Comment by TheTaytay
1 day ago
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...
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.
Show me the high price on a web page so I can go "that's too much for this stingy old grump" rather than making me talk to one of your sales minions.
> rather than making me talk to one of your sales minions
talk to one of your sales minions 15 times in a month because at shyster school they teach you "no" is just one step on the path to a "yes"
Assume the price is too high for you if you have to talk to sales and go some where else, simple as that?
1 reply →
I agree with you on three things:
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."
But that doesn't mean that potential buyers who "hate calls" and prefer to know what something costs before-hand are "cheap." Many very expensive products list the price (or at least the maximum price, right on the website): [Luxury cars](https://www.mbusa.com/en/vehicles/build/g-class/suv), [Mansions](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1900-Spindrift-Dr-La-Joll...)...
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.
This is exactly what mediocre salespeople tell their bosses to keep their jobs.
It is, to put it politely, horseshit.
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.
> SpaceX tells you how much it costs to ship something INTO SPACE.
https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/
Not just that, they also plain tell you how much it costs to buy an entire rocket launch for yourself.
https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
To save a click, that PDF at this moment says clearly:
STANDARD PAYMENT PLAN [for Falcon 9] (through 2024) $69.75 M Up to 5.5 mT TO GTO
If they can put a specific base price on their website, so can any SaaS.
You can put the 7 figure price on your webpage but I assure you that no one will pay it without taking to you in person…
2 replies →
What's an mT? Millitonne?
1 reply →
> I bet you can figure out a way to tell me your SaaS price, in ballpark terms, and what it depends upon...
They can't if the price is arbitrary and subject to negotiation, like a car at a dealership. Not saying that happens everywhere or even most places, but it's one explanation.
This is true! And frankly, it's the most likely explanation. Even then, I'd appreciate a "starting/maximum" price (which is what car dealerships and home listings do). "This is the price, unless you want to spend the time trying to negotiate it down..."
If the pricing is made up of a number of complicated usage components, it would be great to give both a ballpark for a given description of usage, and a brief explanation as to what goes into the price.
I think sellers either forget how much more information they have than the buyer, or know, and try to take advantage of it.
One of the best conference talks I ever saw was from a pool contractor explaining that it is indeed hard to answer the question, "How much does a pool cost?" because it can vary SO MUCH. But he found that explaining the components of pricing, along with examples and ballparks, was more than sufficient, and that his business took off as a result of publishing that information, rather than hiding it behind a sales call. (Looked it up - this is not the exact talk I saw, but it was this guy: https://blog.hubspot.com/opinion/uattr/marcus-sheridan-hubsp...)