In the beginning we sold a product for a one-time fee. Every couple of years we'd release a (paid for) upgrade. The market was young, new features were obvious.
The company was funded by "new sales". Development, support, admin etc was all funded by sales.
As our customers grew, so our costs grew. Support goes up, so fine, we'll offer support contracts. But users typically don't sign up for these (but call support anyway and get pissed if we blow them off, or bill them.)
We make "updates" and sell those. But to do that we must "add features" (customers expect all bug fixes to be free forever). Adding features which offer true value becomes harder. Upgrade sales drop off, but now we have lots of different versions in the field.
Obviously sales plateaus at some point. The list of people receiving value goes up, the potential market gets smaller.
In short, the source of revenue and the receivers of value are disconnected. This is not sustainable. You are one or two bad sales months from closing up shop.
The optimal strategy for this business model is to find the sales peak, terminate all support, and accumulate as much from residual sales as possible.
We switched to a subscription model. Now those receiving value (updates, fixes, support, training, features etc) pay a known amount at a known time. We can budget, they can budget. If sales disappear current development and support can continue. (Aka Covid). Income and expenses are aligned.
We sell to business not consumers. While consumers might not like subscriptions, businesses love them. They allow for much simpler procurement (no sudden support or upgrade bills), assurance of longevity, reduced capital costs upfront.
We can grow headcount based on known income. We can grow sustainably without requiring sales to match.
Subscriptions work because the match income to expenses. Those who receive value pay for it in a sustainable way. It's as simple as that.
In the beginning we sold a product for a one-time fee. Every couple of years we'd release a (paid for) upgrade. The market was young, new features were obvious.
The company was funded by "new sales". Development, support, admin etc was all funded by sales.
As our customers grew, so our costs grew. Support goes up, so fine, we'll offer support contracts. But users typically don't sign up for these (but call support anyway and get pissed if we blow them off, or bill them.)
We make "updates" and sell those. But to do that we must "add features" (customers expect all bug fixes to be free forever). Adding features which offer true value becomes harder. Upgrade sales drop off, but now we have lots of different versions in the field.
Obviously sales plateaus at some point. The list of people receiving value goes up, the potential market gets smaller.
In short, the source of revenue and the receivers of value are disconnected. This is not sustainable. You are one or two bad sales months from closing up shop.
The optimal strategy for this business model is to find the sales peak, terminate all support, and accumulate as much from residual sales as possible.
We switched to a subscription model. Now those receiving value (updates, fixes, support, training, features etc) pay a known amount at a known time. We can budget, they can budget. If sales disappear current development and support can continue. (Aka Covid). Income and expenses are aligned.
We sell to business not consumers. While consumers might not like subscriptions, businesses love them. They allow for much simpler procurement (no sudden support or upgrade bills), assurance of longevity, reduced capital costs upfront.
We can grow headcount based on known income. We can grow sustainably without requiring sales to match.
Subscriptions work because the match income to expenses. Those who receive value pay for it in a sustainable way. It's as simple as that.