post

SAP’s New On-Demand SRM Offering through Acquisition of Frictionless Commerce

Quick news from the press conference at SAPPHIRE 2006: Shai Agassi has just announced the all-cash acquistion of Frictionless Commerce, a leading Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) software provider. As a result of the acquistion, On-Demand SRM will be the second SaaS offering by SAP, following the recent introduction of On-Demand CRM. Second, but certainly not last, as Leo Apotheker clarified during the Press Conference, over time all SAP’s offering will be made available in the “hybrid” model.

Update: See initial analysis by AMR Research.

Related posts:

post

TiEcon 2006: Software Luminaries Panel : The Software Richter Scale: 1, 3 or 7?

Liveblogging the Software Luminaries Panel at TiEcon 2006.  (Note: I am obviously publishing this, as well as other TiEcon posts after the Conference, but will only do very basic editing, and some linking, essentially posting my original notes.   I’ve also deviated from the role of passive note-taker here, as this is a subject where I am somewhat competent, and can’t help but insert my own comments here and there – you will see those in italics.  I invite Panelist, participants to feel free and correct / add to my notes in the form of blog comments. Thanks).

There were parallel sessions run with industry luminaries in ballrooms next to each other. Moderator  M.R. Rangaswami opened on the humorous side: the audience picked the right session, as he peeked into the next room where the Semiconductor luminaries session would take place, and saw a sign there saying “semi-luminaries” 🙂   M.R. is Co-Founder of the Sand Hill Group and host of the recent Software 2006 conference (an annual event).  .

As introduction he uses his Software 2006 slides about  Software’s quiet revolution. Three major realities:

  1. Changes represented by SaaS , Open Source, while CIO’s indicate increased spending on software.
  2. Real business is in the Enterprise (but consumer technologies find their way into the Enterprise)
  3. Thriving ecosystem critical

Panelist(s)

  • Larry Augustin , Angel Investor, Founder VA Linux, SourceForge …etc.
  • Amit Chatterjee , VP Strategy SAP
  • Mark Gorenberg , Partner Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
  • Jason Maynard , Research Analyst Credit Suisse
  • Zach Nelson , President and CEO Netsuite
  • Sanjay Parthasarathy , Corporate Vice President Microsoft Corp. (Chief Evangelist of Microsoft Church)

Starting with a few canned questions for warmup, then taking audience questions.

Question:  Will there be a billion-dollar software company in SaaS? 

Jason:  Yes, Salesforce, NetSuite to begin with.. Client-server, on-premise screwed customers, overpromised, underdelivered. SaaS will be huge, it has barely  scratched the surface so far. 

Mark: Agrees.  Hummer Winblad did 12 pure-play SaaS investments. SaaS is most disruptive.  Siebel was the uncontested market leader and the appearence of Salersforce.com killed it. (I can’t help but insert my own opinion here: Sure, Salesforce squeezed Siebel from the bottom up, but two other factor were just as significant in their demise: the “overpromise, underdeliver” syndrome, i.e. customer dissatisfaction after expensive and lengthy projects; and the fact that SAP that already owns the Enterprise market significantly improved their own CRM  offering, and the integrated approach offers a better value proposition to their customers then the standalone Siebel CRM-only solution).  

Sanjay: We’ve already seen billion-dollar  SaaS companies:  eBay and  Google, just not in Enterprise.

Amit:  SaaS by itself is not a business model… for larger organizations hybrid models work better …with increasing process complexity and integration requirements there is a need for a mix of  on-demand and on-premise solutions.

Question specifically to Zach: Larry Ellison (Oracle CEO, owns over 50% of NetSuite, which is expected to pull off a billion-dollar IPO this year) stated that SaaS is only for SMB’s not for large corporations. Is that so?

 Zach: He is generally trying to avoid speaking for Larry. (They clearly have an interesting relationship, Larry has to be somewhat anti-SaaS, and Zach can’t really get into a public debate with his absolute majority owner. It seems to me that Larry is betting on two horses at the same time)  Nobody will switch software because they want to, or because SaaS ismore fashionable. First and foremost customers have a functionality challenge, which the software company has to meet.. Functionality is the primary consideration, and the delivery model supports it.

Sanjay:  We shouldn’t be talking about software as a service, it’s actually software + service.

Mark: A number of companies are selling to both small and large organizations. What’s exciting is that this is the very first time when medium sized companies can get the same functionality as the large guys! ( I tend to think the same is true for small businesses, in fact that may be an even more radical change, and it’s a mistake that analysts often only think of the midsize market when they speak SMB )

Jason: Disagrees with SAP’s Amit on the notion of need for hybrid.  Software needs to become a utility.  There is no room for innovation in most corporate  IT budgets, 80% of which is spent on running the infrastructure.  Let go of thee server!  I know it’s hard …it’s your baby … you may get visitation rights at your SaaS provider:-) (huge laughter at audience)

MR  makes a comment/question on recent high-profile outages in the industry, largely at salesforce.com but elsewhere, too.

Zach: Not all delivery models are created equal.  Sforce runs on “big iron”, (find article here) while Netsuite opted for a grid-like system based on cheap boxes. When a salesforce.com server goes down, it effects the majority of customers,  when NetSuite loses a box, a maximum of 50 customers are effected. This setup  also helps rolling out new versions smoothly, in a phased fashion,  while  Salesforce.com has to do it in “big bang” style.   Zach predicts Salesforce moving to a grid-like environment soon.

Larry: It’s about ease of adoption.  Software has become a lot easier to create, it’s acquisition is a painful process, and that’s the part that SaaS improves.

Sanjay: Service orientation helps picking best-of-breed solutions, mix and mach. The current trend of consolidation in the industry is actually contrary to it.

Amit: SOA is critical, some services in the cloud, others in the enterprise. 

Zach: Picking composite applications to mix and match is difficult, especially as business processes get more complex.. Composite transactional  applications are a fantasy –  far to difficult to synchronize.  Example: Microsoft CRM and Great Plains are hard to synchronize, even though MS owns the code for both.  Integrated transactional systems are unbeatable – that’s why SAP owns the Enterprise.

Question:  Consolidation, Oracle acquisitions .. getting bigger and bigger – is there room left for innovation?

Larry: Oracle is buying since it’s not doing a great job of innovation itself.  Startups have the benefit of new distribution mechanisms, SaaS, Open Source, user base helps them.

Amit: Lot of room for innovation by partners id they participate in verticals.  He “only” has 6000 developers, cant cover the whole world.(audience laughter)  Larry interrupts: I’d like that problem, I have 12. With 6000 how can you NOT cover the world? (even bigger laughter). Amit: Citibank has more developers then SAP.

Question about data privacy, Security. 

Zach: Especially for small, midsized businesses NetSuite’s security is better than running on local server next to coffee machine. 

Larry: Security is still a huge  unsolved issue.

Sanjay: The real data challenge is mashing structured and unstructured data. 80% of corprate data is unstructured  without business processes: xml is the glue. 

Larry: Html amplified the problem of huge amount of unstructured data, the future will be to move to have data in xml and html is just the presentation.

Question: Are there profitable SaaS companies?.  Sforce is barely profitable.

Mark: Salesforce.com is barely profitable, .Rigthnow is making decent profit,  employees (?_) is largely profitable.

Jason: Many are profitable,  SaaS lowers the cost of distribution – there is price elasticity in the market.  SaaS also helps reducing R&D, support costs – salesforce only needs to support one version, SAP, Oracle multiple ones.

Zach: When he joined NetSuite their sales model was direct. Now with success ecosystem develops.  Typically start with direct, build customer base, then ecosystem develops.

MR‘s comment/question: Software 2006 had a panel: Open Source: money machine or money pit? 

Larry: Open Source is a young model, there can not be a lot of profitable companies yet,  Red Hat beng an outstanding example.  On $10M in R&D Salesforce.com spends 100M in Sales & Marketing..  It’s cheaper to create software then sell it > Open Source helps eliminating the huge sales costs.

Jason concurs,  sales is 80% of cost.  Enterprise Software companies don’t make a lot of profit on software sales, their profit comes from maintenance.  Smart Open Source companies jump out of this expensive sales cycle and focus on support only.  They will increase botttom line while reducing top line.

Larry:  There is also a culture change: people did not understand software, they had to be educated and had to pay for that education.  Now everyone is computerized, carries a PDA, cellphone ..etc.  This means the  education need is reduced, good opportunity for Open Source’s pull model.

Question: SAP , MSFT will you be giving away your products free? 

Sanjay: Fuzzy answer on giving away software and promoting distribution. 

Amit: Support, explore Open Source, but not fully embrace.  SAP does not have the distribution channel that MS has. SAP needs to build ecosystem.

Question:  Will MS look into buying SAP?  Tried. Jason: pragmatic approach: it won’t happen, if for no other reason, the fight with the  EU..

Question: What Open Source opp’s exist? 

Mark: Recently made two investments into companies that develop applications for the lamp stack.  Issue: IP ownership, integration.  Sales issue: agree with the Open Source effect on lead generation, but how to close sales?  What happens when you move to markets that people don’t understand?

Question: any Open Source  companies to go public?  

Jason:  Potentially MySQL.  Markets pay 10-times sales, 30-times cashflow. Fewer, but better , more sustainable companies.

Question (more a remark) on SAP’s new compensation plan. Hasso Plattner recently  announced he is aiming at doubling the market, if they achieve that, the top 100 execs will make 100’s of millions.  Is that a realistic objective? 

Amit: The announcement certainly helps: -) but the true driver for growth  is product innovation.  

MR askes the panelists for their final remark

Mark: We’re in the greatest disruptive times. Hummer Winblad invested more in the past few years than in the previous 17..

Sanjay: Software industry does not spend enough time with users. 

Larry: Fantastic time to be a software entrepreneur.  Small team , little $, reach to market – not possible 10 years ago

Zach: It’s a great time to start a software company, when you do it, remember  you need a great application to run the business. (audience laughter; good plug for NetSuite …possibly the last one before going into pre-IPO silent period?)

Amit: Customers matter. SAP needs to focus more on the ecosystem.

Jason: MS announced spending additional $2B on emerging areas. Look at areas they are spending… go in those “white spaces”, since  they are good in seeing the  opportunities, but can’t exploit them properly.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

post

TiEcon 2006: Web 2.0 – Why Now?

Liveblogging  Mike “TechCrunch”  Arrington‘s  Web 2.0 – Why Now? panel at TiEcon 2006.  (note: I am obviously publishing this, as well as other TiEcon posts after the Conference, but will only do very basic editing, and some linking, essentially posting my original notes.  My added comments appear in italics)

Panelists:

  • Manish Chandra: Founder, CEO Kaboodle,  5 jobs so far, started at Intel, then 4 startups
  • Emily Melton: Associate, Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Left DFJ in 2002, re-joined 2005
  • Kevin Rose, Founder,  Digg. Prior to that Hosted national TV program, TechTV
  • Tony Conrad, Founder, CEO Sphere, also Investor
  • Jeff Nolan, SAP , Apollo Group,the  “Attack Oracle” team (he actually has this on his business card), until recently with SAP Ventures, top blogger.

Mike:  For warmup, let’s talk about the individual companies. Kaboodle is basically bookmarking, social shopping. Statistics show that 80% of all Internet activity is research, not transactions. Kaboodle does not close deals, trying to make money on research side. How did Manish come to the idea?

Manish: Was remodeling home, a lot of pain to find stuff – hence the idea (do all consumer sites really start based on personal experience, or are these just sellable stories?) 

Emily: Since she is a VC, will talk about a portfolio company that she’s a Board Member of: TagworldMike: That’s a  little startup that’s going up against MySpace and others – how can it have any chances? (The little guy vs. big guy issue came up in the morning session as well) and Emily’s reaction is similar: people want to  have presence on the web, relationships ..etc – Tagworld provides tools.

Mike: Huge fan of  Digg:.  50% of TechCrunch’s traffic comes from digg. TechCrunch has significant traffic on its own, but when one of his articles gets digged, the combined traffic typically brings startup sites down.  Kevin: It started as an experiment giving power back to community. Coolness is not determined by editors like it is on Slashdot, but by member votes – “diggs”.  It’s also a social application, digging an item also bookmarks it to your name, you can share, set up friends…etc. 

Tony: Sphere, the new blog search engine. Previously he invested in Oddpost, (acquired by Yahoo, fastest return of all his investments), that’s when idea started. He saw when celebrity bloggers like  John Battelle and Dave Viner blogged about them, their traffic spiked: that was his “aha” moment re. blog-power.  Blog search engines typically bring posts in reverse chronological order… trying to dig up interesting stuff using a more intelligent algorithm.

Jeff didn’t get to talk about his company (SAP), since it’s not exactly a startup or a Web 2.0 🙂 However, previously as VC he backed several startups and in his current role (or outside that role?) he is SAP’s internal Web 2.0 evangelist.

After the warmup round Mike moved on to audience questions.

Question to Mike on criteria for picking what gets covered in TechCrunch.  –

 Mike: anything new, exciting Web 2.0-related.  What is Web 2.0?  He has a user-focused definition. Web 2.0 is about conversation.   In the years after the crash the Internet did not “go away”,  innovation continued behind the scenes. Joe Kraus’s famous quote about how cheap it is to build a company (new cheap tools).

Kevin: Spent $99 on a shared server, used Open Source stuff … total pre-launch cost for Digg was less than $1K. 

Jeff: LAMP stack important.  Php, Python powerful. Tension  between what developers built and what users want resolves itself in the increasing number of  mashups.

Emily: There is a major mindset-change. everyone has access to computers, pdas, cellphones .etc. Even the kids have web presence.  It’s become a lot easier to self-publish and even  build applications.

Question: Is Web 2.0 real or a bomb waiting to go off?

Mike: There is real innovation.   Web services, mashups. 

Jeff:  Web 2.0 is not really new, it’s the realization of everything that’s been happening for 5 years.  Barrier of entry for startups is low.

Manish: Closed platforms are out of fashion , the trend to opening  up leads to  mashups. Power goes back to the individual. People create new shopping pages of their liking on Kaboodle.  This is like walking into a store and rearranging the shelves the way we want it.

Tony:  Brings up the example of the Chicago Crime Scenes mashup. Nice application, hugely popular, even useful, but likely not a business.  Business opportunities are for those that open up their API.  The Blog space brings about businesses (e.g Technorati) with significant core IP, but most mashups are just nice presentation layers without core IP.

Question:  How to market?  Importance of early adopters? 

Mike: refers to the Same 50K people meme – echo chamber.  TechCrunch readers themselves often  re-blog his posts. They are all early adopters, which is demonstrated by  the browser stats:  65% use FireFox.  

Emily: VC’s also check out TechCrunched applications – then forget them, don’t come back (I have positive personal experience on this, when VC’s who earlier heard about SQLFusion  came back with renews interest after the Open Source Fusion beta.  So it does not hurt to to get on VC’s “keep an eye on” list).  Emily: Simply quoting high registration numbers is not compelling to her – repeat user base is.

Manish: Blogs can create  good initial exposure, then incresingly use  SEO, SEM… early days 6-7% was organic search (google, yahoo), now it is 20%.  Real viral effect occurs  when people start marketing your product.

Tony: Despite the criticism, the early adopter crowd makes sense, after all we’re in tech businesses, of course we attract the geek crowd… like if you’re in the sailing business, you go after sailing enthusiasts.

Mike: Asking Panel for example of successful marketing that gets beyond early adopters.

Tony: Flickr is definitely way beyond the early adopter crowd.  Mike:  Flickr is geeky,  overall it has a lot less users  than Yahoo photos (even though Yahoo acquired Flicker, they are treated as two separate domains for now), or even Easyshare by Kodak. 

Short debate between Tony , Jeff, Mike on the role /importance of early adopters.  Tony : blogging needs to get into topics that attract the mainstream, be it the Chicago Cubs, christianity .. whatever.

Manish: Skype forced adoption by uncles & aunts in Chicago, Ohio …etc. since it has a very attractive value proposition compared to expensive telephone services.

Jeff: many companies are building features ONLY for the early adopters – they will not transition to mass market, will not become businesses, just features.

Kevin: Digg has 9 million page views, 1 million unique users a day, with $0 spent on marketing.  He still thinks they are early adopters, the site hasn’t hit mainstream yet.

Tony : Sphere received 1 million pageviews in the first week, from  136K unique users. 

Jeff: Blogs are key in early adoption:  Even if you’re not a techie you will  search on a car, a new TV ….etc,  you’ll get blog entries mixed with other search results (My personal experience confirms this, blogs even penetrated news at “elite” positions).

Tony: Bloggers have huge influence.  Rob Hof is here in the audience, he is the  Silicon Valley bureau chief for Business Week and also writes a personal blog.  Jeff: Matt Marshall is here, too – I don’t read the Merc anymore, but SiliconBeat.

Manish: Print media still has bigger effect. He suggests Web 2.0 companies should look at both print media and blogs for marketing.

Mike: The New York Times is crap.  .

Question: Can open API’s can bite you in the ass? (pardon my French, I’m just quoting here)  Giving away your best stuff, people won’t come back to your site – i.e. Google or Craigslist if the mashup is better.

Manish : Open API’s bring huge adoption.  Get users first then figure out how to make money.

Mike: At the same time ate least you can’t have negative margin – this could be Youtube’s problem.  There are essentially three types of business models:

  • advertising revenues
  • fees
  • no revenues at all

Tony: There were debates in the early days about email as a business, since it’s supposed to be free. But would Yahoo exists without email?

Jeff on network effect: Flickr, del.icio.us are used in a lot of other applications..

Question:  Is the barrier of entry different between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0? 

Mike: It’s become easy to to recreate applications.   I could hire offshore programmers and recreate Digg cheaply (especially considering Kevin’s own statement that it cost less then $1K to launch).  This is where the network effect and being first to market becomes important.  We need to understand how network effect and first to market are related.  Tony has the 8th or 9nth search engine (Sphere), Emily’s Tagworld is also a “latecomer” yet they have a chance to make it, they are not dependent on the network efffect of the huge existing user base, and they have new IP.  Digg is a different story, it’s not core IP, it’s all about the huge network effect.

Kevin: There are too many copycats doing he same things…like online notepads… Disagreeing with Mike, does not see value in being a me-too, startup should do new things.

Out of time, (session got cut short due to security for the Schwarzenegger keynote) Mike asked all panelists to name their favorite Web 2.0 companies (except their own).  The list:

Flickr, Myspcae, Digg, Digg Spy, (yes it is part of Digg, but Emily made the point of specifically listing Spy) TechCrunch, Youtube, Akismet, WordPress, Del.ici.us, Riya, Skype.

If you were a panelist /participant in the discussion and I misinterpreted you, please feel free to correct / expand on your ideas in the form of comments.  Thanks.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

post

SVASE VC Breakfast with Will Price, Blogger, Hummer Winblad Principal

The SVASE  VC Breakfast Club session I’ll be moderating on Thursday, May 25th in San Francisco will be somewhat exceptional: this will be the first time pitching entrepreneurs get to know the VC closely prior to the event.  That’s because Will Price, Principal at Hummer Winblad Venture Partners is an active blogger himself.  His recent post Questions to Ask is a must-read – but I really don’t want  to pick one post only: if you plan to attend the session, do yourself a favor and check out his blog (and if you don’t come to our breakfast, it’s still worth reading)

That said, my standard pitch:  The VC Breakfast is an informal round-table where up to 10 Entrepreneurs get to deliver a pitch, then answer questions and get critiqued by a VC Partner. We’ve had VC’s from Draper Fisher, Hummer Winblad, Kleiner Perkins, Mayfield, Norwest,  Trinity, Mohr Davidow, Emergence Capital …etc.

These sessions are an incredible opportunity for Entrepreneurs, most of whom would probably have a hard time getting through the door to a VC Partners.   Since I’ve been through quite a few of these sessions, both as Entrepreneur and Moderator, let me share a few thoughts:

       

  • It’s a pressure-free environment, with no Powerpoint presentations, Business Plans…etc,  just casual conversation – but it does not mean you should come unprepared!   
  • Bring an Executive Summary –  some VC’s like it, others don’t.   
  • Follow a structure, don’t just talk freely about what you would like to do, or even worse, spend all your time describing the problem, without addressing what your solution is.   
  • Don’t forget “small things” like the Team, Product, Market..etc.   
  • It would not hurt to mention how much you are looking for, and how you would use the funds…   
  • Write down and practice your pitch, be ready to deliver a compelling story in 5 minutes.  You may have more time, but believe me, whatever your practice time was, when you are on the spot, you will likely take twice as long to deliver your story.   
  • Last, but not least, please be on time!  I am not kidding… some of you know why I have to even bring this up. As a matter of fact, our host, Deloitte & Touche specifically asked participants to allocate an extra 5 minutes to get through building security.

For event details check the  Zvents post  and remember to click through to register – there are only 10 slots and this one will sell out early!

See you there! Zbutton

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

post

Innovative Software Business Models

Joseph Weisenthal at The Stalwart felt it was time to dust off Shai Agassi’s infamous half a year old speech and warm up the Open Source as IP Socialism debate again. (hat tip: Jeff Nolan) Why now is beyond me, but in a way it’s perfect timing: draws attention to the Who Pays For Software? New and Old Business Models event tomorrow, where Open Source, SaaS and VC Panelists will discuss the old and new business models.

Talk about Business Models, I haven’t had a chance to write about Intalio’s innovative business model, which I heard about at the World is Flat breakfast organized by Ismael Ghalimi, Intalio CEO and IT Redux blogger.

As Marten Mickos pointed out: “Open Source is not a business model, it’s a software production model and philosophy”. How do you turn it into a business is the million-dollar question now: there is no gold standard, creative entrepreneurs are experimenting with their own models.

Intalio recently moved 80% or so of it’s offering into Open Source. The fully featured product is avaialable free as long as it is run on an Open Source Database, however, customers have to pay an Enterprise Licence if they intend to use it on a commercial DB. Services and Training are chargeable – so far that’s the “traditional” Open Source model, if there is such a thing…

However, Intalio started an innovative experience outsourcing their product management to none other but their customers. They publish the future product development roadmap, along with the estimated timeline and cost of features, enhancements. Customers then can “bid” as to how much they are willing to pay to rep-prioritize the plan and get their requested features developed sooner. To move an item up on the schedule the entire cost has to be covered and at least two customers have to request it. As the model scales up, the requisite minimum “vote” may move from two to a higher number of customers – the more the better, the closer they are to a standard core product. 50% of what customers pay will be made available to them as discount towards future Enterprise Licence purchases.

So let’s tally it up. If the model scales up, Intalio expects most of it’s development paid for by customers – albeit at cost level. But when you start from zero development cost, zero sales cost (there is no sales organization, it’s all a download-try-buy pull process), add revenue from training and services, provide incentives for customers to purchase licences (the 50%) – I’d say it looks pretty good to me. Let’s review the model in half a year or so…

Update (7/11/06): More details from Ismael on Intalio’s business model.

Update (3/18/07): A year later Ismael declares the model a success.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

post

Who Pays For Software? New and Old Business Models

Philippe attended an event titled Demystifying Open Source – How an Open Source Strategy Can Make and Save Money for Your Business.  He sums up statements by one of SQLFusion’s customer; the CTO of Del-Jen ( a Fluor company):

Over a period of 4 years the cost of open source software did go down. The more they use it the less it cost.
On the other end the cost of commercial software increased constantly during the same period. The cost includes licensing and consultin
g.”

The product Fluor is using is Open Source Fusion Enterprise;  The small-business version, Open Source Fusion on-demand has opened for beta a few weeks ago.

Tomorrow I’ll be attending another event where I suspect we’ll hear a lot about Open Source: Who pays for software: new and old software business models – What’s next?

The panelists:
Josh Stein, Director, Draper Fischer Jurventson
Brian Bhelendorf, Founder and CTO of CollabNet.
Philippe Courtot, Chairman and CEO, Qualys.
Scott Dietzen, Ph.D., President and Chief Technology Officer, Zimbra
Marten Mickos, CEO MySQL.
Bernard Pesh, CTO of Salesforce.com.

This promises to be a hot event, pre-registration is now closed, but ad-hoc attendance appears to be open. Zbutton

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

post

SMB / SME Have Become Obsolete Acronyms

SMB / SME describes Small – Midsize Businesses (Enterprises), but in terms of describing a market segment, especially in the software industry it has become obsolete. Why?

It used to collectively refer to companies too small to be attractive for the major Enterprise Software providers – and of course the same held true vice versa: it described a group of businesses that could not afford “enterprise software”. Well, that’s changed with Oracle, SAP now catering for the lower- mid-market, and a growing number of innovative new software solutions affordable even by the really small businesses. Hence the problem with the SMB / SME acronyms: they were sufficient to describe the “crowd to be ignored”, now that the software industry can actually address the needs of this segment, it’s too heterogeneous to be lumped together. To demonstrate the point, here are two articles talking about sofware in the SMB market:

SaaS Players Jostle For Position (internetnews.com) uses the term SMB, cites a VC and software vendor, but clearly the focus is on “small- and medium-sized companies of several hundred employees and 20 or more sales reps

In Gartner, SAP and small business – an oxymoron? Dennis points us to Small Business Vision – a Gartner Event. As he says: “SAP also has a definition of SMB which starts at revs of $250 million. (last time I looked) Which kind of says it.”

There is very little a $200M business and a 10-person startup have in common – their IT needs will definitely be different. Most analyst who talk about SMB really mean midsize businesses. That’s an important market, but let’s not forget the huge untapped opportunity the “long tail” presents; i.e. the millions of very small businesses that can now directly be reached, sold to, serviced inexpensively over the Net – classic SaaS style. Essentially what we are seeing is that the SMB / SME market really isn’t one segment at all, but at least two … perhaps three:

  • SAP, Oracle may consider a $100-200M million business “small”, but it really is midsized, the “M” in SME, with a few hundred employees and a dedicated IT department, that will likely need help with software implementation, but will cope with the ongoing maintenance themselves. SaaS is a wise choice for these businesses, but certainly not the only one.
  • One could define the “S” part, i.e. small businesses in terms of revenue or headcount, but from a software point of view a more important criteria is that they typically do not have permanent IT staff on payroll. This by definition makes any software products that are implemented and ran at the customer’s premises a poor choice – a potential maintenance nightmare. There is simply no better option for this group than SaaS – Software as a Service.
  • The third category in my mind is the very-very small business, possibly with 1-5 employees, who are likely all do-it-all types, focus on their core product / service, and are likely to struggle not only with IT, but some of the standard processes of running a business. This category needs more help than just technology, and vendors like WinWeb are experimenting with a unique combination of hosted software as well as “Live” services, i.e. expert advisors in various aspects of business. (Update: see Stefan’s new post on Live Services)

I’m hearing a new term more and more: VSB – for Very Small Business, describing either the third group above, or a combination of the second and third.

(Key ideas in this post were first published at The Small Business Blog where I am a guest blogger)

Update: 3 days after this post, Wikipedia now has an entry for VSB.

Update (8/14/2006): Vinnie‘s guest blogger, Jyoti Banerjee approaches the issue from the opposite direction, the “M” in SME / SMB, but comes to the same conclusion, i.e. they should not be lumped together with small- and micro-businesses.

Update (10/23/07): Further SMB segmentation by Gadi Shamia.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

post

Kartoo Presents Search Results on a Map

I’ve found Kartoo following the trail from the visitors’ log.

post

Why I “Cleaned House” on LinkedIn – When Less is More

Social Networking is all about connecting People, not linking dumb Data Records…

I’m a fan and early user of LinkedIn, and am really happy with the recent enhancements, including a public web profile and a badge:

View Zoli Erdoss profile on LinkedIn.

However, I’ve recently spent hours combing through my list of contacts, compiling a long list that I asked Customer Service to disconnect me from (why it’s not a self-serve option is beyond me…). Why do such an insane thing, the more connections the better, isn’t it? – No, it’s not.

What differentiates LinkedIn from some of the very early social networking services is the business focus, and the fact that it attempts to map one’s existing network in the real-world. Link-mongers drove business users away from Ryze, one of the very early players, and LinkedIn opened just in time to shelter the “Ryze-refugees”: the invitation-only feature was supposed to keep link-spammers away. It worked … for a while. Then “superconnectors” with thousands of contacts showed up who bombed everyone with link requests. I made the mistake of accepting most link requests in the early days, thinking rejection was rude. No, it’s not rude, it’s playing by the rules, and keeping LinkedIn what it’s meant to be, so from now on whenever I receive a link request from someone I do not know (these tend to come with the boilerpate text) I take the only reasonable action:

Today I received an email from one of these “superconnectors”: apparently I was not the only one who disconnected him, in fact LinkedIn canceled his account. He negotiated his account back, but is now complaining that LinkedIn limits invitations to 3000 individuals. He is trying to rebuild his “empire” of 16,000 contacts (yes, that is 16K!) by circumventing the rules and trying to convince his former contacts to invite him back.

I used to think LinkedIn was a better place without such link-collectors, but I guess I no longer care: let them play their game, I play by my rules. If having 16,000 contacts makes him happy, so be it. I tend to think that Social Networking is all about connecting People, not simply linking Data Records, so his 16,000 database empire is quite useless. It’s the good old rule of Quality vs. Quantity. As a result of my housecleaning my LinkedIn network has shrunk by 30%, an the extended “reach” of 3rd-level connections by a much larger margin, but it’s no longer just a database: it’s a true reflection of my social-business network. Just the way it’s supposed to be.

Update (5/8): Konstantin’s comment below is well worth reading, he hints at future LinkedIn features…

Update (5/9): A new debate on the usefulness of Online Social Networking. I think it reinforces my point: useful, but purely online (in a business context) does not make sense, should be based on real-life connections. You can’t expect to build a new network online (unless you’re happy owning 16K dummy records), but online systems help stretch your own network a little further by reaching out to contacts of your own trusted contacts.

Update (5/10): Oh, now we have guides out there on How (Not) to Get Banned from LinkedIn. Gee … how about just playing by the rules?

Update (7/25) : Vinnie LinkedOut! (?)

Update (1/22): On the other hand, Phil Wainewright may just give in … I mean Link in 🙂

Update (1/31): A major improvement in LinkedIn: breaking connections is self-serve now, you no longer have to ask Customer Service. Finally! Steve Rubel is about to clean house, too….

Update (11/29/07):  Even Facebook-ers are starting to realize that Less is More

Related posts:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

post

Gold Medal for Listening to Customers

(Updated)
And the Gold goes to: Vyew.  

Dennis and I both posted about this free “browser-based conferencing and always-on collaboration platform that provides instant visual communication without the need for client downloads or installations.”  I also had a follow-on post, this time about product names and branding.  Perhaps that’s the reason that the lively comment-conversation these posts triggered focused more on Marketing on my blog, and product features chez Dennis.

Commenters on Dennis’s blog quickly noted that Vyew does not allow full desktop sharing, so while it’s a handy collaboration tool, it cannot be used for software demos. Oops, it was a bit  premature of me calling Vyew a “Free Webex-killer” – well, it’s not quite that … just yet.  But not for long! 

While I was exchanging emails with a very responsive Fred on the Marketing team, Tim, a member of Vyew’s development team came to Dennis’s blog and announced: As a direct result of various conversations with some of you and on other blogs, I met with our team and we decided to push out a LIVE DESKTOP SHARING feature this week. This may not be as snappy as webex, we’ll be looking at about 3 seconds between each screen refresh. But keep in mind this is a quick fix until our real release in 2 months.”   Wow!  Talk about responsiveness!

I don’t know how well the new feature will work, but these guys are definitely market-driven, if anyone, they definitely know how to “turn customers into evangelists“. Customer goodwill can go a long way – some companies are good in earning it, others manage to lose it fast…  it’s good to be in the first camp.

Update (5/2)Vyew just got Naked: “Talk about listening to your customers. This has to set a new record

for responsiveness for user-requested refinements. My congratulations

to vyew. My advice for next steps: start your own blog, vyew, so that

you can have more direct exchanges with customers.” – says Shel Israel.

Update (5/2):  Dennis sums up the story under A Naked Conversation with a vyew.  His conclusions in the second half of the blog are really interesting, go way beyond the Vyew story.  (Btw., I don’t get this naked thing… just got back from swimming and everyone was in swimwear  )

Update (5/2):  Vyew got TechCrunched – well, almost, on the French edition.  Here’s the Google-translated English version of the originally French article.

Update (5/4):  The Vyew team really listens: following Shel’s advice, they’ve just started their own blog.  Congrat’s .

Update (5/7):  The story reverberates:  Shel Israel talked about Vyew at MeshForum 2006 – not the product features, but their  customer responsiveness.  (souce: Christopher  Carfi and Howard  Greenstein).  Being customer-focused has already paid off for Vyew: they’ve become a “showcase”, enjoying increased brand-awareness.

Update (5/13)Guy Kawasaki just profiled Vyew.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,