SaaS Growth: It’s Addictive
An interesting press release crossed my desk the other day, saying IDC is boosting its SaaS growth projection for 2009 from 36 percent to 42 percent over 2008. According to this leader in market research, surveys and customer interviews indicate the current economic downturn “will actually accelerate the growth prospects for the software-as-a-service model as vendors position offerings as right-sized, zero-CAPEX alternatives to on-premise applications.”
You won’t get any argument from me there. “Right-sized, zero-CAPEX” is exactly how we and every other sane SaaS vendor are positioning our offerings. And IDC’s market projections bear out the accelerated “growth prospects” part of the statement, including this formidable nugget: “The percentage of U.S. firms which plan to spend at least 25 percent of their IT budgets on SaaS applications will increase from 23 percent in 2008 to nearly 45 percent in 2010.”
But here’s the part of this announcement that really got my attention. Robert Mahowald, director of on-demand and SaaS research at IDC, was quoted as saying: "SaaS services have benefited by the perception that they are tactical fixes which allow for relatively easy expansion during hard times, and several key vendors finished the year very strong, reporting stable financials and inroads into new customer sets."
Well, SaaS can certainly be seen as a tactical fix, “allowing for easy expansion in hard times,” and I’m sure that many customers look at it that way, which is fine. But more to the point, SaaS is even more of a highly strategic, long-term investment, and that’s true in both good and bad times.
I will be surprised, very surprised, if an appreciable number of SaaS customers dump their on-demand applications in favor of on-premise solutions when the economy eventually rights itself. The excellent renewal rates enjoyed by SaaS leaders show that, once bitten by the SaaS bug, there’s little impetus to go back to on-premise solutions.
Meanwhile, sound SaaS vendors will be using their mounting revenues to continue enhancing their offerings and expanding their functionality – and doing so at a rate that may be difficult for many harder-pressed, on-premise vendors to counter during this recession.
In short, even before the present economic melt-down, it was clear that SaaS was approaching the tipping point vis a vis on-premise software. IDC’s insights reveal the tipping point is now a lot closer than anticipated. And once tipped, no matter what brought you to that point, it will be counter-intuitive to go back.

3 Comments:
It's great to see IDC and the other major analyst firms finally recognizing the market realities which we have seen for a while. THINKstrategies' latest SaaS survey findings, in conjunction w/Cutter Consortium, clearly show accelerating adoption along with extraordinary renewal, expansion and referral rates which are adding to the momentum, http://www.cutter.com/offers/saassurge.html
January 30, 2009 9:13 AM
1.
"I will be surprised, very surprised, if an appreciable number of SaaS customers dump their on-demand applications in favor of on-premise solutions when the economy eventually rights itself."
The capex argument weakens with every dollar DELL, IBM and CSCO knock off hardware costs. Remember economic dislocation (which SaaS bases it's argument on) is nothing but gaps between buyers and sellers writ large. It's just our recent version happens to be appreciably worse. So in theory the "righting" should incline clients back towards on premise, ceteris paribus.
2.
"And once tipped, no matter what brought you to that point, it will be counter-intuitive to go back."
I disagree. I'm not a big fan of just because. Again from a strict P&L mindset it's a cost argument (assuming no other quantifiable benefits for SaaS). Writ small if the costs of an administrator and a server are equal or within an acceptable premium to a licensing service clients will be more inclined to control their own assets (depreciation, tax, resale, etc)
It's totally empirical but if you think back to offshoring debates circa 2002 you'll remember most execs, partners, etc were willing to accept a 30% decrease in skill level to get a 50%-75% decrease in pay. Now how they measured skill beyond quantifiable production is beyond me, but I digress. Comparing to SaaS (which is a form of outsouring) I would think unless you inject new thought into the debate it will devolve into the same debate but with different and possibly more competitive margins.
In the end if the hardware providers don't find some relocation in selling more of their stuff to SaaS firms (Xactly) instead of clients (not zero sum) then price points will come down to levels more conducive to selling to P&L focused clients.
But the good news is in this scenario (i.e. CSCO, Xactly, Client) the fulcrum will be the SaaS firm! Since the sell in and of itself is fungible from the hardware providers perspective (they don't care if they sell to a SaaS firm or client) then as prices become more attractive it will be the SaaS firm's responsiblity to make quantifiable IRR/NPV (not nebulous ROI) cases for their services clients based on additional value levers. What are they? Idk. I've got to read some more on SaaS.
Kerek Taylor
cariboucrossing.blogspot.com
February 14, 2009 2:29 PM
Kerek-
Thanks for the thoughts. I would encourage you to continue to read up on SaaS to better understand the inherent benefits. Your responses seem to suggest two arguments that are flawed IMHO. Firstly, that one of the primary advantages to SaaS is the avoidance of large hardware expenses. While not having to invest in hardware is certainly a benefit, it is just one of many reasons companies of all sizes are flocking to SaaS. These additional benefits include risk mitigation (no more shelf-ware), ensuring they are always on the latest version (no more re-implementations/upgrades), dramatically reduced implementations (in the comp world, implementations can run into the millions of dollars – dwarfing the costs of HW), little to no IT involvement, security (no more critical comp data stolen on the laptop left in the car)…the list goes on and on…but I think I have made my point. The second flawed argument is your comparison of SaaS to the “offshoring debates circa 2002”. This argument seems to presuppose that a SaaS solution, by its sheer nature, has less functionality than its on-premise comparable. This, of course, is patently false. In many cases (e.g. Xactly) the SaaS model provides for functionality and features that are enhanced and/or made possible as a result of the technology . One good example in our space is the ability to provide customers and partners a published API. This is made possible because the multi-tenant approach maintains a single data schema and it allows customers and partners to create valuable integrations to other SaaS applications - -such as single sign on to an on-demand CRM tool like Oracle, SFDC or Microsoft. Smart customers understand that they don’t need to settle for less, but rather expect more!
C
August 13, 2009 4:54 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home