming convention eliminates the apostrophe).  The springs were an invention of the railroads seeking to establish a destination for vacationers.  Good idea, it’s a nice place.

You can ride horseback through the mountains and see abandoned mines and homesteads as well as some rugged natural beauty.  Last time I was there we rode on some trails that were barely wide enough to accommodate our horses.  On one side there was forest and on the other a steep drop off.  RightNow convenes its annual user group meeting at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs next week.  By most accounts it’s been a good year for software, especially SaaS vendors so the meeting should be upbeat.

Other commitments will keep me from attending the RightNow Summit but I look forward to hearing about their announcements.  In general there is an unmistakable move in most areas of CRM, contact centers included, to move more operations to an on-demand footing.  Whether it’s called SaaS, managed or hosted, the call center is moving to simpler surroundings — at least for the client organization, and for good reasons.

Owning and operating a call center is a big and expensive undertaking for a company.  With all phases of the operation in-house, a company has to be able to support multiple subject matter experts from hardware to applications.  The company also has the task of managing an impressive (some would say bewildering) array of gear both telephonic and computer.  The same company also has all of the headaches of recruiting, training and managing a sophisticated workforce.

So, when a vendor comes along offering to take even a portion of that big job over for a fixed price per seat, it draws a lot of attention.  In the not too distant past, the number of vendors willing to make such an offer was limited and RightNow was at the top of the heap.  The market is changing making it easier for vendors to get into the business and the fact that we are even talking about the difference between on-demand, managed and SaaS solutions is evidence of that change.

But it’s not just changing technology that is driving the market.  The core customers, you and me, are smarter and more experienced and we are beginning to draw less from our vendors’ call centers.  Since we’ve all experienced earlier generations of products we are more likely to solve simpler problems with new products ourselves.  Moreover, our recently acquired sophistication with social media makes us more adventurous when it comes to seeking out service and advice from our peers.

It was no surprise to me that RightNow acquired social networking company HiveLive to bolster its efforts in social service offerings.  I look forward to hearing what RightNow CEO Greg Gianforte has to say about his company’s direction in socialized service and support.  Should be an interesting conference.

Also on the docket, the following week Sage Software hosts its user meeting in Atlanta followed by Microsoft holding an analyst briefing in Redmond.  I wish I could make all of these events but they are simply too close together.

Sage is always surprising in part because the company’s business model — selling exclusively through the indirect channel — puts different demands on its products and services.  That has frequently meant that the company has held back on major innovations until its partners were ready to get on board.  But last year, the company announced a 2010 strategy to bring its multiple CRM products under an umbrella that will enable it to achieve greater economies of scale and better integration capabilities with its back office solutions.

Also, Sage recently announced a foray into another on-demand style solution to be delivered early next year.  Their original SageCRM.com notwithstanding, this will be something new for SalesLogix, their high end product.  This is CEO Sue Swenson’s second year at the helm and it was clear at the partner meeting in May that she’s putting her imprint on the company.  She’s tasked senior executives with ambitious plans to update key products and improve partner-facing programs.  It will be interesting to see what end user facing changes are in the offing.

Finally, Microsoft is a very important player in the front and back office applications markets today.  Their analyst meeting in the same week as the Sage user meeting should generate a few headlines and I am eager to hear more about their direction though I will not be able to be there.

All this activity makes me optimistic about next year, and if all this isn’t enough, Intel, AMD and IBM have all reported better than expected financial results for the recently finished quarter.  The semiconductor market has always been a reliable indicator of an upturn in the tech sector and I am hopeful that these results are the first signs of a general economic rebound.  But recovery means more than simply reporting better financial results especially if the increase is from a depressed level caused by recession.  It’s clearly a half full glass but that’s fine with me.