Recently we noted that some large enterprise software companies were calling SaaS a fad that would soon pass away. We theorized that they were doing this not because they actually believed it, but because SaaS is a fundamental threat to the old way of doing business that they dominate. In this post we look at some of the traditional enterprise vendors who are taking a different approach - embracing SaaS and competing in that market.
If you run a traditional enterprise software company, you have plenty of reasons to feel warm and comfortable:
1. Your conservative customers agree with you that change is bad and new technology is a terrible risk. (The people among your clients who don't agree with this won't be talking to you, they will be busy innovating - so you won't hear an opposing view).
2. Your Annual Maintenance Revenues continue to grow, as clients cannot risk a problem with software that is mission critical and complex. As your product is now quite stable, the profit margin is wonderful. (You don't notice that the SaaS barbarians are scaling your castle walls using these fat margins as ladders, saying: "Our SaaS monthly cost is less than your current AMC".)
3. Your Professional Services business continues to grow. Conservative clients prefer to go to the company that built the software, rather than a third party, so you can eat into your ecosystem whenever you have a revenue short-fall. (The fact that the software needs this much implementation hasn't gone unnoticed by the SaaS proponents).
In this benign financial environment, you look at a downturn as a good time to emphasize words like "tried and tested, stable, enterprise, integrated, customized, safety" and so on. You can assume that any drop in License Fee revenue is simply a cyclical problem, that good times will return automatically.
The frog in the slowly boiling water also feels warm and comfortable for a while...
Repeating old mantras in the face of fundamental change is natural, because making that change is really, really hard:
1. Putting SaaS financing on an old product is simply the ASP model and that is terrible economics. You will report horrible results to investors for a long time before it turns positive.
2. However carefully you position your SaaS offering versus your traditional product, you will legitimize SaaS to your conservative clients and hasten the decline of your traditional business.
3. Your current client base is not much help. You need to position the new SaaS offering for a new market, where you will be competing on a level playing field with the start-ups.
Lou Gerstner observed in his famous book on IBM's turnaround in the early 1990s, "Teaching The Elephant To Dance", that culture is everything. Big companies need to learn to act like start-ups again.
Lou Gerstner's culture shake-up must have been more than temporary, for once again we see IBM, as big and as old as it gets in IT, leading from the front. Just like they embraced the PC as it threatened the Mainframe and then embraced Linux and open source, so now they are embracing SaaS. This is despite facing all the risks described above.
IBM can be bold primarily because the most critical culture that Gerstner brought back was talking to the client to find out what they want. You can always find some people in a big client who support the old way. But if you have a conversation at senior management levels and contrast SaaS with the old model, you will find tremendous enthusiasm for SaaS.
IBM's move into SaaS is complex, as they are a big company with many moving parts. They are also experts at extending the life of really, really old technology with a tweak here, an image make-over there. AS/400 anyone? IBM is also very good at packaging up all the pieces in a way that clients find attractive, with a few little bits of high value "special sauce" added to all the free and commodity bits in the package. In other words, IBM knows how to make money whichever way the wind blows.
Anybody remember when CMS (Content Management System) was the hot technology? If so, maybe you bought stock in Vignette when they did their IPO in February 1999. If you sold before March 2000 you did pretty well. Since then of course, the VIGN stock price has suffered the Dot Com bubble burst and nuclear winter.
For a while Vignette used their IPO cash hoard to buy up smaller cash-strapped enterprise vendors for bargain prices. That seemed like a street smart thing to do, but then SaaS came along to take away some of the fun. Then in April 2008, Vignette changed tack and acquired Vidavee, a SaaS player in video content.
Vignette is well-placed to do more. They have cash in the bank, positive cash flow, they have always understood what enterprises want from the Net and now they can make more aggressive moves in SaaS.
Next week I am at the Salesforce.com Dreamforce 2008 event in San Francisco. Salesforce.com has done more to build the SaaS market than anybody. They are in an interesting position. If we view this as a battle of Romans (big, established enterprise vendors) versus Barbarians (pure play SaaS start-ups), Salesforce.com has the scale of the Romans and the positioning of the Barbarians. It should be an interesting week.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I'm a developer for a SaaS oriented company. Until I came to UCN (www.ucn.net) I never really heard of a company officially advertising themselves as a SaaS company (besides salesforce) but it seems many companies are warming up to the idea. The ability for companies to just buy services that would normally require a huge hardware investment has to be more tempting with the economy these days.
Posted by: Jason | October 28, 2008 8:30 PM
There is no truth to the rumor that we will be buying SAP!
Sorta'
Posted by: steveballmer | October 28, 2008 8:46 PM
Traditional software companies may be afraid of SaaS for all the wrong reasons, but they happen to be right. How long do you think SaaS will last when people start figuring out they are surrendering their valuable data - and the right to access that data - to a third party? How much do you trust a stranger?
Funny how soon after Richard Stallman's warning - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman - there's been an incident like this: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/open-letter-to-google-why-have-you-taken-away-my-google-gmail-accounts/7873/ ...
Posted by: Felix Pleşoianu | October 28, 2008 10:18 PM
Checkout a PaaS provider called WOLF @
www.wolfframeworks.com :)
Posted by: Sumeet | October 28, 2008 10:20 PM
A nice company to deal with Saas complexity: www.runmyprocess.com
Posted by: brunest | October 29, 2008 2:44 AM
I expect more companies will take a hybrid approach by offering a combination of locally installed software along with SaaS. It provides traditional enterprise/desktop companies with a bridge for their existing customers - a bridge they can traverse at their pace rather than jump from one model to the other.
This is the tack we at SharedPlan are taking with our project management software: locally installed software (for Mac OS X and Windows) that work fine locally but also offers integration with our online tools (https://www.sharedplan.net).
Roger
www.sharedplan.com
Posted by: Roger Denton | October 29, 2008 8:39 AM
I am part of a company that uses the SaaS model to deliver our software service (social media monitoring). This is the second SaaS company I've been involved in. The acceptance issue boils down to a fundamental issue: Who you are marketing to. In my last company it was IT folks who are understandable wary of outsourcing something they currently manage, something arcane and complex. If they buy SaaS, they undermine their authority and possibly their viability.
With my current company we market to marketing people and I have not had a single instance of concern about the fact that we are SaaS. Not one. In fact, most are happy not to deal with hardware, software, upgrades, licenses, installs, etc. They just want the functionality.
It's not hard to see this as some people not having the best interests of their employers (and shareholders) at heart...
Posted by: Martin Edic | October 29, 2008 9:16 AM
Interested in: 1. Putting SaaS financing on an old product is simply the ASP model and that is terrible economics. You will report horrible results to investors for a long time before it turns positive.
Can anyone point to any resources about the difference between SaaS and ASP models? Or offer a further explanation of this point?
Posted by: chris | October 29, 2008 9:20 AM
@chris, lots of articles! Just google "SaaS vs. ASP"
Posted by: JP Seabury | October 30, 2008 2:57 PM
it is hard to survive in web space now a days without the use of SAAS
Posted by: Social Media Marketing Blog | October 30, 2008 4:02 PM
thanks. mantolama
Posted by: söve | November 17, 2008 5:31 AM