I'm a CTO who makes purchasing decisions. There are numerous products I likely would have purchased, but I either find a substitute or just go without because I won't play the stupid "let's get on a call" game.
If your website doesn't give me enough information to:
1. Know enough about your product to know that it will (generally speaking) meet my needs/requirements.
2. Know that the pricing is within the ballpark of reasonable given what your product does.
Then I will move on (unless I'm really desparate, which I assure you is rarely the case). I've rolled-my-own solution more than once as well when there were no other good competitors.
That's not to say that calls never work or don't have a place, because they definitely do. The key to using the call successfully (with me at least) is to use the call to get into true details about my needs, after I know that you're at least in the ballpark. Additionally, the call should be done efficiently. We don't need a 15 minute introduction and overview about you. We don't need a bunch of small talk about weather or sports. 2 minutes of that is ok, or when waiting for additional people to join the call, but beyond that I have things to do.
I know what my needs are. I understand you need some context on my company and needs in order to push useful information forward, and I also understand that many potential customers will not take the lead in asking questions and providing that context, but the sooner you take the temperature and adjust, the better. Also, you can get pretty far as a salesperson if you just spend 5 minutes looking at our website before the call! Then you don't have to ask basic questions about what we do. If you're willing to invest in the time to get on a call, then it's worth a few minutes of time before-hand to look at our website.
Oh I might add another huge thing: Have a way to justify/explain your pricing and how you came to that number. When you have to "learn about my company" in order to give me pricing info, I know you're just making the price up based on what you think I can pay. That's going to backfire on you because after you send me pricing, I'm going to ask you how you arrived at those numbers. Is it by vCPU? by vRAM? by number of instances? by number of API calls per month? by number of employees? by number of "seats"? If you don't have some objective way of determining the price you want to charge me, you're going to feel really stupid and embarrassed when I drill into the details.
>you're just making the price up based on what you think I can pay
It should be based on the email address used. If, for example, your email ends in @google.com, you get charged more. If it ends in @aol.com, then they take pity on you and you get a discount.
My co-worker's grandfather owned a TV repair business. The price was entirely based on the appearance of the person and had nothing to do with the actual problem. This way rich people subsidize the repairs of poor people.
More like the people who appear rich subsidize the repairs of the people who appear poor. Probably usually fairly accurate but it's amusing to think about the edge cases where the truly rich don't feel the need to dress wealthy anymore and get their TV repaired for cheap.
Don't want to be a hater but the parent of my previous post was literally about charging more for rich people. That is the entire point of enterprise plans too.
If I remember correctly, Amtrak does something like this for pricing their train tickets. It is not the cost of going from A to B. It is priced so the more populated area travelers, North East Coast, pay higher to help reduce the cost for those in the middle of the USA. This helps make tickets more adorable for the more poor individuals.
You know it might be also priced on “this guy feels like a pain to work with after the way he asks questions, let’s put the price up”. There is no way to objectively explain that without having person offended - so I am going to put a price I think will cover me dealing with BS questions or attitude of the customer and if he walks it is still a good deal for me.
We might think that companies need every single sale - well no sometimes you want to fire a customer or not take one on.
You don't have to change you process, so you can still explain it rationally.
Just leave off the "then I multiplied by 10" part.
Which I did by accident once ( not by 10, but it was still substantial )... but it turned out the customer was delighted because we were still 50% vs their existing vendor.
Enterprise pricing is a farce.
I very much agree with the poster above about vendors disqualifying themselves.. another red flag for me is the Two Suits and Skirt pre-sales Hydra Monster that big vendors love to send around, to scare you into letting them capture all the value that their purporting to provide you.
And yes, the above shows I've been both sides of the fence. I felt it was going to be good experience, and it was, but I have regrets too.
I'm confused by this, why would sales team know in detail the vRAM contribution to sales price, and how is it relevant to your purchase decision? I've never heard of enterprise/SAAS pricing to be based primarily using cost plus pricing.
Some products (especially infrastructure) still bill based on (outdated and often irrelevant) core counts and memory count. A few years ago I talked to a seller of a PDF library/toolkit who wanted to know my production and staging core count before they would quote me a price. Explaining to them that it runs in a serverless function on-demand was fun, especially because they would say things like, "well, what's your average?" I would often reply and say my average is defined by a function where you take the number of active users (which itself is highly elastic) and calculate for average runtime at 4 cores per user for approximately 50 ms per page (which page count is highly elastic too) and sum to get "average core use per month". Needless to say it was like pushing a rope.
More common now with SaaS seems to be employee count or some other poor proxy measurement for usage. I love actual usage based billing, but some of the proxies people pick are ridiculous. Like, if I have 5 seats or 500 employees, but 2 users spend 6 hours a day in the software and then 10 others maybe look at it once a quarter, paying the same for those is absurd and is not usage-based billing at all.
I spend a lot of time on pricing and packaging of SaaS software and the challenge is real. Everybody says they want simple pricing, which often aligns to seats or MAU - but then they want usage-based pricing, but then they're concerned about unpredictable costs and spiky usage.
Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a free lunch - you can have simple and predictable but you will have some users that you pay for that aren't getting value. You can have usage-based billing, but then you run the risk that anyone who uses an antipattern for the product will suddenly cost you a ton (or consume all of their allocated quota and be dead in the water, which is differently bad).
The more flexibility you offer, the more complexity you're putting onto customers and sales teams to understand what's the best way for them to consume the software.
There's also a lot of market pressure to "follow the crowd" - even if you have an option that is (in your mind) more customer friendly/favorable, if you are structuring your pricing differently than the competition, there will be customers who are concerned that they're not getting "a good deal" or concerned that the structure will end up being less favorable to them over time (after all, why does everybody ELSE do it this other way?). Sales reps also prefer pricing strategies that are at least structurally consistent with other products on the market, because it makes their lives easier.
Similarly, it's very difficult to change pricing nad packaging later on - changing price is relatively simple, but changing units of billing or retiring an old offering can be an extremely difficult task.
(disclaimer: these are just my own opinions, everything is hard)
I've seen companies square this circle with capped hybrid billing strategies. Customer gets charged the min of bills. Bureaucratic customers that need specific billing models can pick them but most people will accept the savings.
It's funny, this was actually one scenario that I thought about mentioning but I had to get on a plane and was running out of time.
It is true you CAN do this, but very few do, for a few reasons:
One is, it's bad for margins - when you build a pricing model, you inevitably end up creating a system where some customers subsidize other customers. You assume each user or unit of usage is going to cost you X/unit and you charge X+Y. There is inevitably going to be a distribution of users and their usage patterns and costs, and the 90% percentile is probably going to be 5X, and the 10% is probably going to be .2X. There's not any malice there, it's just that different users have different usage scenarios and they use the product differently.
Another reason relates to the issues with usage-based billing. Even in that scenario, whatever usage dimension you measure on will have users that don't fit the profile and they still end up being subsidized (from a margins perspective) by customers that DO map to the profile. A really naive example - you're a database company, you want to be cheap for people to get started, you go with usage based billing and charge based on storage. For most customers, that works - assuming your product value is apparent and differentiated, I think most people would understand that "I have to pay more because I'm storing more data, and accessing that data can be more expensive, queries more complex, and the utiltiy that I get from the database scales as the quantity of storage increases". Great, usage based billing, let's do it.
But - then you have users who store very small amounts of data but with incredibly high query volumes. Your options are to either just eat the cost of those users (which might be fine for some amount of time) or now start to add additional dimensions on which you meter usage. So now you charge for storage AND cpu time AND maybe concurrent connections if that's a problem AND bandwidth. Congratulations, you have now created the perfect usage-based billing model, which perfectly assigns customer charges to handle the multitude of usage patterns that customers experience.
BUT, it's really complicated to explain to people, and it's really complex to predict costs. That has two implications, one of which is that your value proposition has to be increasingly compelling as complexity increases. To use the database example, at some point someone at a customer will say "honestly, wouldn't it be more predictable if we just spun up a couple of VMs and ran a database instance ourselves?". Complex usage-based pricing works if you've got incredible technology that would be difficult to impossible for a customer to deploy themselves, but if your value prop is convenience and/or abstraction, you're diminishing that value as you make the pricing model increasingly less convenient and less abstract.
The other factor is that someone has to build and manage the metering of all of these things. Even a single dimension like storage is complicated - how do I bill for additional storage? Do I look at the total storage at the end of the month and multiply by X? That hurts users who, say, run end of month batch jobs - but for you, users that use huge amounts of temporary space and then free them before the end of the month, that hits your bottom line (depending on your own architecture). So maybe you want to charge on a daily basis, but now every problem gets more complicated.
Then, if you extend that across multiple billing dimensions, it's just gotten harder and more complicated. Now it's rock and a hard place time - you can stick to one abstract usage measure that is easy to reason about, but you're inevitably going to have some users that underpay based on that usage measure and some that overpay. Or you can add more dimensions and make things more "fair", but everybody's lives are harder, both for the customer and for you and your team.
When you give customers automatic optimization, you get the worst of both worlds - you make less money on the bottom 10% (usage-wise) of users/customers because they end up falling into the usage based billing, and you make less money on the top 10% because there is capped upside for you as the provider. For customers, sure, it saves them money, but what you're really giving them is a price cap (not to exceed X).
I would say for the sales teams, it's also not great, because they have all of the challenges of explaining two different models. For enterprises, it's a mess because 1) they'll probably want to negotiate specific billing terms for their use cases (we don't want to pay X for bandwidth, we want to pay Y) and other structural terms, all of which your billing system needs to support.
At the end of the day, however you charge for anything is an abstraction layer on top of your costs. That's true if you charge per user, or per object, or per gig, or per connection, or whatever else. It's all unit-based pricing even if it's not usage-based procing. You have to decide how much work you want your engineers, customers, salespeople, etc. to do in order to build, explain, and understand how much someone will pay for software.
My general advice is to pick the simplest pricing model that protects your margins and prevents abuse. For infrastructure-y products, things like storage, compute, network, are all reasonable meters. For SaaS products for business users, per-user pricing is well-understood, and there are things you can do if you really want to apply a usage-based element there (bill based on MAU, or have a MAU component separate from seats purchased). But there's really only two scenarios - you pick a small number of meters and understand that some customers will subsidize other customers, or you meter across a bunch of dimensions that align to your costs and create a lot of complexity for your customers. Blending the two gives you worse margins and the complexity of both options combined.
Yes, it's worse for margins. However, we're in a thread about how potential customers don't want to risk either spending lots of money for services they won't use or dealing with spikes. Not choosing one or the other inherently puts the cost on the provider, shrinking margins.
I don't think it's an especially hard model to understand though. It's commonly called pay-as-you-go in consumer mobile plans and sold as the cheapest option to customers that may not even speak the language the fine print is written in. Those consumers still understand the service they're getting.
Telecom is actually a good example of how granular billing can get, but still produces an incredible profit margin even with simple pricing strategies.
Sure, it’s also very easy to understand paying for deli cold cuts by the pound, but it doesn’t make it a good comparison.
Consumer telecom is a great example of a very constrained problem space. There’s two levers, call time and data. And the population of people who are consuming that are limited to the size of the family.
By contrast, enterprise telecom is incredibly complicated, with variable pricing by region, by time, type of inbound number, and then the software that sits atop that telecom is an additional license.
Telecom is also largely a commodity - one provider is the same as the other. SaaS providers are fundamentally trying to not be commodities, and so the comparison is weak at best.
Usage-based pricing makes sense when you’re buying infrastructure products. For (most?) other things, the price is based on value, not material cost.
The cost of that PDF generation might as well round up to zero, but developing the tech cost multiple man-years of work. How do you price that “objectively” unless you’re given a breakdown of the company R&D expenses, operation costs and margins. That is not a reasonable request. Either you’re happy paying $X because it solves your problem and brings equivalent value to your business, or you’re not.
I do agree seat-based pricing is often ridiculous, but that’s a problem for the free market to solve. Alternatives usually pop up given enough demand.
> How do you price that “objectively” unless you’re given a breakdown of the company R&D expenses, operation costs and margins.
You ballpark how long it would take you to build something similar? You don’t need any breakdown for that, just a marginally competent engineer on staff.
I agree that in general usage-based pricing makes the most sense (particularly as that is a good proxy for measuring how much "value" someone is getting from it), my biggest complaint was that the way they were trying to measure it was dumb and very outdated. It really only made sense in a world where everyone was still running on physical servers or VMs. I would certainly concede that pricing is a very hard problem for a product like this, but whatever pricing they come up with should at least map onto the system it's being used in. Basing it off of number of pages of PDFs generated might would make sense, but they insisted on knowing how many CPU cores I would be allocating (which makes little sense when it's deployed as a highly elastic lambda function!)
Salespeople often misunderstand value-based pricing. If a product costing V dollars is made of N parts, then each part provider claims their value is V, so they deserve V-$1.
A PDF conversion may be required for the end-users, but it doesn’t make the entirety of the value of the product. It just doubles it, as well as the N features before that. But although each feature doubles the value of the product, the order of features doesn’t matter; A PDF export might have been added as the second feature, but the 10th feature still doubled it.
It's uncanny how accurately this maps to departments claiming they contribute V-$1 of the total profits. Sales argues they bring all the money, engineering argues sales would have nothing to sell without the products being made, platform claims no products would run without the infra they provide, support claims everything would grind to a halt without their constant babysitting of the users, etc etc. Only HR and Facilities don't claim to be directly responsible for any revenue, but that's only because everyone needs them anyway.
What you described is likely usage-based, in the sense that the (presumably cloud) vendor usually has to reserve a certain amount of resources per user, “just in case”, because they don’t know / can’t predict your activity pattern. Same reason VMs are still charged for when started but idle: they reserve their CPUs.
What people really want, when they say “usage-based billing”, is outcome-based billing. They want to get charged money whenever they hit the button in your software that makes them money (or, for a cost-center, saves them money.)
Think of e.g. tax prep companies. (For the average Joe employee), they don’t charge you money up-front; instead, they take a part of the net-positive return they fully expect to find you. They make you happy, then take a slice of your happiness at the exact point that they’re making you happy. Outcome-based billing.
Yes. There’s nothing more obnoxious to me than products like Figma where my company has a limited number of full licenses. They are super stingy with what my account type can do, so the 2 times per year when I need to get involved inside a Figma document or even a FigJam board I have to go begging for someone else’s license, but it would be way too costly to pay as much per seat for the entire company as we pay for our designers, for whom that’s obviously a core tool.
Some things are sure. But not most. You wouldn't expect to go to McDonald's and they tell you (or even know) how much the fertilizer to grow the corn that feed the pigs that made the bacon contributed to the price you pay for a burger
You can find that information in quarterly published information for all publicly traded companies, and for many non-public companies with only slightly more searching.
That's exactly what's happening to you when you're the prospective buyer in one of those calls.
I'm not in sales, but I've had a job once where I could see all the financials. And we would very often be charging one customer 10x what we charged another for exactly the same tier of service. Sometimes the huge corps would be paying more for a lower service tier than a small corp on a higher tier.
But McDonalds absolutely can tell you an objective measure of what they charge you based on what you're getting. They charge you x per burger and y per fries and ...
The examples contained CPU and ram but that's not what they say everything should be - just some objective measure.
Snowflake charge by time, storage and size of machine - though they never tell you what the machine actually is underneath. I don't know what their "large" is.
Maybe it's by concurrent users, maybe amount of hours of support, maybe API calls.
I think the key thing was "we'd charge you X because you'd use Y" rather than "we'd charge you X because you look like you might pay it"
Yes especially enterprise software marketed toward platforms/infrastructure usually are priced this way. SaaS products aimed at consumers or high-level business (like HR, Accounting, etc) often don't, so depending on what people's experience is mostly they may think differently
>When you have to "learn about my company" in order to give me pricing info, I know you're just making the price up based on what you think I can pay.
That is how 99% of sellers do business. The upper end of the price range is what the buyer can pay, the lower end is what their competitors are asking for. Some sellers are lucky to have few competitors, so they can waste more of the buyers' time trying to narrow down exactly how much they can or are willing to pay.
It’s how any sensible business sets prices. Your cost sets a floor, that’s all. You set the price at whatever level makes the most money.
Many prices end up being a little higher than costs, but that’s because competition drives prices down close to the floor, not because businesses set out to do that.
Why do grocery stores have coupons? It’s not because they’re charitable. It’s because coupons are a way to charge higher prices to people more willing to pay. Trying to figure out your customer’s willingness to pay and matching that with your price is nothing new or unusual. The tactics just change when the purchase is big enough to have dedicated salespeople.
You mean a restaurant that gets away with serving mediocre food for ridiculous prices, because the "no prices on the menu" gimmick generates enough status/prestige to compensate for any customer dissatisfaction? I.e. the restaurant equivalent of being famous for being famous.
Agreed. As someone in a place to make purchasing decisions, if I can just sign up and try something without having to "jump on a call" and sit through a demo, I'm more likely to do so. I'm more willing to meet afterwards if I like what I see.
As it happens, a while back I did exactly this for a company after reading a post about their launch on HN. In a later conversation with their CEO, I found out we were their first customer!
Technically you’re just paying the $5,000 deposit with your card. They probably don’t want to eat the card processing fees on the full amount and will request some other sort of transfer for the remainder.
This sort of cuts both ways, I’m on the small business selling side.
Sometimes somebody will want a call, I’ll do my dance, tell them the price, then they try to nickel and dime to get a lower price - which isn’t on offer. That blows a lot of my time.
On the other hand, the software I sell solves some novel problems at scale and is designed to be extensible - so in cases where somebody wants to build on the foundation I’ve built I really do need a call to figure out if there’s a missing feature or similar I’d need to build out, or if there’s some implementation detail that’s highly specialized to a given situation.
By and large my evolving strategy is to not have a fixed price listed online, and to reply to emails promptly with pricing with offer to have a call for complex situations.
A house construction contractor doesn't have a price list for the sake of obscuring prices, nor because house construction is more complex than space flight.
It's because houses are custom and thus prices are too variable to list in any meaningful way.
For a SaaS product with significant custom integration work, it seems reasonable that prices might also vary in the same way.
There are many companies that charge “x” per weight of “y” to go from “a” to “b”. How they get “y” from “a” to “b” is complex, but the actual pricing is quite simple compared to bespoke business solutions. It’s just freight.
My least favorite is when I relent and get on their call, and after 30 minutes of answering their questions, they say "OK, next step is we'll schedule another call with our product specialist, because i'm just a sales guy and i didn't really understand most of that."
I’ve had too many bad sales experiences to deal with that. The second someone tries to force me into a sales call for a non-customized or self-configurable service or product, I assume they’re just shamelessly setting me up to extract as much money from me as they possibly can. I just can’t assume good faith on the part of a company that only distributes product information through someone making a commission. It feels like they’re inviting me into a mouse trap.
Going to add the most important thing: It is perfectly fine to end calls early if it feels like it has phased itself out. Don't be afraid to do so! Everyone on the call is costing someone else a lot of income. This goes for internal or external calls.
Yes, seriously. When a sales call is scheduled 30 minutes but 5 minutes in we have a conclusion, you get a lot of good will points from me if you thank me for my time, ask me if there's any other questions I have, and then conclude the call. You can even make this explicit with a quip like, "I'll give everybody 20 minutes back!" then it's clear you are being courteous with our time.
Some people dont know when to end calls early and everyone else is too polite to tell them to end it. I had a manager who made it a point to suggest to end a call early. I try not to force calls to end early unless I know everyone on the call. I notice when its all devs its really easy to suggest ending early vs when non devs are on a call unless a dev manager does it.
To add to those two, I need a working demo (in sandbox of course) of the product without which there's no way for me to validate to what extent your product meets my requirements. It doesn't matter how many screenshots, product explainers, videos you might have put up. Nothing comes close to a sandbox. Trial period is also fine.
I'm a freelancer and sometimes I have to recommend software or services for my clients.
When I evaluate choices I automatically remove all of those that don't have pricing up front as I have no time nor intention to do this. I don't think any company lost millions on me, but many lost tens of thousands.
API providers are the worst, but I kinda understand them.
I’m a CTO as well and never get on these types of calls to get more details and pricing since they can be such a big waste of time. Someone else from our organization will get on the call instead and then give me the pricing details so we can make a decision.
I wanted to hire a personal trainer who just couldnt coordinate a call with me and I asked him to send me the details per mail. They said they dont do emails so didnt choose them as it was to scammy for me
Also, this is very minor but phrases like "get on a call" or worse, references to jumping or hopping, really irritate me. What's wrong with that good old English verb "to have"? Or better yet, call is (believe it or not) a verb! Can I call you? Maybe. Can we hop on a quick call? Absolutely not.
lol, believe it or not this was an interview question one of my Director of Engineering used to use to sus out the experience of people. As I read the parent comment I was thinking the same thing.
Be careful listening to this kind of advice. You never know what ballpark the "CTO" is playing in.
>2. Know that the pricing is within the ballpark of reasonable given what your product does.
My goto line is "I can get a ballpark estimate for chucking 22 metric tons into low earth orbit, why can't I get a ballpark estimate for your boring enterprise software library licensing?" Links to SpaceX pricing help here.
But part of doing what's right is considering opportunity cost.
If buying something would be a win for an org takes up too much organizational bandwidth because of how hard it is to procure, then it's not worth fiddling about trying to buy it.
The org gains a whole bunch of time he's not wasting on useless calls.
There's a bazillion things we could be thinking about buying.
Being able to serve yourself and figure out if there's any fit removes friction. Spending an hour on an initial sales call to find out that information isn't optimal.
As he's said, when he's desperate, he will do more work. And he is willing to do calls when it makes sense, but expects them to be efficient and expects to be able to qualify the vendor.
No, they're protecting money on their company's table from being taken by random sellers. "Let's get on a call" game seldom leads to better deals for the buyer.
I see it like this. If the seller can have salespeople waiting on a call, there can be better deals somewhere else. If the seller can have people cold-calling other companies, there most certainly is a better deal around that they don't want me to know about.
Over the years I have developed a salescall aversion to the grade that I hang up as soon as I my unconciousness have detected one. It has gone so far that I have had to apologize to our salespeople calling me and I just hang up by reflex. Very awkward I tell you.
Who knows, maybe there is no better deal, maybe the cold-calling salesman is actually offering the very best deal there is on the market. Then again, maybe the Nigerian prince really needs help with their fortune, and I really just won a car for being the millionth visitor on that news site[0].
Point being, some stranger is calling me and asking for my money. I don't know enough about them to give them money just because they say it's going to be worth it.
This only works if your sales strategy is all about inbound sales, i.e. content marketing (like this article)/ads.
But if you're an enterprise b2b company and want to grow quickly rather than taking 8 years to go beyond 1 solopreneur like this guy you're going to want to do outbound sales.
It's also worth noting that this guys is mostly doing small deals. The literal largest price he has on his pricing page is 72k/yr, which isn't tiny, but his typical deal size is likely much smaller, so it makes total sense for him not to get on a call for $49/month, because that is not a scalable strategy.
But many enterprise b2b companies have a more complicated product than Keygen and charge orders of magnitude more than they do.
Which is not to say that he is wrong, it's just that this is the correct strategy for scaling a low ACV product, rather than a high ACV product. And a low ACV product has to have much broader demand.
We're primarily an enterprise b2b company, so definitely couldn't get away with the "no calls" culture. BUT the "why do calls happen" section is applicable to anyone really.
We need to hop on calls to close customers, but honestly we could probably cut 1/3 of those calls by following some of those suggestions.
i.e. better documentation, ready to go pricing proposals, pre-filled security questionnaires, etc.
"But many enterprise b2b companies have a more complicated product than Keygen and charge orders of magnitude more than they do."
And how a call will make it simpler? Or why a telephone call becomes part of the service provided for the additional (higher) price (instead of other alternatives)?
The more that people spend the more they want to talk to an actual human to make sure their product and psychological needs are taken care of, in terms of being comfortable with the sale mentally too.
Depends at what level the company is at, especially if they're non-technical. I've found that non-tech VPs and executives definitely want a call, they'd never approve an email-only deal.
It also only works if your product is quite good. I think we can assume a fairly normal distribution for the quality of products where the vast majority are neither very good or bad. An average company with average products will be more inclined to try aggressive sales and marketing tactics because they don't have a great product to help motivate sales.
> If you don't like the car, the manufacturer is not going to make a new one for you personally.
Yes, they will. I recall watching a whole kind of documentary of it somewhere on Youtube. Essentially, luxury brands will fully customize cars for customers and have calls/meetings with them to discuss how the car will be customized. It costs $$$$$ but they'll do it.
I think, too, that more important than income is the fact that these rich people should be driving their cars. It's a way to keep the brand positioned in that market.
You can go to the Porsche configurator website and design a personally customized globally unique $300K+ car, and it shows you not only the price but also what it'll look like. So there's obviously nothing _technical_ preventing them from letting people just order online, like with Tesla. Frustratingly, you have to still go into a dealer for them to click the submit order button, and they might add a markup for this privilege despite them adding negative value to the experience. It is just as frustrating as B2B sales. I'm sure some buyers want to speak to a human, but enthusiasts tend to know exactly what they want and they dread having to "build a relationship" and wonder if they got screwed because they didn't negotiate hard enough / aren't good-looking enough / etc.
As for B2B sales, if AWS can show their pricing online, which has to be among the most complex pricing in existence - then so can every other SaaS company.
I think you and the parent comment are talking about different scales. A large SaaS company deal could be $300k per month per customer, and the sales process for a company like that can involve changing the software to meet the needs of the customer. A very early lesson is that what the customer says they need is not always the same as what they actually need.
One of the many reasons calls happen is that customers say "I need XYZ feature in order to do this deal," and the salesperson then needs to ask why they need XYZ feature, and what they want to accomplish, and maybe existing ABC feature actually meets their need, or maybe the company needs to develop XYZ feature to secure the contract. Once you get into a complex domain, that is not happening over email.
The article contains good advice to many businesses out there, but it's worth considering the situations where it doesn't apply, too.
But I guess 100k cars are bought are bought more in person than 10k cars. For most people, the more money you spend, the more you'd like to talk to a real human being.
Mostly fair, but I disagree about the need for outbound for rapid growth, based on some recent experience. Good PMF and you'll be drowning in inbound. Still need a call and white glove for bigger deals though.
In most of these discussions, people on the sales side claim, "but our customers WANT this! Trust us!" and most of the people on the buying side scream, "We hate this. Please let us buy it without this song and dance."
It's a shocking disconnect to me.
(For what it's worth, I'm squarely on the fouder/engineering buying side and hate the call song and dance, and only engage in it as a last resort.)
Parting thought: SpaceX tells you how much it costs to ship something INTO SPACE. I bet you can figure out a way to tell me your SaaS price, in ballpark terms, and what it depends upon...
I love that SpaceX does that, because it proves once and for all that the sales tactic of "we need to know the details of your use case" is a lie. Some B2B software application is less complicated than launching things into space, so if SpaceX can provide pricing anyone can. They simply choose not to because they're hoping to waste your time and get you to succumb to the sunk cost fallacy.
It's worth noting that prior to SpaceX every single rocket was hand crafted, and often varied in key details based on the payload. Certain when it came to (people-intensive) integration tests and launch prep work. There's partly a legitimate reason ULA needed customer details before providing a quote.
But mostly it was so they could charge NRO more for their birds, by not having a price on their website.
The disconnect has such a simple explanation that it's brutal how long this conversation is: nobody wants to make stuff for cheap people, and people who hate calls are really cheap.
1) I agree that there are markets where "if you have to ask, you can't afford it." (However, I think those are extremely rare, and don't believe Enterprise software, even expensive enterprise software, is usually one of those markets.)
2) I agree that "cheap" people who are unwilling to buy expensive software are likely going to "hate calls."
3) I also believe it is true that, "If a potential buyer is willing to go through the time and effort to schedule a call, even before they know if the product will work, and even before they know what it costs, they are MUCH more likely to be able to afford it than someone unwilling to do that."
I don't think Tesla customers are "cheap". Not only is the price is right on the website, you can [buy it in a few clicks](https://www.tesla.com/models/design#overview). That's not because their target market is "cheap people who hate calls". (Also, have you ever spoken to a Tesla buyer who wishes they could have had a call with a car salesman first?)
I don't think people who buy multi-million dollar homes are "cheap". The starting (maximum) price is listed right there. I can't imagine that someone thinking, "I wonder how much are they asking for that 20 room mansion?" is a signal that they are "cheap."
I can see the value in not wasting a seller's time with cheap people who will be crappy customers. I think you could do it just as easily by clearly stating ballpark prices and/or the components of prices up front, rather than gating it solely based on whether someone is willing to schedule a call.
I've watched 7 figure deals go through self-service onboarding before, zero touch. I think the sales team eventually reached out, but they were using the product before they ever had a sales call. They certainly will pay it without talking to you in person. There's an asterisk here though, which is that you have to be essentially the best player in your field and really well known.
I assure you that 7 figure deals happen every day on AWS, for example, without human intervention. Not all of them happen that way, but enough that it's not surprising.
I was once involved in a purchase for SonarQube for a bigger company (around 50-200 developers using it). It was just a horrible experience. My task was just to evaluate the software in a smaller team, get some evaluation licenses and write a report what our experience was.
It was a crazy ride, I got a sales person assigned, and this person kept asking me questions I couldn't answer. I kept telling them what my job was, and if my report would be positive they might be able to sell 50-200 developer licenses. But they kept pushing me to answer business questions I couldn't answer. It's not my job to know that stuff, and I wasn't allowed to share information about company internals to a third party.
In the end our team never completed that report, and I just put this sales person into all my block lists. Never heard from them again ;)
I was never really sure if they were scared we would abuse an evaluation license, but it was a reputable company (nothing shady at all, no US sanctions, nothing). Even if they had no idea about the market we were in, just reading the Wikipedia article about the company would've shown them, that this is someone they would probably like to be in business with.
Sonar cloud is free of cost for open source projects. Perhaps it would be better to use that as an evaluation tool? If you tried it, what did you find lacking about it?
Disclaimer: I am not employed by or affiliated with sonar qube.
Dear goodness will any other companies trying to sell to the company I work at please adopt this strategy. Please explain clearly what your product does, how you handle security, and what the enterprise license costs on the homepage.
Please do not harass us with calls and perpetual emails asking to schedule calls. If a call is what it takes to answer basic security and pricing questions, I loathe your company name before we've spoken and am very interested in doing business with anyone who *does* post that stuff online.
I do not understand why that's difficult, but it must be.
- it implies differential pricing, meaning they will charge you as much as possible both now and in the future (when you may be locked in)
- it usually obscures what the product actually does
Differential pricing is really pernicious because if the product happens to be super valuable to you, they're likely to find out and charge you even more
Worse than that, calls aren't usually tracked. They will forget they told you "oh we won't increase the price next year," but they'll damn well remember the green engineer you invited to sit the call who blurted out that the $75k/yr license fee was "within budget".
What if you sell a product where it's easy to determine the cost for one user signing up by themselves, so you figure out the required markup and publish that on your site. But large organizations wanting licenses for each user will want a discount, will want finer details about contracts, and often some kind of unique adaptations to the product for their use case. The selling company needs to know if its worth the effort, in which case you have requirements gathering and negotiations. Of course there will be differential pricing depending on what the buyer company wants (cost goes up) and if it's a whale of a deal that the seller really wants (cost goes down) So... schedule a call?
> you sell a product where it's easy to determine the cost for one user signing up by themselves, so you figure out the required markup and publish that on your site.
Then someone at a large organization can multiply this number by the expected number of licenses they'll need, and get a ballpark estimate for the (upper bound of the) costs of the service, which is a critical input in determining whether it's even worthwhile to consider talking to the vendor. Having that information, the organization can then schedule a call to negotiate whatever extra adaptations and discounts they need, or realize signing up is unlikely to have positive ROI and skip it, which also saves the seller from wasting their time on a deal that won't come through.
Vendors that hide critical information and pricing behind a phone call are eating the risk of having their time wasted on negotiating deals that would never succeed, trading it for a chance to scam some clueless or loss-insensitive companies for some big money.
> Vendors that hide critical information and pricing behind a phone call are eating the risk of having their time wasted on negotiating deals that would never succeed, trading it for a chance to scam some clueless or loss-insensitive companies for some big money.
That or they have "customers" who are knowingly or unknowingly incentivized to have the vendor succeed.
People in marketing, often even those in higher levels, know Google analytics. They have demonstrated experience with it. They want to keep using it. They want their employees to keep using it. Google Analytics plus or whatever it is called iirc does not have a pricing page publicly available.
Why does Google not have pricing available publicly? Why do customers put up with Google? Is there any other reason?
PS for those curious, I think this is one of the limitations we hit with Google Analytics free
> The selling company needs to know if its worth the effort
It's not worth the effort.
It's killing your ability to scale your sales process. Unique adaptations kill your ability to scale product development, as now you have a bunch of one off deployments. Figure out ahead of time what discounts you want for various tiers of user count.
If you are a startup, avoiding things that don't let you scale are critical.
This is what I meant in my comment. The seller needs to know what the buyer wants, maybe its a big bulk discount or an extra feature. If the seller decides the discount is too steep, or the extra feature doesn't fit with the road map, then no deal. Or maybe the deal really is that big, and it's worth catering to some one-off demands.
None of this means "hiding" information, but you can't put something like "We'll do X hrs of extra work if you buy Y licenses". Just like the any store might have a 10% discount if you buy a dozen, but if you want 50,000 then there will probably be a conversation involved.
I believe this is one of the main reasons cloudflare focused so much on Workers: it allowed them to replace much of the one-off features they had to develop for various customers
Have you ever done enterprise contracts? A lot of huge companies won’t touch smaller products because they can’t guarantee what they want. These are complex negotiations with a lot of a la cart options.
What kind of products are you buying where you don’t know what they do?
Totally OT, but I love your typo "a la cart". It makes me think of an early 20th century greengrocer with a cart of vegetables and fruit trying to appear more sophisticated by saying he's selling things "a la cart".
you are right. an enterprise products can never be ready for any enterprise customer. they need custom solutions to work with what they already invested millions in. each customer is different there. most enterprise products are ever expanding 'app platforms' or frameworks ultimately, in order to be able to adapt to new customer environments and needs quickly and efficiently. if they arent, most environments will spit them out quickly and harshly. bad for business on either side.
> Differential pricing is really pernicious because if the product happens to be super valuable to you, they're likely to find out and charge you even more
A super valuable solution to your problem is pernicious because...checks notes...a provider is trying to align their pricing with the value it creates with solving your problem.
> a provider is trying to align their pricing with the value it creates with solving your problem.
That's just an euphemism for "a provider is trying to capture for themselves all the value their product creates for you".
A real head scratcher. Perhaps has something to do with there being no point of buying if all (or even most) of the value flows back to the seller? Unless you're a nail wholesaler and are happy with 0.1% margins because you sell by truckloads anyway.
No, I get the purpose of his comment. For a complex product and large customers, it's rare that you can guess what is useful to the company and price it appropriately. The product may offer 20 features, of which 5 are useful to the customer. Your (few) pricing options may be insufficient. You may have a pricing that offers only 3 of the features they need. They're not going to buy it. Your next tier may offer 10 options. It has all 5 of what they need, but too much more, so it's priced too high.
Even worse, your tier may have 10 options but still not capture the 5 they need.
So you negotiate, and they provide you the 5 you need at a reasonable price.
This is standard.
Oh, and negotiating a trial period is almost always a must. Perhaps a 2 week free trial is not enough for the customer. If you could bump it to 4 weeks, it could lead to a lucrative sale.
Right. The scenario you describe is reasonable. But as a buyer, if you put out those few pricing options, even if none of them match all my needs, I get to see both the features you offer and the prices you ask, which gives me the two critical pieces of information I seek: whether you have the capability to satisfy some or all my needs, and what order of magnitude we talk about in terms of costs. If that information tells me that you might have something for us, and it might fit in our budget, then I'll be more than happy to call you, and spend whatever time is needed to agree on a set of features and a price that works for both of us.
The thing I want to desperately avoid is wasting time dancing around the salesmen trying to overhype their product while staying vague on the details, in hopes to get me to buy (and pay as much as I can) regardless of whether I get any value from it.
How should a company figure out what to charge for something in the first place?
Especially a startup that doesn't have much market data to go on, and may be making something entirely new that no one quite knows the value of.
When this is the case, one option is to do price discovery.
And the way to do that is to remove prices from the website, take calls, learn about customers and their needs, and experiment.
> and may be making something entirely new that no one quite knows the value of.
How many such companies even exist at any given point in time? In software in particular, that's going to be almost none, and those few that are, won't be that for long. For everyone else, there are already competitors doing the same thing, and even more competitors solving the same problem in a different way[0], giving you data points for roughly what prices make sense. Between that and your costs being the lower bound, you almost certainly have something to work with.
--
[0] - There's no "someone has to be the first" bootstrap paradox here. Even if you're lucky enough to genuinely be the first to market with something substantially new, it still is just an increment on some existing solution, and solves a variant of some existing problem, so there is data to go on.
If client pays for a link that’s part of a chain, and doesn’t want the chain broken, and still has profit, it means client can pay more, that link is worth more.
the obscuring is just as bad as the differential pricing
9 times out of 10 even when you get on a call with them they just tell you the product does everything but their "consulting" or "support" will work to "configure" the product for you to do it. Meaning, it doesn't do that and they are going to sell you high priced consulting to ram their square peg into your round hole until you either beg them to stop or become stockholmed and invested enough that you are persuading your own stakeholders that it really does what it was supposed to.
Even just the pricing component would be lovely — I'm so tired of the "call us to discuss license cost" for anything larger than "absurdly tiny". You don't need to make it penny-accurate, even: I just need a sense of scale. If your product costs something wildly outside my budget, wouldn't you rather save your time to talk with people that can actually afford what you're selling?
(I can hear the salespeople warming up in the silos already and no: if I don't have $36 million right now, absolutely nothing you say will make it possible to "find those dollars somewhere".)
I've seen (and experienced as the seller) 2 main reasons:
1. we can try and squeeze as much juice as possible from every enterprise client
2. we don't actually know our own economics and/or your scenario is so unique we need to invest effort to quote it within a magnitude
A distant #3: we offer a truly enterprise solution that is too complex to present as a la carte. This happens, but typically you're angling into consulting our bespoke development. Even the most complex cloud scenarios can be costed to the penny; you might not ever pay this but it's a starting point. Maybe this sort of "soft judgement" is a good use of AI? some degree if contextual reasoning, non-committal answers, more complex than just a formula...
I could see that — having worked for a large network vendor in the past, there are some things that just don't lend themselves to any kind of pricing without some kind of scoping discussion. :)
Much like cloud users with k8s, though, I think a lot more companies think they have that problem than actually have that problem.
> I do not understand why that's difficult, but it must be.
Because historically and even presently to a distressing degree, sales is not about communication, it's not amount mutuality of purpose, and it's not about explaining what the product is. If you have a product that does it's job and does it well, and solves a problem for a person or a business, you don't need a sales call because a sales email is more effective. You need a sales call (and arguably, a salesperson) when the value proposition isn't remotely that clear.
Most salespeople when you're on the phone with them do not care about you as a customer. They care about making their quota and/or getting their commission. I appreciate at my current employer that while we offer bonuses for sales folks that really go above an beyond, like scoring a large account or solving a large problem, we don't do commissions, we just pay good salaries. That means the sales person as they're working is not incentivized to sell as much as possible, they're incentivized to figure out the (potential) client's needs, and how we can best meet them, irrespective of what they end up paying.
> we don't do commissions, we just pay good salaries
The semi-joke I always heard about this was that if you don't pay commissions, you'll hire a sales team who are good at selling you that they are doing a good job, rather than selling the prodct.
Sales has to be commission based and you always hire at least two salesman.
The biggest driver to make a sale is the commission. The second biggest is fear of getting sacked because you’re not making as many sales as the other guy.
Pretty much this or something like it, at least in my experience the last 30+ years.
Sales seems to attract folks who are highly 'coin operated'. The large majority (yes...always with the exceptions) really, deep down, don't care about how cool the tech is, or how it's going to change the world...they care about the game of sales and you keep score in the game by how much commission you earn. You really want the salesthing that comes in with "Forget about the salary or draw, I want a 100% commission comp plan" because that's someone who is confident enough in their ability to sell that they aren't worried about paying the mortgage or buying groceries.
Tangentially, one of the worst things I've seen a sales org do is cap commissions. All that incentivizes is "I hit my cap...ima gonna go hang out on my boat until next quarter because why work for sales I'm not going to get comp'ed on".
GP's company is (at least in their eyes) not interested in selling per se - quoting:
>> That means the sales person as they're working is not incentivized to sell as much as possible, they're incentivized to figure out the (potential) client's needs, and how we can best meet them, irrespective of what they end up paying.
I don't know what the name for that other thing is, but it's indeed distinct from "selling" that salespeople do, which boils down to begging, cajoling, tricking or coercing you to buy their shit, no matter how useless or downright harmful to you is, because that's what commissions combined with competition incentivize. Not surprisingly, the bottom-feeder telemarketing sweatshops are where this model is present in its purest form - extreme competition, frequent bonuses for top performers, and quick firing for not being a top performer.
If I have a choice, I never want to "buy" whatever someone's "selling" - I only want to do the whatever is the "buying" equivalent for the not-selling thing I don't have the name for.
It's not a B2B-specific phenomenon either. The B2C equivalent of those salespeople are car salesmen (which have meme status at this point), telemarketers, and those people doing the Amway model, trying to sell some Tupperware knockoffs[0] or barely working vacuum cleaners or whatnot at 3-10x inflated prices, making you feel like you had a good time instead of having just been scammed.
--
[0] - Ironically, Tupperware was also sold in this model, but it at least wasn't shit.
>Most salespeople when you're on the phone with them do not care about you as a customer. They care about making their quota and/or getting their commission.
This is my experience too, along with sunk cost. It's one thing to look at a few service and compare pricing and product, it's a whole different thing to book 5 different calls with 5 different companies before you can even begin to decide what to do, it gets extra bad when you have questions they can't answer, so you book an additional call in which you are informed that some important feature is out of the question and tadaa, you just wasted a whole lot of time for a bunch of people with nothing to show for it.
Anecdotally, I find engineers are way more prone to omitting the video feed and to lean on emails as response mechanism. I guess there's also a "people's person" vs "things person" thing going on.
> Anecdotally, I find engineers are way more prone to omitting the video feed and to lean on emails as response mechanism. I guess there's also a "people's person" vs "things person" thing going on.
To me, it's refusing to show up with a knife to a gun fight. The company needs a thing. The "things person" stands no chance in direct confrontation with a "people's person" and they know it, so they to avoid calls (direct or otherwise) to level the playing field. A "people's person" could fare much better against the seller's "people's persons", but then a "people's person" is in much worse position to understand the thing the company needs in the first place.
For buying things, a win-win outcome can occur only when people on both both buyer and seller side are "things persons".
It's basically a Prisoner's dilemma, with "people's person" and "things person" in place of "defect" and "cooperate".
Nah, you definitely need calls. The idea that any product sells itself to the point that a venture backed startup needs is laughable. Lots of potential customers are clueless but excited and in order to book large contracts, you need someone to be a steward to work the contract through the byzantine maze of leadership and procurement.
Salespeople harangue you for calls because it's objective fact that it works to bring more dollars in, and the idea that they say some magic words and then the customer suddenly wants to buy is childish. They identify and address needs and pain points.
> Lots of potential customers are clueless but excited and in order to book large contracts, you need someone to be a steward to work the contract through the byzantine maze of leadership and procurement.
That's called exploitation, not stewardship.
It is what it is, but let's not pretend that the relationship here is anything but adversarial. The incentives are such that dishonesty and malice brings in more sales, so honest salespeople get quickly outcompeted by their dishonest co-workers, and companies with honest business models get outcompeted by those with dishonest ones. Buyers are in no position to change this, but that doesn't mean they have to pretend it's fine, or play along.
I was in an email back and forth with someone that cold emailed us about a service. Sometimes, I say "what the hell" and take their pitch and see if it's actually worthwhile. But this guy, after I asked him some basic details about his service and what differentiates them, refused to answer my questions and insisted on getting on a call.
Nope, I'm not interested. If you can't give me basic info without wasting my time to get on a call about something I'm not sure I give a shit about yet, then I won't do it. You lose my business and my company's business by proxy. Marked as spam and moved on.
It's not. Having worked on the other side, both in startups I founded and later as a senior exec inside the large F100 valley tech company we were acquired by, this inability to communicate what 'customers who want to buy' 'want to know' constantly mystified me.
After deep diving into why it wasn't working at BigCo, I think the root cause is systemic and it's the bottom ~80% of sales and marketing people. In my experience, the top ~20% of sales and marketing people are generally excellent. But the rest seem to be 'performing' their job functions generically without deeply thinking through how to most effectively communicate and sell "this product" to "this customer" in "this context". That's why so many product information pages follow templates which supposedly implement 'best practices' but in reality are pretty terrible. And it's probably why so many product pages lead with vague puffery. I had an anti-puffery rule for marketing copy: only lead with statements of fact about what makes this product different from the top three alternatives which can be proven true or false. "Best in Class"? Nope, anyone can claim that. Say something concrete that matters that we could get sued for lying about.
Typical entry level salespeople don't really care that most introductory sales calls are a waste of everyone's time. They are paid to do it anyway - and it's one of the few pre-sales metrics that can be easily tracked, so lazy sales managers make increasing introductory sales calls an objective. That's why anyone suggesting #nocalls, or even just offering it as an alternate sales funnel, faces so much resistance in an existing sales structure. Even proposing an objective A/B test of #nocalls met was met with departmental 'circle the wagons'. After talking it over one-on-one with different stakeholders, there was no clear reason they could articulate to oppose trying it. I suspect it was part "this is the way we (and everyone like us) always does it" and part fear that if it worked it would upset current metrics, budgets and even head count. Professional mid-level managers in large companies aren't interested in upsetting their departmental apple cart (or turbo-charging it), they just want to add a few more apples to it each year.
The title on the website says "licensing & distribution", the paragraph under that repeats it and the code example shows some software trying to authorize a serial key to see if it's valid or not.
I'm not sure how they could make it clearer? Maybe I'm in some sort of licensing-bubble, yet I haven't actually done any of those things myself, just seemed crystal-clear what it is from spending 30 seconds on the top of their website.
Initially, I thought it was a solution for companies to manage their miscellaneous software licenses, but after some time I figured out it's a solution if you want to offer your own licensing. The gen-z ultra-wide fonts didn't help with readability either.
>> "The gen-z ultra-wide fonts didn't help with readability either."
The font is "Owners XXWide" and the font designer's various mentions in publications suggest Elder Millennial at the latest. I don't think we can blame the kids for this one.
Really? They handle license keys (generation, registration, checking). I didn't feel this was that confusing (aside from being kind of an outdated problem).
Right, I thought it was extremely clear. The code sample on the homepage really makes it click right away for developers and confirm that it's what they need. While developers might not be the decision person, I bet they get a ton of leads from developers who find this company and then ask their management for it.
Recently I have been dropping the URL in ChatGPT and asking what the company actually builds, problems they solve, and how they make money. Especially for consulting firms, they really try to differentiate themselves from competitors by obfuscating what they actually do.
Please please!!! I’m so tired of sites with promises “double your productivity” “never lose a file again” blabla… but they never say what the product is really.
I've been reading about landing pages for my project, and the standard formula is apparently to place that front-and-centre, with what your product actually does second. So often, though, it seems like they're so eager to tell you how brilliant the product is, they forget to tell you what it actually does.
And maybe that appeals to some people? I went with "Learn a language while you browse the web" for https://nuenki.app, and interestingly I have much more success from HN readers (technical people who may be interested in languages) than people from Reddit's language subreddits (interested in languages, generally not technical).
So I wonder if it's a difference in attitudes based on different groups. The hacker news crowd is asking "What have you built?", and intend to work out whether they think it's worth it once they know what you made, while reddit users go "How can this help me?".
Perhaps I should create a second landing page, a/b test it, and collect some stats.
Edit: I'm anecdotally noticing that the "Social proof!" (testimonials) I added yesterday seems to have hurt conversion if anything. I'm not convinced of the standard advice here... definitely worth getting some data on.
reminiscent of TV ads selling fantasies of complete happiness and ultimate dream lifestyle, all kinds of beautiful imagery and moving music... and the ad ends, and still no idea what the product is or how it's differentiated.
Yeah, I don't understand why the standard advice is what it is. Are most adults that stupidly naive to not realize that benefits are just lies? No company is actually able to predict how and how much their product can benefit their customers. Only customers themselves can predict that, and to do it, they need to know the actual things the product does, i.e. the features, which also happen to be the only objective things the company can say.
And yes, in many cases, the buyer may not know enough to correctly evaluate the features - but such buyer should be aware that, in such situation, they're even less able to tell if the benefits listed are realistic, or just blatant lies. Buying by benefits is stupid - the smart thing is to find someone who understands the features and ask them for advice.
May it happen that CloudFlare stops sending their call invitations to me. I have an account at them which has shared access to company domains, because sometimes I was needed to assist with them. CloudFlare reps repeatedly e-mail me to schedule a call, even after I replied to them and told that I am not a person directly responsible for our domains and asked to stop mailing me. Whoever was their rep at that time, answered that they will stop. Some time passed, and they started e-mailing again. Eventually I started putting their e-mails to spam folder.
Not OP, but I worked for years as a telemarketer as a teenager, so I'm not afraid of speaking on the telephone. However, as I've aged I've found that I'm extraordinarily bad at thinking on my feet and it is for this reason that I loathe telephone calls now.
I was raised to be a people-pleaser and no matter how many times I read "When I say no, I feel guilty" my gut instinct during conversations in which I have to think on my feet is to do whatever is necessary to avoid conflict with the person with whom I'm speaking. With e-mail and other asynchronous communication methods, this is not the case for me as I have the time to craft the gentle-no or the push-back or to properly word the uncomfortable question.
This might be the very reason they prefer to call you, to force you into rushed decisions. Because otherwise I can't imagine the reason for spending scheduling time and minutes (hours) of chitchat just to answer a couple of very basic and totally repeatable question.
I have the same problem as the parent comment, and over time, I learned that people would take advantage of it, just as you mentioned. So, I decided to make my default response to every offer: 'Let me think about it, and I'll call you back.' Sometimes I only ask for one hour, but I always need some time to think on my own about the opportunity and make a sensible decision. This habit has improved things a lot for me!
Since getting married, I've gained an additional great excuse: 'I just need to check with my wife about this important decision.'
Yup. Used to do sales. People are make way better decisions async (over email) than in person or on a call. People feel pressure to say yes in the moment and then the cost of later saying no is much greater than it would have been to say no over email.
The stress and all the negatives people are posting about here is the point.
Before you demonize any company doing this... Know just about every company with a product has a sales team of some kind and they are all operating with similar models. You are being annoyed by some sales people while the sales people at your company are annoying someone else.
Not the parent, but I love communication. I love being able to send a chat message to a teammember and get a response in an hour, or an email at 8pm and read the response next morning. What I hate is having to schedule calls for next Friday just to get a response to a basic question, or being dragged into pointless half an hour meeting just to say two sentences about what I'm doing today.
But you're right that non-technical managers seem to love that stuff
Some of us are time-wasting averse. I am never going to recommend a product without a lot of answers, and it is never going to get green-lighted without my boss feeling confident of the answers. The faster I get the answers, the more likely we are to follow-up. When getting answers is like pulling teeth, other solutions get considered, including "develop something in-house".
> Technical staff don't make purchasing decisions anyway.
That isn't true at all, at least not at all companies. And even when the final decision isn't made by technical staff, technical staff often have an influence on the decision unless the procurement process is particularly dysfunctional.
They're not communication-averse. They're just not stupid.
The human on the other end is an experienced, well-paid, highly incentivized sales specialist, whose job is, to put it bluntly, to screw you over as much as they possibly can. Talking to them means entering negotiations on their terms. Unless you're well-versed in dealing with salespeople, they will play you like a fiddle. The business of their company relies on clients clueless enough, or big enough to not be sensitive to losses at this scale. It's plain stupid to engage from a severely disadvantaged position if you have any alternative available.
This applies doubly if they're cold-calling you. They are the hunter searching for easy marks. You are caught by surprise and entirely unprepared for the confrontation. The right thing to do is to stay quiet and let them go chase someone else.
I absolutely love communication, meeting people, etc. as far as it makes sense! Typically is much better written. Everything can be forwarded, is documented, no misunderstandings…
I doubted for a second, as I wrote that. Yes, written communication can lead to misunderstanding, but more often in chat. Mails are a little better in that regard in my experience. Because they are saved and seen by many people, is easier to analyze what has been said, context, etc.
But in general I would say, both can generate misunderstandings, but lets say mail is easier to settle down.
On the other hand, I would hate to wade through email chains, type out large emails and wait for delayed async responses drawn out over days. I thrive when I can read the documentation, come prepared to a call and have my questions answered quickly in real time. There’s also something about quickly parsing the realtime information that brings out the best and most relevant questions in me.
A lot of companies don't actually sell a product that does anything useful, though. They sell an idea that sounds useful to management, and obscuring the truth earns more money.
I just sent this article to an enterprise sales rep who has been email me for weekly days for the last several weeks, even thought I told them I was no interested and away on vacation.
A crucial point that is lost on this venture capital-funded forum: scummy garbage makes money. Taking sales people out for steak and whiskey makes money. Lying makes money. (That last point is especially funny considering how startups lie, too, like having a landing page and no product but collecting emails like you do.)
The economy is built on grifting, at this point, and every time, people here are shocked, SHOCKED that that is the case.
> Do folks like you exist? Yes. Is the economy built on folks like you? No.
Are you sure?
If you ignore human constructs such as companies and organisations and quantify based on classifications that make more sense for aggregates of workers, you might be surprised how little of the economy is built on the F500 let alone venture capital unicorns.
I'd actually say it's opposite. The economy is built on folks like him but rewards other folks making it seems like his contribution to the economy is nil.
I think it's fair to say that a large component of the top two industries (professional services and real estate) are shady. OTOH, there are a lot of industries that seem less prone to corruption and more likely to reward people for honest work.
What do you think the economy is built on? Do you realize how much is spent on basic things like energy, food, construction of roads, buildings, houses?
It’s very obvious when people straight up lie in these industries because the physical thing never materializes.
> It’s very obvious when people straight up lie in these industries because the physical thing never materializes.
Sort of. The trick in these industries is to instead cheat on quality of materials and workmanship. Which is how we're drowning in physical products to buy, and yet most of them are barely functioning garbage - they've all been "value engineered" to near breaking point.
Yeah, if people were lying about utilities and infrastructure we'd have a right mess... like sewage pumped into rivers and onto beaches whilst water executives take home £millions. Those same companies begging for taxpayers money to do maintenance whilst paying out billions to shareholders. And infrastructure projects that look weirdly like ways to divert £billions of tax resources into private hands whilst achieving essentially no benefit.
I get what you mean, but one could argue its a bit hyperbolic (maybe false equivalence?) to draw a line between the economic impact of small biz/single proprietor and the economy writ large.
That said...thank gawd there's still room for biz like yours.
What percentage of the GDP is furniture making and window fixing? Yours is a noble profession, and like most noble professions is barely a blip in the grand Machiavellian scheme of capitalism
If you mean manufacturing vs tech sector, then yes; however much of manufacturing has become automated. I was referring to actual craftsmen crafting things. Point being, when people talk bad about capitalism, they’re not talking about artisans or craftspeople or other tradespeople plying their trade, they are referring to the system by which capital is accrued and hoarded by the owner class
> That last point is especially funny considering how startups lie, too, like having a landing page and no product but collecting emails like you do.
How dare companies do market research with potential buyers to know what to build before they start building it! If only we could setup massive factories that pump out hot garbage that nobody wants and build roads to nowhere like the soviets did.
I think it's just a grammar thing, meant to read "having a landing page and no product, but collecting emails like you do [have a product]" - so not the parent being disingenuous but the general practice.
VC is an absolute cancer. All of these grifters claim to love free markets, but the entire ecosystem is just propping up companies operating at a loss until all their competitors fold. At least these useless buzzword B2B companies actually have some gormless entity willing to pay them enough to keep the lights on without another 500 million dollar check from Daddy Andreessen lol
Let me explain it to them, then: it's not simply that "scummy garbage makes money". It's that scummy but shiny garbage is given away for free, which makes the company look great to potential buyers - typically large corporations or the public (via IPO) - which allows the company to be sold for stupid amounts of money before the buyer realizes they bought a garbage factory, and this is what makes investors money.
People who got the free shiny scummy garbage? They don't matter, their only role is to grow a counter on financial reports, and to serve as a backup plan - because when the potential buyers realize too soon what they were about to buy, the people holding the previously free garbage can be squeezed for some money to hopefully make the investors whole.
One thing I find with enterprise is your call sometimes isn't entirely about you selling them on your product. It's about learning about the enterprise, from them.
It's about feeling out their organization, their issues, and the dynamics between different departments at that company. Even issues they don't realize they have that are solvable. I find none of that comes out very clearly in emails that tend to be bullet point style focused but don't reveal the nature of the issue.
You seem confidant in your ability to present your exact needs and understand the product and so on, that's good, you're probably right.
But when it comes to something complex, something someone hasn't used before, and all the options and dynamics between enterprise departments that might not be pulling in the same direction, an email almost never covers it and often enterprises aren't aware of it to put it in an email.
If you don't address / discover those things it is potentially a recipient for disaster for everyone.
I've been on numerous calls where a potential customer is on the call and even asking about basic features, then one department head explains to the other "Well we can't do that because X,Y,Z and our other systems A,B,C." and it's the first those two departments REALLY heard each other talk about that. Then we find ways to sort it out.
I've even been on calls where for most of it I'm just there, not doing anything, it's the customer discovering their own processes and working it out internally.
In email that's almost always "we can't do that" because of course not, they're alone with their email, nobody is explaining or offering solutions.
Right or wrong it's just human nature and email doesn't work for some things.
> You seem confidant in your ability to present your exact needs and understand the product and so on, that's good, you're probably right.
It's not that - or at least not just that. The key insight I feel some comments here are missing is, from the buyer's perspective, the process is risky and (with market economy being what it is), adversarial until proven otherwise. All you're saying is true, but until I know you better, I can't tell whether you have my best interests in mind, or are trying to plain scam me.
To use an analogy, there's a reason people go on dates and gradually open up to a potential partner over extended amount of time, instead of just marrying the first person who promises the right things on the spot.
Many organizations have a shadow org chart that you won't learn from the website but will get some sense of that structure in human interactions like calls.
A D&B report is not going to tell you everything you need to know about a company and the dynamics and problems it has with respect to the problem space that you and your company deal with.
I mean, you could somehow get access to an entire company's email history and it still won't tell you everything you need to know. Whether people like it not, sometimes direct, high-bandwidth human interaction is required to adequately understand an issue.
> and it still won't tell you everything you need to know
Talking to them will? we cannot have it both ways (the entire company's email history is not enough to tell me what I need, but meeting for an hour, say three times with the salesperson will).
I think you _are_ right, but I do not need everything. I just need good enough to make a decision to move forward.
> It's about feeling out their organization, their issues, and the dynamics between different departments at that company. Even issues they don't realize they have that are solvable.
I'd like to trust you and your intentions specifically, but in the general case, this relationship is adversarial, so as the potential buyer, I definitely do not want you to "feel me out", and further disadvantage me in the coming negotiations. I'm fine letting you on the details of my organization, its issues and interdepartmental dynamics, but only at the point when I know enough about you and your product to feel safe you aren't just going to scam me.
I agree with this. This is why I still do the occasional 'discovery call' with people directly involved in a project -- and is very clearly communicated as not being a sales call.
One of the most infuriating b2b calls I've ever been on was setup by our vendor to sound like this. After almost a year of using their product (on a month to month plan), they wanted to check-in and see what features we were using, what we liked, didn't like and show us the new stuff they'd released etc. And then in the last 10 minutes of an hour long call, they dropped a little "we just need to go over some administrative details" bomb where they started negotiations to get us on a year long contract. I will never accept another discovery call from this vendor again. It was such a huge piss off.
Weird reaction to say the least assuming you were happy with the product. I've been on calls where the vendor is already on thin ice because the product doesn't work and we're just making sure they are taking us seriously, where AE knuckleheads try to use that as an opportunity to upsell a higher tier of support or something. That's annoying and ime never goes well.
Offering an annual contract though, which presumably comes with a volume discount is a totally normal practice that should benefit both parties assuming it's executed well.
On Sunday (first workday here), I needed a PoE injector that could take in 24V DC and step it up to PoE+ voltages (around 50V iirc), so I looked around, and found an industrial one that matched my requirements. On the manufacturere's website, there was only a GET QUOTE button, and when searching for the model number, I couldn't find a place where I could just buy the thing.
So I clicked on GET QUOTE and filled in my details, company, work email, etc.. I then got an automated email saying my request was received along with details of the request (just the one PoE+ Injector).
We needed this for a fairly tight deadline, so we ended up getting an industrial PoE+ switch, which also gave us some added flexibility, and had 2 units on my desk by Tuesday.
Fast forward to today (Thursday), I get a call from a local distributor who had _no idea_ which product I requested a quote for, and just asked about what my needs are. I of course told them it's no longer relevant, and they decided to send me an email with some wildly irrelevant brochures for ruggedized tablets.
All this is to say, if the manufacturer just put up a price or link to buy online, I would have likely ordered 1-3 units on the spot, either directly or via a distributor. But they decided to complicate the process, and lost the sale to someone who was willing to just sell the products instead of trying to get me on a call.
I also had a look at the distributor's website, and they seem to offer various vague "compute platforms" and "industry-specific solutions", I typed in the model number into the search box, and got no results, and when I typed in the manufacturer, it just brought me to a page saying they are a "Platform Partner", with another contact button.
Been on the other side, running Technology in 3 listed companies.
People came telling me they could do anything, but everything was too shallow.
I turned it around. I would say “we have 40 mins. I will run through a list of our current pain points or challenges. If you feel you can add value to any of those, pick your best 3 and shoot an email and specific material next week”
The change was dramatic. Many sales people actually thanked later saying it was much more productive for them too.
This makes a good point. Many salespeople want the process to be more effective as well. Their time is money, just like ours. Good communication principles absolutely apply
Most people you talk to on that level either don’t know what the pain points are or don’t want to tell you out of fear that you exploit that knowledge.
Most colleagues in the same role in the same industry are good friends or friends of friends.
We have lunch or dinner now and then and meet at sector events. We share a lot of what are our challenges, what works, what doesn’t, who is good and who is not and how much we are paying our suppliers
If a sales person took the info across the street, chances are a) they already known about it or b) the person across the street will ring me to let me know.
Again, I don’t meet the sales rank and file, in many cases the Senior Partner across the table also knows me well (past clients, suppliers or colleagues).
This guy and I are on the same page. Love his boldness at committing to the “No calls” bit, and I wish them nothing but success.
Speaking as an introverted engineer myself, the number one turn-off on any given product is a lack of transparent pricing info or locking any sort of demonstration behind a mandatory contact harvester for a call or email chain. I don’t want to commit to a bunch of social “dances” when I’m trying to solve a technical problem, nor do I want to deal with overly pushy salespeople who either don’t understand my problem or immediately want to upsell to meet their own goals or quotas.
If your tool solves my problem, I will pay you money. That’s the transaction. Everything else - the swag, the sales calls, the free lunches, the conference tickets, the sportsball box seats - is extraneous to my core goal, which is solving the problem.
Then don’t do calls, tell them “this is my problem”, describe it well, and insist on email communication.
Tell them X$ is the price that you are willing to pay and stay firm on it.
I think this will work for most companies - if not then you probably don’t want to do business with them.
Who is forcing you to do social dances?
State the problem, state what you want as solution and sign the contract, done.
Yeah, that doesn’t work unless you’re in the C-suite generally. Every time I’ve tried to throw up that sort of firm wall, the sales people just reach out above me - and ultimately usually end up forcing the sale even if the product doesn’t meet our needs, because they’re able to convince the higher-ups that it actually does and that their Engineers (i.e., me and my team) are mistaken.
Right now, unless you’re some sort of 10x rockstar extrovert, you’ve gotta play the game by the existing rules. It’s why I applaud this particular company’s position, since it means I don’t have to worry about being undermined by some outside salesperson with a quota to meet and a gift budget they haven’t emptied.
One part of the article I found funny/absurd was that he was tired of talking with potential buyers who were not technical enough or authoritative enough to understand the product or make the purchase. And buyers like me are tired of talking with salespeople who are not technical enough to answer my questions or authoritative/knowledgeable enough to make the sale. That implies to me that in an effort to protect employee time, BOTH the buyers and sellers are often sending under-qualified, lesser paid people to these initial conversations, in an effort to vet each other before either are willing to take the risk of sending in their more expensive people who can make progress. Wow.
My understanding is that enterprise purchasing teams are often evaluated based on their ability to secure discounts compared to the initial sticker price of the software. Therefore, having a firm sticker price might make them less incentivized to purchase your SaaS. I suspect many companies don't put pricing up front so the email can say "Normally, we charge X per seat, but we'll give you a special volume offer of Y"
It's a part of the enterprise dance, sure, but I wouldn't say they become deincentivized to purchase if you say no to discounts or negotiations, at least up to p99.
The two categories of enterprises I’ve seen most react differently. There are staid, predictable and well understood businesses that highly value discounts, some to the point of absurdity. There are also enterprises with a more dynamic nature that are going in new directions and highly value flexibility. Most fall in one of those camps, and sometimes both.
Right, it’s ultimately about picking the right medium for a given discussion, be that tickets, email, a call, or some kind of messaging. That can vary person to person as well, so it’s always a bit of a compromise.
This is my primary issue with async communication. Ive had email and slack conversations which lasted days where there was a 4 hour gap between messages and it is horrible.
In a call you can't be ignored or left on read for 4 hours.
> In a call you can't be ignored or left on read for 4 hours.
You also have no time to formulate a thoughtful answer to complex questions, though, which is one my issues. Calls are fine for some things, but 90% of calls could be an email because they contain discussion that needs more than 15 minutes of thinking. And a lot of the time, these calls need a summary email to even keep track of what was said!
I think the gap issue in async communication is a feature, not a bug.
Right. The point is that reasonable response time can turn a 10 minute conversation into a 48 hour long conversation that requires me to context switch 11 times over two days instead of just once.
If it's a straightforward product that might not happen. If it's a product with lots of subtle complications and I need to ask lots of questions whose answers depend on their answers to previous questions it will definitely happen.
As someone on the Autistic spectrum... yes, yes you most certainly can. When you're speaking I'm (not necessarily voluntarily-)daydreaming about my current hyperfocus/obsession. I'm tuned-in just enough to not reply with something so far out of left field that it gives away that my attention is elsewhere, but I'm definitely not listening to you. Your words are going in one ear and right out the other. I'll shoot you an e-mail for "clarification" later.
I hate this about myself and I've worked very hard to overcome it, but after thirty-seven years I've learned to accept that it's my baseline. I'll have to actively work against it for the rest of my life.
Unfortunately, this applies to meetings and lectures as well. In school and, later, university I had to go to class and teach myself the material each night.
> I don't dislike calls, I just hate time wasting. And some e-mail threads should have been a call.
I like to think I can "read the room". I particularly try to send email, versus a call, when the recipient will need to take time to prepare a thoughtful reply.
I've had several calls, sparked after a detailed email, where I end up reading my message literally word-for-word only to be met with the response: "Yeah-- we I'll need to respond to that offline".
Just. Read. My. Damned. Email.
I think very little of people who won't take the time to read anything longer than a couple sentences. It's especially galling because I work hard to write terse, bottom-line-up-front style-emails.
Hot take: W/ LLMs being used to summarize text, and robust text-to-speech, maybe I won't have as time-wasting calls. The kind of person who can't be bothered to read probably likes those kinds of things.
You are so much spot on with this post. Nothing puts off more than someone on LinkedIn asking "When do you have time to have a call to talk about what I can do for your company?" or even worse: "Here's my calendly, pick the spot you would like!" Not to mention I am not a decisive person in the company, the largest choice I can do is whether I work on a Mac or a PC.
If I'm in a better mood, I ask them to send me some e-mail or PDF with what they have to offer.
I am adding your post to my bookmarks and will always reply to such messages with it.
Did the author forget to take "Schedule a Call" button from their pricing page if you drag the slider all the way to the right ? :) Kinda contradicts the entire post.
I touch on this at the end of the post. It's a short 15m 'discovery call', not a sales call. It's essentially a formality to intro each other, make sure we're human, and move onto email for any further discussion. Essentially, not all enterprises will shoot you a cold email to start the conversation, so this call is to capture those leads, with the end-goal of having all real discussion in email.
tl;dr: some enterprises will bounce if they don't see a 'book a call' button.
You seem to be doing this in good faith but honestly, there is no difference between 'Discovery Call" and a "Sales Call". The point is that the customer has to speak with someone first. I do think it is required for enterprise deals but the premise of your post seems to say otherwise.
There absolutely is a difference between one 15-minute call to see faces vs a pipeline of ten 30- to 60-minute calls discussing requirements, compliance, pricing, billing, onboarding, implementation, and support over the course of 6 months.
Sales calls usually start with a discovery call then move to those later stages in the pipeline though, so you're just calling a sales call by another name.
Well, no, it seems your distinction is what is pedantic, as you are differentiating between discovery calls and sales calls when most would call them one and the same. This in my opinion undermines the point of your article.
I just read your other comment [0], this idea makes more sense in that you don't do any future calls, it's more like customer support in terms of helping them answer questions rather than beginning a pipeline.
Yeah, I was annoyed at this too but I think they're differentiating it by having the price already set, and it's just a way for Companies to do the intro dance if they want to. I know my immediate decision-makers at my company wouldn't use a vendor if there was no call.
Still, you didn't remove it as you claim in the article. For a potential customer booking a call there's no difference, even if your intention is for it to only be a "discovery call". What did you actually change on the website?
Actually, I did remove it, and it was gone for a long, long time (years). But only recently did I add it back because I discovered through a/b testing that I was losing leads that didn't want to cold email us, so instead of a cold email, they schedule a quick 15m call that takes little to no preparation for on my end. What it's not is a sales call, and it very quickly moves to an email thread. I am very clear that we don't do further calls past the discovery call -- it's all email (or Slack if they want extended support).
So if a potential customer for your Enterprise tier says “sure ezegk I will pay you 6k/mo but only if you do a second call with me to discuss some open questions I had” you will refuse and tell them you will only communicate via email?
I find that very hard to believe…
From a customer perspective, if you're making purchases of a certain size "Call for Pricing" is just a dance you need to learn to do.
It is pretty annoying that the first call is almost always with an SDR who can't answer basic questions about the product, whose whole job is to make sure you are a qualified customer, and book a second call. The goal of that call is basically answer their questions as fast possible, book the next call, and get off the phone.
On the second call, hopefully with a sales rep and a good solutions engineer -- you don't have to politely listen to their whole spiel, more often then not they'll be very happy if you start peppering them with very specific questions, rather than sitting through the generic demo. A good solutions engineer is able to answer my questions a lot faster than I can find the answer on the website.
It's also highly beneficial to have individual names and phone numbers inside the company if things don't go so well once you're a customer -- if google shuts down your gsuite account, it's nice to have your account rep's cell phone number.
Also, differential pricing is a perhaps a silly dance we all do, but it's life when making purchases of a certain size. It can also work in your favor as a buyer -- if you can, figure out when the company's quarter end is, and line your purchase with that -- there's a pretty good chance they'll be incentivized to cut you a good deal if they're trying to hit their numbers. Also, even if you're not planning on buying from a competitor, get a quote from them, and say "your competitor gave me X price, Im going to go with them unless you do better."
> From a customer perspective, if you're making purchases of a certain size "Call for Pricing" is just a dance you need to learn to do.
No it isn't. I have never once found a situation where there wasn't an alternative to the vendors who try to waste your time with "call for pricing". There are companies who do business honestly, and I choose to use them.
What was the biggest contract you inked this way?
I can’t imagine a company is willing to pay 6-7 figures without at least talking to one human on the other side.
I hope this reaches other companies selling to technical people. I’ve also been a CTO at a $xxM ARR company, and I made several buying decisions for competitors who let me try their product without requiring a meeting.
Of course, some people do prefer calls, but I think there’s a disproportionate default to “book a call first” when selling.
Sounds like he ran up against the snails pace of enterprise sales. It takes patience. When I cofounded a company selling a KYC solution to global banks, I did a survey of 30 FinTech founders on how long it took to get ink on paper with a global bank. 18 months was the usual answer, and it took even longer to get an actual check. If demand for your product is from large enterprises and you don't plan for this up front you simply can't survive. SaaS and "no meetings" are a great alternative... if the demand is there and it scales to a real opportunity. A lot of startups get lured into dealing with calls because a huge company with a potential $1M+ sale looms and they could raise their next round now if they close it. It is hard to say no.
>No sales calls, except for a short 'discovery call' if absolutely needed.
And the important part is that they still provide a price, rather than hide the price with a call button. The call is optional, not a requirement to get a quote.
There's still a price shown _and_ a direct link to start a trial. It's reasonable to assume that more people paying over 1k/mo would like a discovery call more than a free trial right away, so this option is more prominent. But both are available
In my experience, most enterprise leads will still cold email you with their requirements. It's relatively rare for me to receive a cold booking or cold trial, but this is there to not lose those leads who would otherwise not send that cold email. The point of #nocalls is to dip out of the dance, not all communication.
I work at $bigco and there is a team of people whose job is to sit on these calls when we want to engage with a vendor. Engineers aren’t even allowed on these calls and everything is filtered through the gatekeeper.
I would love if we could talk with potential vendors directly through email. I think I one waited several months for the gatekeeper to ask the vendor engineers a 10 question document.
Love that this at the top of HN right now. I understand having an option to do a call, but when it's mandatory just for a bigger customer to get access to a product, it makes little sense. It's like asking a fish to swim a little closer to the hook. The fish knows what you're doing, you know what you're doing, and it's zero fun for anyone involved.
I literarily wrote this e-mail yesterday, when an enterprise customer asked to discuss, I hate calls:
"...
I usually prefer discussing async, via email, so I can provide more comprehensive answers and solutions, especially that we are talking about specific technical requirements.
Via email, we also have everything written down, if we ever need to recall/search for some specific detail. Does this work for you, or do you have other suggestion?"
I'm a founder (and started solo like the OP) in the tech / devops / infra space. Doing calls, and in-person meetings is the 10x accelerator for sales. The OP is quite right in his assessment of what types of calls there are. Pretty spot on.
However, the moment you can afford to have AE (Account Executives) and "sales" in general to field these calls, you might benefit. He IS leaving money on the table.
(yes, we have all pricing, free plan and super extensive docs on our site. But still calls and meetings seal the sweetest deals)
It's very obvious that keygen's market is people who hate sales calls.
Every market is different. Don't generalize your market to this market. Companies also go through phases where, what works for them when they are small and working in a niche won't work when they are larger. I suspect that keygen will need to do sales calls at some point when they are larger; if they choose to grow into that market.
"They're not only awkward, but a 30 minute call takes up hours of my headspace." This is so apt. I've found that I have the best calls with people who provide specific notes about what they want to discuss—the more specific the note, the less headspace the call requires.
Maybe it could be done via email which is the point of this blog, but I never had the confidence to try that.
We have a saying in my home country, roughly: 'spoken words fly away, written words remain'.
For reliable and specific matters using calls is unfit for the purpose. I avoid talking about those as a primary medium, being only suplementary. Something not written down never existed in the end.
In matters I do not know to the slightes, where to begin with, talking to a person is better starting with. Then after getting my bearings step back to the reliability of written words and written discussions and written agreements and such is the way.
And those insist on speeking instead of providing written info is a big warning sign about something fishy (intent of misdirection, incompetency, cluelessness, confused internals, ...) is hiding there.
If you are selling to a non-technical user, phone calls give them a hint of your support. Email support is horrible. Turn around times are too slow. This is the reason I wont buy another framework laptop.
I've had both great and terrible email support (great where L1 immediatelly involved L2 support and I got a straight up solution in 15 mins, for instance), but getting something done over a voice call has never been that great!
If L1 can solve things for you, a call sometimes can work, but really, if they can't, it meant multiple calls with L1 and multiple calls with L2 (in one recent example, it took 4 months for an issue to be resolved by internal support at BigCo where I was repeatedly asked for the same screenshot, including them recording me get to it a number of times, until I pinged their manager's manager via email pointing how they have the solution in there if they only read my emails, and got it resolved 2h later).
Counterpoint: Recently dealt with a vendor at work and asked their support several highly technical questions together with a bug report for an issue we were having.
They not only answered in 1 day, but also provided a real solution / workaround for our issue, as well as a technical answer to the questions and a technical analysis of why the bug occurs.
Outstanding support, and I would never have guessed it from their website.
This pops up at an interesting time. I'm thinking about starting a business that will require me to sell services to enterprise customers, and I feel much the same way about phone calls. I thought I would just have to get good at it, but maybe there's an opportunity to rethink the base assumptions. If my potential customers would rather have an e-mail exchange, I'd be all for it, so at the very least I can present that option up front.
Off topic but a developer using keygen.sh is at the mercy of any “keygen.sh key generator” program out there, no ? Crackers can centralize cracking all those software by only figuring out once the algorithm. Whereas if you implement your own dirty key licensing crackers would need to do manual work for your software. So, whats the point of this service here ?
I assume keys generated via Keygen.sh live in a centralized database against which the client verifies the keys upon startup. Keygen crackers only work against algorithmically verified licence keys.
I'm going to guess that the algorithm behind key generation is "record a series of random bytes (from a truly random source): that's a new key". Pretty hard to crack.
This may be a place were regulation would be helpful, there is a bit of a prisoner dilemma here where companies want to maintain the ability to price discriminate and so there is a strong motivation to keep the status quo vs bucking the trend and losing the consumer surplus.
A simple rule like, "You have to have pricing for you software service displayed on your website, if it's algorithmic you have to be transparent about the formula, how the variables are calculated, and provide a calculator".
Sure there are other good reasons to have a call - it is nice to have a high-bandwidth exchange about the needs of the company and build a relationship with the customer so you could still have calls for that purpose but if they're just trying to compare services, making it harder for the customer is just anti-competitive and leads to a less efficient marketplace.
One thing that email is not the best tool for is back-and-forth dialog. Once an email thread got to be a certain length or spans some number of days, it becomes difficult to follow. The increased roundtrip latency is also unfortunate.
Although the alternative to that is not necessarily voice calls. Text chats would have been great, but which platform do you use? Everyone has got their own instant messaging systems these days.
There is also the perception that voice calls have a reduced likelihood of leaving a record, which is why some people are only reachable by phone.
But how do you organize and recall the transient discussion that happened on a call? Hint: an email summary, or some kind of summary document. And the latter also works with long email chains.
My personal experience is that emails and written documents are how things actually get done, but sometimes we have to go through voice calls and in-person meetings in order to get that far.
Those voice interactions felt like some sort of psychological barrier that couldn't be bypassed any other way, at least initially, but once I have opened up a non-voice channel, that's what we tend to use going forward.
I never buy anything that doesn't put its price upfront, at least for a basic configuration. I understand that any customization will change the price, and usually the cost will increase in this case. I'm OK with it. I also understand that when something is designed from scratch, then the price may only be known after the design. But I've only been in such situation once. In most cases it's just hiding the vital information from the customer.
This whole thing works when you’re small, right up until it doesn’t. If you never have a call with a customer you never have a relationship. If you never have a relationship you have no idea what’s important to them, if there’s risk of churn, or if there’s a competitor sniffing at your door.
I doubt the random engineer you emailed with is going to send you an email letting you know their CTO had dinner with a competitor who is offering to undercut you by 10%.
I mean I think the OP is referring to sales call for differential pricing. Any mature product would have product team looking at active accounts (even if enterprise sign up was self-service) and scheduling calls to understand needs and drive product improvements. There's never a substitute for that for the reasons you said.
This dysfunction is much worse with hardware and unique to US/ Europe and almost non existent in China. In US, Europe, regularly to buy the simplest of sensors (which can cost < 100$), the price won’t be written and I need to fill a form with a bunch of details (why do you need to know my company industry?), and then schedule a call, just to buy the thing.
In Chinese websites you can just see the price at website, and they mention different prices for different volumes. And if I need something custom, I can contact them and they would build it.
As a CTO, I would definitely hesitate to make a corporate purchase without seeing a "Request a call" button. I don't need a call. I would almost never book one. But I need to be sure that live people are behind the web site.
No, I don't love calls, but I also don't love spending days on email threads when we could have a 30-minute conversation with all the stakeholders present (along with all the non-textual clues one gets from talking in real time to another human).
Is asynchronous communications sometimes a positive? Yes, sure. But it's also a big negative when you just need to discuss an issue, make a decision, and move on.
While I find it excessive as well, it might have its benefits. If you're very strict about it, you'd have to either fail, or find ways to be efficient without it. That might mean communicating more explicitly and succinctly, so you don't need non-verbal cues, and don't need days to catch up, and that unlocks crazy amounts of efficiency.
But most companies who'd try that would probably fail before they achieve it.
You overestimate the ability of people to communicate "explicitly and succinctly".
With a mathematical background, I can weigh every word carefully and only include words that add meaning. One short sentence can say a lot.
But people will still assume things, ignore some of those words, and misinterpret so it aligns with their views. When you quickly notice this in a sync communication (which is much easier in a video call compared to an IM chat or even a phone call if you can read facial expressions, body language and tone), that's easily fixed, but email thread can go on for days.
But I agree that you need both (I prefer text, really, but see my point).
Different communication strategies have different strengths. The strength of talking, in person or over the internet is that the response is near instant, the greatest strength of written communication is that it is near permanent and delayed.
Remembering what you talked about two weeks ago can be hard, E-Mail allows you to look back and re-read about what has happened before (important for both sides). It also relieves you from the burden of having a response ready in seconds.
I do not think you could sell a car over E-Mail, but for a technical product, where technical questions need to be answered I do think it is different. But I also think it is a problem of management, which intentionally avoids technical issues.
> Remembering what you talked about two weeks ago can be hard, E-Mail allows you to look back and re-read about what has happened before (important for both sides). It also relieves you from the burden of having a response ready in seconds.
In addition, you can recall and copy/paste responses from previous emails.
This is one reason why I really, really like email.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I recently went through the process of purchasing a car from another state and would've LOVED for it all to occur over email (and texting), but the dealership insisted that some of the communications had to occur over a phone call.
I remember buying a Tesla, all via their website, then picking it up when ready. Car sales really should be that simple, at least for new cars where you don't have to actually physically assess the vehicle in person like for used cars.
I notice that when I started my software career everything was mostly emails and some text messaging. Then 10 years later, even before the pandemic, everything was a call. These weren't even sales people, but other developers. Its like everybody suddenly became allergic to putting things in writing and when pressed to do so they couldn't.
Yes, there are some advantages to sharing screens. But, being able to communicate with both precision and brevity in writing has its advantages. I strongly believe this skill is what prioritized me for promotion over my peers. It certainly wasn't my work ethic. Hard work is not well valued when somebody who works less hard delivers more.
As a customer, I absolutely abhor that the I need to book a call with sales to buy any enterprise product.
Please, for the friggin love of <insert your deity or whatever rocks your boat here> let's do it over email!
I'm building something to bypass this entirely. As an IT Director I absolutely despise when I'm evaluating a SaaS product, and they don't have public pricing and my only option is to book a call.
This is annoying because:
1) I have to spend 2-3 calls with salespeople (intro, demo usually minimum) - huge waste of time. I've already evaluated your product and determined it fits my needs.
2) At the end of all of those meetings after a couple weeks (plus the time it takes to get the quote approved) the product could be completely out of my budget. For tools like PAM or vulnerability management the pricing is relatively arbitrary.
So, I started creating https://vendorscout.net when people who have previously received quoting can anonymously upload the pricing they received for so and so users/endpoints so that you can get on the site and look up relatively accurate pricing for the product. I'm still working on the MVP but if you are interested, I'd love some help.
> we have a security page that outlines all of this, and essentially answers the questions that are in most security questionnaires we've seen.
And yet, you still have to fill them in, because the people who ask you for them don't actually care to read them or do the data entry, and generally don't even understand them. It's often clear that they're the people who are supposed to be filing them out, when you get questions like "is the data stored according to our internal "level 3" designation described on this intranet page". I find it so frustrating. They say they have questions. They don't have questions, and they don't care about the answers. They care about whether their spreadsheet automatically highlights and cells in red.
"But hey, you want that sale don't you? So do my homework"
For my business (micro-SaaS EdTech), the value of building trust with my customers cannot be understated. Further, I don’t believe i can effectively build trust with my customers in the way the author describes; without meetings.
The post is about how they have a no-calls policy, even for enterprise sales. The author brags, "I nuked the 'book a call' button from my pricing page".
...But their pricing page actually has a big "Schedule a Call" button when you drag the pricing slider into enterprise territory: https://keygen.sh/pricing/
> No sales calls, except for a short 'discovery call' if absolutely needed. Discovery calls are just a formality.
Author here. Quoted text is from the conclusion at the end of the post.
I do the occasional 15m 'discovery call.' It's not a sales call, but more of an formality where we intro each other and then move onto email for deeper discussions.
I hate "let's just have a quick call" people. It's never quick, it's always manipulative, and always a waste of time.
I have a client who tries to use calls to weasel out of paying for things. Finally I refused to talk to him on the phone any more. Some invoices remain outstanding but I'm not willing to waste more time listening to BS. I can spend my time making money from responsible people and meanwhile continue to have my invoice system pester him.
Re: sales, there is no such thing as a quick sales call.
Maybe this goes without saying, but this requires really good self-serve for most customers. In general it seems like the trend is more fragmentation, rather than just "more email" but that does mean less call-driven -- https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/growth-marketing-and-s...
I'd love to do this. The context switching between doing development and then sales is so freaking high for me that I basically had to dedicate a specific day to just doing calls and the rest of the days to only doing dev work.
I'm in the camp that I'd rather hire the right person to do the job better than me (in sales) and focus where I'm most strong in instead.
I might have missed it, but doesn't it seem like the best option would have been to provide an option for both? Some people (especially of a certain generation) absolutely prefer calls. Seems best to just meet the customer where they're at.
This model works for customers where the user and the buyer are the same person (or highly aligned) but in many other cases, the “procurement team” gets in the way and is literally paid to make calls and negotiate. I love this approach but am concerned about its scalability.
I wonder if part of the reason people are comfortable ditching calls is that we’re already transitioning to a world where AI can handle so much of the back-and-forth. Tools like ChatGPT and automatic summarizers make it easy to manage and process large volumes of written communication, so async feels almost effortless.
On the other hand, it’s less clear if we’ve got good AI solutions for real-time calls. Yes, we have speech-to-text and live transcription, but they still require more setup and don’t always capture context as smoothly as a neatly structured email thread. For people who want everything documented and searchable—even the decision-making logic—AI-assisted written communication just works better right now.
I’m curious if future AI tools will make synchronous calls more appealing by automatically generating real-time summaries or helping participants get to the crux of the discussion faster. But at least for the moment, it seems AI is nudging us toward async rather than giving us a richer live conversation experience.
Off-Topic: What is the best way to “subscribe” to blogs like this? Is there a popular service/tool out there even for blogs that don’t have RSS or TwitterX? Or, just keep a list of blogs of interest and check occasionally? Thanks.
There’s good advice in this article like making your product messaging clear but there’s also terrible advice here.
“Discovery calls are just a formality” was something I cringed at. It’s basically the most important part of the sales process.
The author also didn’t like the sales process where pricing is fuzzy. But for enterprise sales there is a very good reason for this: you need to size up how your solution solves business pain for your customer and how much money it saves or makes them. If you are saving AT&T a billion dollars with your solution but you’re only charging them $1000/month, you’ve royally fucked up. And a big client like AT&T will stress your support and engineering staff with a lot of requests for help and customizations.
At some point the author perhaps should have recognized the need to have someone who knows enterprise sales on their side rather than going it alone. I wanted the author so badly to admit that it’s something they’re are bad at and that they should get help. They are probably leaving a lot of growth on the table by having this amateur sales strategy.
I would recommend to the author the book Sales on Rails. It’s a great resource for understanding how technical enterprise sales works. The author seems completely unaware of the account executive sales engineer sales team that is so common because it works.
If the author is lucky to expand their business further they will hit a point where leads stop just contacting them. They will have to make cold calls and surface customers who aren’t obviously interested. This no-call strategy will not fly at every type of company.
"If your messaging is vague, people will need to get on a call to understand what you actually offer."
I am so tired of someone at work saying "Hey, we're thinking of using X" (or "going to use X"), and I go to their web page, and what is X? Why, it's a tool that will unlock the value of my business and allow unparalleled visibility into my business to connect with my customers and brings highly-available best-of-breed services to us to secure and empower our business, which has up to this point just been businessin' along without the full power of businessy business that we could have been businessing if we just businessed this business product earlier.
But...
.. what is it?
Is it a hosted database? Is it a plugin to Salesforce CRM? Is it a training program? Is it a deployable appliance or VM image? Is it a desktop application? Is it a cloud service? Is it an API? Is it some sort of 3rd party agency meant to replace some bit of my business? Who is meant to use it? Developers? Business? Finance? Ops?
These are all very basic questions that are only the very beginning of understanding of what the product actually is, and I frequently can't even guess based on the home page. I have more than once been told we're using one of these products and linked to the homepage in question, and still had to come back and ask the person "Yes, but what is it?"
The best thing you can do is hit the developer docs page, if there is one, but even then it's fairly rare for there to be a clear answer. You have to poke through frequently disorganized, task-based documents with no clear progression as to "here's where to start with our product" and frankly some products have defeated me even so. I can get as far as "Ah, you have some sort of web interface" and probably some clue about what it actually is, but that hardly nails it down. You'd think I could juts derive the answer almost immediately.
So glad it's not my job to poke through these things. I have to imagine there's a lot of people who would equally find it a breath of fresh air to hit a website and have some sort of idea what it is in 30 seconds or less.
I understand, even if it's not my personal philosophy, still being vague on price so you have to call about that. I don't understand the idea behind hiding what your product even is behind such a thick layer of vague buzzwords that a professional in the field is still left virtually clueless about what it actually is even after a careful read.
Even more frustrating is when you're specifically looking for a simple tool to do X, but the marketing material is so aspirational you can't even find out if they offer X, and finally when you figure out that they DO offer X, it turns out it's only X, and not world peace and an end to hunger like they promised.
You just want a single-sign-on thingamajig with 2FA, but the website is selling ultimate trustworthiness and compliance in an everchanging regulatory environment for dynamic and growing digital natives with federated AI. Hmm.
I always try looking up the product or company on Wikipedia. If there's an article there, that's more often than not a lot more helpful than the company's own web page.
Of course, if you had already fully unlocked the value in your business, you’d be leveraging accelerating growth and reaching synergies few can even contemplate. Your go to market strategy would be adaptable, extensible, on-demand, customer focused, market driven.
How about we circle back to put a fork in it?
But seriously, when I see such nebulous companies, I immediately look elsewhere. They are either trying to sell snake oil or are just too clueless to understand what’s actually important.
I have a small B2C app that requires no calls or interactions in general to get customers, just support afterwards. Currently have a few hundred subscriptions. It's not much but makes me pretty happy.
I'm glad you are having success, but B2C is wildly different than B2B. I can't think of any B2C company that could do calls with customers. The economics don't make sense. Instead they use large advertising buys to communicate, one way, with current and prospective customers
My wife works in sales. She always pushes people to her email via her voicemail or email signature. When people need really technical support, there is a group of dedicated people to help with that aspect. Technical support really isn’t her job but in her mind it kind of is as being an important point of first contact to keep the relationship strong.
Granted, you need to be very responsive to your email, including monitoring it a little on the off hours.
She continues to grow her business territory each year for almost 2 decades and almost never makes sales phone calls. She does do scripted presentations for big deals from time to time but gets some support for those.
I can confirm as a (largeish) buyer, i despise useless calls and video conferences.
I do not have time, and it costs me money to hop on a 20 minute call just to find out it was a presentation of their slicks that were in PDF, or go through 30 slides that they could have emailed me.
It costs me money for a vendor and internal teams to eat time, and my cost change depending on the time of the day. My rate is highest during mid to late day. If you send me an email with the info and I can read it in my morning quiet time, it (mentally & $$) cost less, and I will be less grouchy.
there are some times when a call works. If the emails are fruitless because the writers lack the ability to be succinct, or cannot articulate what they need.
This article inspires me to institute a similar policy regarding zoom meetings in my lab. For some things, a quick chat is needed sure, but most of the time, writing and responding to an email in a thorough and thoughtful manner is 1000% more effective.
This is an incredibly inspiring story to read. Thanks for sharing!
Never having to take a sales call to grow a company is the dream for an introvert like me. And, as an open source developer, I care a lot about clear communication, transparency, and high-quality documentation.
Looking at the Keygen front page, I can see how effective they would be at targeting the kind of customer they'd want.
I personally have no use for software licensing products, but if I did, I would probably choose keygen just on the merits of this blog post.
That's fair. It's something I'll be prioritizing this year, but hasn't ever really been an issue tbqh. But maybe after I obtain these I'll realize that I should have done it a long time ago?
I love this aspiration and it's something I wanted to do, but unfortunately if you get into a situation where you're wanting to sell to larger more old-school enterprise or government customers it's going to be hard to impossible to execute. Unless your product is low cost and has no higher-level enterprise offerings, you're going to have to have sales.
I've touched on it in a few places, but you're right that there feels like a disconnect there which I didn't catch until pointed out. But there really isn't too much of a disconnect, and it's nothing nefarious. It's simply that over the years of doing #nocalls, I discovered that I was losing some leads that didn't want to cold email us, so instead, I added a 'discovery call' as a way to capture these leads -- not as a way to put myself, and them, into some sort of endless sales call pipeline, but as a way to start the conversation.
Really, all one of these discovery calls really are is a short 15 minute call where I intro myself for 30s, they intro themselves, and then I hear about their problem. After that, I tell them yes/no we can solve that with X/Y/Z, thenI tell them I'll follow up via email with additional links and documentation unless there are any further pressing questions. And in that email, I ask that they CC relevant team members onto the email thread for further discussion.
> When the next person asked for a call, I responded with a simple "No, we don't do calls, but happy to help via email. Feel free to CC any relevant team members onto this thread."
"No calls" and "talk to right people" is unrelated. Just have a call with the engineer. At least you know they heard you not just ignored a cc.
I felt this way for a long time, until a couple years ago. Talking with your mouth uses a completely different part of your brain than talking with your fingers. There's pros and cons to both methods. It's nice to have an ace up your sleeve when your competition is other nerds with great writing skills.
This exists because sales guys don't know how to type, and generally have poor reading comprehension.
Typing out 3-4 sentences is an order of magnitude harder for them than making a few minute phone call.
I require everyone I hire take a typing speed test and know how to touch type. If they can't and they are a must-hire, I make their first two weeks involve an hour or two of typing tutor use. It's essential to an asynchronous workforce.
_and_ touch type? I don't think touch typing is necessarily essential, surely the speed test is enough. I never learned to touch type but 100+ wpm is not a problem, or 120+ wpm if focusing.
If your website doesn't give me enough information to:
1. Know enough about your product to know that it will (generally speaking) meet my needs/requirements.
2. Know that the pricing is within the ballpark of reasonable given what your product does.
Then I will move on (unless I'm really desparate, which I assure you is rarely the case). I've rolled-my-own solution more than once as well when there were no other good competitors.
That's not to say that calls never work or don't have a place, because they definitely do. The key to using the call successfully (with me at least) is to use the call to get into true details about my needs, after I know that you're at least in the ballpark. Additionally, the call should be done efficiently. We don't need a 15 minute introduction and overview about you. We don't need a bunch of small talk about weather or sports. 2 minutes of that is ok, or when waiting for additional people to join the call, but beyond that I have things to do.
I know what my needs are. I understand you need some context on my company and needs in order to push useful information forward, and I also understand that many potential customers will not take the lead in asking questions and providing that context, but the sooner you take the temperature and adjust, the better. Also, you can get pretty far as a salesperson if you just spend 5 minutes looking at our website before the call! Then you don't have to ask basic questions about what we do. If you're willing to invest in the time to get on a call, then it's worth a few minutes of time before-hand to look at our website.
reply