Hacker News Reader

Comment by drikerf | Hacker News Reader

I don't think that big of a firm will sign up. I'm building a CRM for small businesses and makers. I don't think that large firms would enjoy it.

View on HN

Still useful to have. The most basic version would be something like:

1. up to 10 users: $49/mo

2. 11–25 users: $99/mo

3. 26–100 users: $199/mo

4. 101+ users: call me

EDIT:

As anyone who has tried to buy a CRM will know, these prices are crazy low. Which is a good thing!

Sure! I like to keep it simple. Might add it in the future :).

> As anyone who has tried to buy a CRM will know, these prices are crazy low. Which is a good thing!

No, no it's not. CRM is incredibly valuable to any business and if your software provider can't sustain it's own businesses because they charge too little, the last thing you want to deal with is switching costs (direct costs and hassle) when they go under.

You're right about the switching costs if an SaaS provider goes under. But assuming $50/month is unsustainable for the feature set and service guarantees this company provides seems, well, to assume a lot. If they were trying to provide features competitive with Salesforce, maybe, but are they? (And can we really be sure that Salesforce would collapse if they weren't charging $150/user/mo for their "most popular" plan?)

Even if you are able to get 1,000 customers at $50/month, that's only $50k/month or $600k/year. That's barely enough to provide enough support personnel and hosting costs alone to support 1k clients.

> don't think that big of a firm will sign up.

Better make sure they don't then so you won't have to support a large company that signed up because of the low price.

Some problems you want to have. A huge firm signing up is definitely a problem you want to have.

I was first introduced to this concept by a colleague who was going to serve customers manually instead of us programmers automating it. I said he was going to have a major issue when lots of people sign up. He replied "That is definitely a problem I want to have, I hope I get completely overloaded, because then we have the money to automate it".

I guess it is related to Paul Grahams "do things that don't scale", but "problem I want to have" is broader.

Since then I always evaluate if certain problems are the ones I want to have, because then I know I can postpone them.

> because then we have the money to automate it

I think you are missing the point that in this case you _don't_ have the money.

I am sure they are perfectly able to negotiate once the usage gets out of hand.

If a big company with 50,000 employees is your customer, you must be pretty blind or stubborn to not get the money you want.

The problem is what zaroth outlined at the start of this thread: the big company doesn't start as your customer. They start out as "Hi, we're a Fortune 500 company and we'll become your Number One Customer if you jump through these hoops...before we sign a contract!" And you start jumping. And there are more hoops. And you jump. And they have a strategy change and blow you off for six months, then come back with a different set of hoops. And you jump. And you jump. And you've spent hundreds of thousand of dollars for the promise of getting that big customer, on the belief that they'll surely sign and that other customers of their size will follow.

And they don't sign.

And it turns out what you worked on for them isn't something other customers of their size really quite want. But if you jump through these hoops...

If they don't start as your customer, then there is no problem in the first place.

If they are your customer, there's no more hoops to jump through.

I don't see the problem you are describing here.

Supporting thousands of users from a huge firm, while only charging them $49, is not a problem you want to have. You're just giving away resources at that point.

No, you're letting them start to depend on the tool which allows you to renegotiate for a good deal later

$49 for thousands of users is basically free. For a CRM, a company with a 2000 seat license should be paying well into the tens of thousands of dollars a year, if not significantly more.

You don't renegotiate from $49 to $60,000...

Renegotiate? You probably mean changing the license terms. Way easier.

yeah. if you have 50k employees, you are already using salesforce with a LOT of custom code/workflow.

a lot people seem to forget that there's a lot of b2b on the small-to-medium size.

Even for a 100 people size company, charging $49 IS giveaway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com