The implications for monetisation should also be obvious, if you don't build products your customers actually use, and use to their full extent you won't get paid. Product organisations must think more deeply about how users will consume the capabilities they build and reallocate resources accordingly. YuLife’s CTO and co-founder Josh Hart tells me “technology businesses are too focused on function and don’t think enough about building emotionally engaging and rewarding experiences”. This is the belief of YuLife, an innovative group life insurance proposition. Technical competence is necessary but not sufficient to build a great technology business, what will separate the great from the good is UX and design competence. Many product organisations lose sight of driving customer success and are instead stuck on ‘feature treadmills’ building ever-complex feature-rich products. You may disagree with his scepticism over the virtues of a customer success function, but it's hard to fault his argument that customer success should be the job of the business and not just one function. Instead, he advocates that customer success is the business of the entire company. He believes customer success functions are driving a wedge between product and customers through misaligned incentives, shifting responsibility to a department that cannot actually fix the issues customers raise. Those of you that subscribe to the Frank Slootman view of customer success functions will empathise with this, “If you have a customer success department, that gives everyone else an incentive to stop worrying about how well our customers are thriving with our products and services” - Amp It Up. However, I don't believe this shift has fully permeated technology businesses, in particular product organisations.
The need to drive value for the customer post-sale explains the rise of customer success both as a philosophy and as a function. This dynamic has completely changed in a world where a supplier must not only close an initial sale but must keep that customer over an extended period of time to grow the account and recover costs of acquisition. The supplier already earned the majority of the revenue that the relationship would drive, so their incentive was to move on to the next prospect, not ensure the current customer maximised the value of their purchase. Pre-cloud, if a customer bought an expensive piece of technology, it was their responsibility to get the most out of it. The most fundamental shift, the one that matters the most, and that technology businesses have least adapted to, is that risk has shifted from customers to suppliers. Risk shifted from customers to suppliers.Ownership shifted from perpetual to leased.
#NOTION PRICING SOFTWARE#
Markets are complex systems, and the properties of the technology and software markets have changed significantly since the advent of cloud infrastructure: Most technology businesses have adapted less to the change in market properties than they’d like to admit. I would argue that technology businesses are still catching up to understand some important implications of the shift to the cloud. The ubiquity of cloud technology has driven rapid progress across technology, processes, business models, but that doesn’t mean the industry is mature. A lot can change in a decade, but a lot can also stay the same. It was 2011 when Marc Andreessen published his prediction over “why software is eating the world”. What the video game industry can teach SaaS about closing the consumption gap by focusing on the user experienceĪndreas is Director of Pricing & Monetisation at Notion Capital, helping founders to drive growth through pricing and monetisation excellence.ĭelivering recurring revenue, and Product-led success.How consumption-based pricing aligns customer and supplier incentives.Understanding the consumption gap and why it matters.
What the video gaming industry teaches us.Why cloud companies need to embrace product-led success.
0 kommentar(er)
