Ask HN: What to do when your once potential competitor becomes a real competitor
41 comments
Don't compete on price, per se. Compete on value. Value is related to price, but it's not the same thing. Identify the customer segment(s) you believe you're building for, and that your competitors might not be -- either because they have to go broad, or because they're focused on a segment or two themselves. Then really nail the value prop and solution for the segments you're targeting. You'll probably want to price cheaper than the big guys, but it's not to position yourself as "basically the same thing, but less expensive." Instead, it's to position yourself as the simpler, easier, case-specifically better solution for a certain type of customer.
Patio11 puts it well, as usual. Especially this paragraph:
"Is their product generic? Make yours hyper-specific. Is their product hyper-customized? Make yours the 'It only does 10% of what the other guy does, but it is the right 10%, and it actually works out of the box.'"
The good news is that $1B+ companies usually can't afford to target niches. Their divisions are expected to move the needle for, well, a $1B+ business. This puts enormous pressure on them to develop big, broad solutions that are maybe 75% adequate for as close to 100% of the market as they can reach. This is a strategic vulnerability that strongly favors the smaller player. It's one of the very few advantages a smaller player has in competition with a big player, particularly in the SaaS space.
Patio11 puts it well, as usual. Especially this paragraph:
"Is their product generic? Make yours hyper-specific. Is their product hyper-customized? Make yours the 'It only does 10% of what the other guy does, but it is the right 10%, and it actually works out of the box.'"
The good news is that $1B+ companies usually can't afford to target niches. Their divisions are expected to move the needle for, well, a $1B+ business. This puts enormous pressure on them to develop big, broad solutions that are maybe 75% adequate for as close to 100% of the market as they can reach. This is a strategic vulnerability that strongly favors the smaller player. It's one of the very few advantages a smaller player has in competition with a big player, particularly in the SaaS space.
"The good news is that $1B+ companies usually can't afford to target niches. Their divisions are expected to move the needle for, well, a $1B+ business. "
100% agreed. May I suggest OP to pick up "The Innovator's Dilemma / The Innovator's Solution", which really brings the point home on why targeting niches and/or 'lower' marketing segments can be a good strategy.
100% agreed. May I suggest OP to pick up "The Innovator's Dilemma / The Innovator's Solution", which really brings the point home on why targeting niches and/or 'lower' marketing segments can be a good strategy.
Agreed on creating and competing on value.
The established competitor may be following this cycle while pricing: Service -> Cost -> Price -> Value -> Customer
By trying value based pricing you flip that around: Customer -> Value -> Price -> Cost -> Service
The established competitor may be following this cycle while pricing: Service -> Cost -> Price -> Value -> Customer
By trying value based pricing you flip that around: Customer -> Value -> Price -> Cost -> Service
Totally agree. I think the key will be to find right values I can provide in a limited timeframe to target customers before getting down the path of completing version1.
Can you walk me through the thought process of why a competitor existing means you abandon this idea? Are they so central to your industry that they can immediately lock up 100% of the market? Are they going to be cross-selling from something which is more widely distributed in your niche than say Quickbooks or Microsoft Office?
Don't compete on price. Enterprise customers care about it a lot less than you do, and enterprise customers are not motivated to purchase by "We saved a few thousand bucks and I lost my job because the deployment blew up in our face." I'd be far more worried about that sales objection than the existence of a competitor.
You can probably compete on many other axes. One of my competitors has 400 employees, at least 20 of whom answer phones with customer questions. I have 0 employees, intentionally don't have a routable phone number, and self-assess at mediocre in terms of responsiveness to email. And I win sales dogfights with that company, occasionally, because prospects believe I'll offer them better CS. (The winning argument, which I've stolen fragrantly from Jason Cohen, is "You can call them up at any hour, day or night, and instantly speak to someone who can't solve your problem. Or you can drop me an email, and it may take me two days to get to it, but your email will always be answered by the guy who built the system with his own hands. Your call who you want in charge of your questions when it is your business on the line.")
There are other options, such as competing on market segmentation. Your competitor, for example, might serve primarily a healthcare market. If the same need exists outside of healthcare, you can target your marketing/development over there, and make a product which really sings for those other audiences. Is their product generic? Make yours hyper-specific. Is their product hyper-customized? Make yours the "It only does 10% of what the other guy does, but it is the right 10%, and it actually works out of the box."
How do they market/sell it? Is it one of those "Ask for a quote and we'll let you speak to a sales rep?" type of deals. Consider selling via a lower-touch sales model. Worse comes to worse, you learn why high-touch sales is so darn popular.
Also, to impart on you as early as possible the Voice of Pained SaaS Founder Experience: pause building for a moment and verify that you can successfully sell this. If necessary, you can have mockups or a minimally functional prototype to support the sales conversation. There are many worthwhile SaaS products which cannot be sold by a single founder into particular enterprises, so knowing whether your product is saleable or not given your constraints is a useful sanity check on whether to spend the rest of the schedule building it out.
Selling SaaS which doesn't exist is fairly straightforward. Find a customer. Ask them to buy it. Note why they tell you "No." Adjust until you have gotten a "Yes." Now, repeat at least 5 times. Then, finish building it.
If you cannot find a customer, or you can find the customer but can't get the right decisionmaker internally to get the time of day, or your customer doesn't consider this a hair-on-fire priority, or your current conception of the product doesn't match things they budget for, or any of a thousand other things systematically happen to block sales, then building the software does not in itself cure those sales problems.
Incidentally, the number of enterprise deals which you have to close to have a very good living as a solo founder is somewhere between one and twenty. Their billion dollar valuation might be sustained by a team of stab-their-own-mother-for-a-commission-check reps being fed the Glengarry leads from the best marketing operation in enterprise software, but even they don't win every deal. Table scraps are delicious if the table is very big relative to the dog.
Don't compete on price. Enterprise customers care about it a lot less than you do, and enterprise customers are not motivated to purchase by "We saved a few thousand bucks and I lost my job because the deployment blew up in our face." I'd be far more worried about that sales objection than the existence of a competitor.
You can probably compete on many other axes. One of my competitors has 400 employees, at least 20 of whom answer phones with customer questions. I have 0 employees, intentionally don't have a routable phone number, and self-assess at mediocre in terms of responsiveness to email. And I win sales dogfights with that company, occasionally, because prospects believe I'll offer them better CS. (The winning argument, which I've stolen fragrantly from Jason Cohen, is "You can call them up at any hour, day or night, and instantly speak to someone who can't solve your problem. Or you can drop me an email, and it may take me two days to get to it, but your email will always be answered by the guy who built the system with his own hands. Your call who you want in charge of your questions when it is your business on the line.")
There are other options, such as competing on market segmentation. Your competitor, for example, might serve primarily a healthcare market. If the same need exists outside of healthcare, you can target your marketing/development over there, and make a product which really sings for those other audiences. Is their product generic? Make yours hyper-specific. Is their product hyper-customized? Make yours the "It only does 10% of what the other guy does, but it is the right 10%, and it actually works out of the box."
How do they market/sell it? Is it one of those "Ask for a quote and we'll let you speak to a sales rep?" type of deals. Consider selling via a lower-touch sales model. Worse comes to worse, you learn why high-touch sales is so darn popular.
Also, to impart on you as early as possible the Voice of Pained SaaS Founder Experience: pause building for a moment and verify that you can successfully sell this. If necessary, you can have mockups or a minimally functional prototype to support the sales conversation. There are many worthwhile SaaS products which cannot be sold by a single founder into particular enterprises, so knowing whether your product is saleable or not given your constraints is a useful sanity check on whether to spend the rest of the schedule building it out.
Selling SaaS which doesn't exist is fairly straightforward. Find a customer. Ask them to buy it. Note why they tell you "No." Adjust until you have gotten a "Yes." Now, repeat at least 5 times. Then, finish building it.
If you cannot find a customer, or you can find the customer but can't get the right decisionmaker internally to get the time of day, or your customer doesn't consider this a hair-on-fire priority, or your current conception of the product doesn't match things they budget for, or any of a thousand other things systematically happen to block sales, then building the software does not in itself cure those sales problems.
Incidentally, the number of enterprise deals which you have to close to have a very good living as a solo founder is somewhere between one and twenty. Their billion dollar valuation might be sustained by a team of stab-their-own-mother-for-a-commission-check reps being fed the Glengarry leads from the best marketing operation in enterprise software, but even they don't win every deal. Table scraps are delicious if the table is very big relative to the dog.
Fantastic answer!
One thing to add, is that if you have a big market, and they get 90% of it, 5% of it to you, might be enough to be successful. You are worrying too much about their product instead of improving your own.
As Patrick also said, go out and talk to customers. Often you don't need a finished product. What we did, was actually quite different, we talked to a bunch of customers _before_ we began developing the product. We did that for two reasons.
1) Get to know your customers, and learn about their pain points. Try not to fix all their issues, but if you can find a few common issues and fix 80% of their problems, you are in for success.
2) By talking to them you got your first beta testers. Let them in before your are finished (You shouldn't have any errors, but you might lack some features (we didn't have a change password for starters)).
This relationship will make it easier to sell to the customers, because you have listened to their issues, and actually fixed their problems.
One thing to add, is that if you have a big market, and they get 90% of it, 5% of it to you, might be enough to be successful. You are worrying too much about their product instead of improving your own.
As Patrick also said, go out and talk to customers. Often you don't need a finished product. What we did, was actually quite different, we talked to a bunch of customers _before_ we began developing the product. We did that for two reasons.
1) Get to know your customers, and learn about their pain points. Try not to fix all their issues, but if you can find a few common issues and fix 80% of their problems, you are in for success.
2) By talking to them you got your first beta testers. Let them in before your are finished (You shouldn't have any errors, but you might lack some features (we didn't have a change password for starters)).
This relationship will make it easier to sell to the customers, because you have listened to their issues, and actually fixed their problems.
I do not necessarily want to fight on the Price but that is the only variable I can think of and start attracting smaller customers (who cannot afford my competitors pricing structure). This competitor seems to have brought in all the bells and whistles alongside the core of the product. My plan was to only focus on core pieces and get to side features as I start getting customer interest. Besides that, the customers buying their flag-ship product will find it useful to buy this product alongside. They both will complement well. I do think their vision seems to be different from mine where they are focused on various categories and I am on one niche.
Thanks for all the various options you've highlighted. I do feel compelled to try building out the core services to see if I can compete in certain markets. My biggest concern being unable to dedicate myself full-time unless it starts bringing in revenue I need to pay up for my bills. If you do not mind, I would like to send you a PM with info of my product site.
Thanks for all the various options you've highlighted. I do feel compelled to try building out the core services to see if I can compete in certain markets. My biggest concern being unable to dedicate myself full-time unless it starts bringing in revenue I need to pay up for my bills. If you do not mind, I would like to send you a PM with info of my product site.
I do not necessarily want to fight on the Price but that is the only variable I can think of and start attracting smaller customers (who cannot afford my competitors pricing structure)
Going after people who are systematically excluded by a competitor is not necessarily "competing on price" even if you happen to have lower average account sizes as a result. That can work fairly well. My largest competitor basically tosses you from their sales process if your account is worth less than $1k a month. Most of my customers are worth <= $200. It isn't just a pricing decision, though -- it informs how I do sales (high-touch vs. low-touch), what markets they go after vs ones I go after (healthcare vs. a bit more eclectic for me), feature decisions, etc.
Feel free to send me an email. If I don't get back to you, it wasn't anything you said, it was just my newborn daughter keeping me busy.
Going after people who are systematically excluded by a competitor is not necessarily "competing on price" even if you happen to have lower average account sizes as a result. That can work fairly well. My largest competitor basically tosses you from their sales process if your account is worth less than $1k a month. Most of my customers are worth <= $200. It isn't just a pricing decision, though -- it informs how I do sales (high-touch vs. low-touch), what markets they go after vs ones I go after (healthcare vs. a bit more eclectic for me), feature decisions, etc.
Feel free to send me an email. If I don't get back to you, it wasn't anything you said, it was just my newborn daughter keeping me busy.
Ohhh, hey Patrick, congratulations on a new addition to your family! :)
I've been following your writing for quite a while now, and i love it :)
Heartiest congratulations again :D
I've been following your writing for quite a while now, and i love it :)
Heartiest congratulations again :D
Support (try calling google) and analysis (how to implement, how it could fit within their existing processes/systems). Your commitment (much like the pig regarding breakfast, you're committed to this). Speed/flexibility (how quick can a bug be fixed, how quick have new features been rolled out). Fit/complexity (less bells and whistles means less ways to go wrong, aka one thing really well). And I'm sure there's more... but I'm out of coffee :)
Developer's often see price as a big factor when it's not. Will the solution work and will I get promoted/fired for picking a solution are often far higher on the list than price.
Developer's often see price as a big factor when it's not. Will the solution work and will I get promoted/fired for picking a solution are often far higher on the list than price.
This competitor seems to have brought in all the bells and whistles alongside the core of the product
I'm using a SaaS product that offers a lot of bells and whistles. However they seem to be (and I'm sure were) added to the product to meet one customer's needs. So they are not bells and whistles I need, and they complicate functions that should be simple. A form that has 20 fields, 16 of which I learned I can ignore, added a huge congnitive load as I was trying to learn the software.
Do not feel you need to build out bells and whistles or even the complete vision you have for the core product before you try to sell. Identify one pain point your customers have and solve that well. That will get their attention and you can have the conversation about other core features to come.
I'm using a SaaS product that offers a lot of bells and whistles. However they seem to be (and I'm sure were) added to the product to meet one customer's needs. So they are not bells and whistles I need, and they complicate functions that should be simple. A form that has 20 fields, 16 of which I learned I can ignore, added a huge congnitive load as I was trying to learn the software.
Do not feel you need to build out bells and whistles or even the complete vision you have for the core product before you try to sell. Identify one pain point your customers have and solve that well. That will get their attention and you can have the conversation about other core features to come.
in my product offering, we focus on the core features and making them rock solid versus a larger competitor who has all the bells and whistles. you will lose some to the whole "they have it all" but a lot of logical people will see it as a better business decision to purchase something that the stakeholders will actually use.
we're actually more expensive then our competitor and bring professionals over to our offering all the time due to simplicity and most of all, availability. we win on customer service/support and enterprises (especially ENTERPRISES) are willing to pay for it.
I can't explain how many times we walk into the next enterprise and ask for more per user and astonishingly, they don't bat an eye. one day, we'll hit the price point of "wait what?" and we'll come back down but it blows our minds how much you can charge because your product clearly adds value.
we're actually more expensive then our competitor and bring professionals over to our offering all the time due to simplicity and most of all, availability. we win on customer service/support and enterprises (especially ENTERPRISES) are willing to pay for it.
I can't explain how many times we walk into the next enterprise and ask for more per user and astonishingly, they don't bat an eye. one day, we'll hit the price point of "wait what?" and we'll come back down but it blows our minds how much you can charge because your product clearly adds value.
Besides that, the customers buying their flag-ship product will find it useful to buy this product alongside
Is the reverse of this also true? That is, is your competitor's (new) product _less useful_ if I don't have their flagship product?
Is that a large enough niche for your to be targeting?
Is there a big competitor to their flagship product? Could you target your product at companies that have chosen that suite?
Is the reverse of this also true? That is, is your competitor's (new) product _less useful_ if I don't have their flagship product?
Is that a large enough niche for your to be targeting?
Is there a big competitor to their flagship product? Could you target your product at companies that have chosen that suite?
Never compete on price in enterprise. You compete on value prop and ROI - it's the profit and/or savings using your product will bring that are relevant, not the pure license costs. Price also signals worth, you get what you pay for, etc.
As for the competition - compete. Don't assume just because a large corp announces something their product will be good, useful, successful. Might just be programmed in Powerpoint for all you know.
As for the competition - compete. Don't assume just because a large corp announces something their product will be good, useful, successful. Might just be programmed in Powerpoint for all you know.
"Never compete on price in enterprise"
That's a pretty blanket statement. I work for a relatively large service company, and we're looking to make a big purchase (a replacement of the core system), and one of the main decision points is price, especially because there are orders of magnitude in difference between several competitors.
In the market we're evaluating there are:
- a dominant, best of breed solution, which is priced out of the budget
- several good systems that can't compete with the dominant one and thus either compete on niches or price
- several decent systems by companies that serve a geographic region
- several small systems for niche companies.
The price differences range from a 22.000 dollar quote to a seven million dollar quote (and both were tossed out).
Between similarly-priced products, yes, price is not a factor.
One point which might be of interest is that we're valuing the user experience a lot - our previous software "ticked all the boxes" feature-wise but is an unusable mess, and the best-rated product among the mid-sized ones also has the same problem (maybe designed to win feature-checkbox government or bigco contract bids).
I only hope the people which will actually make the decision listen to the technical sides' arguments and don't go for the feature-rich but bad-UX solution (I also expect bad UX to be a proxy for yet-to-be-discovered hidden limitations).
That's a pretty blanket statement. I work for a relatively large service company, and we're looking to make a big purchase (a replacement of the core system), and one of the main decision points is price, especially because there are orders of magnitude in difference between several competitors.
In the market we're evaluating there are:
- a dominant, best of breed solution, which is priced out of the budget
- several good systems that can't compete with the dominant one and thus either compete on niches or price
- several decent systems by companies that serve a geographic region
- several small systems for niche companies.
The price differences range from a 22.000 dollar quote to a seven million dollar quote (and both were tossed out).
Between similarly-priced products, yes, price is not a factor.
One point which might be of interest is that we're valuing the user experience a lot - our previous software "ticked all the boxes" feature-wise but is an unusable mess, and the best-rated product among the mid-sized ones also has the same problem (maybe designed to win feature-checkbox government or bigco contract bids).
I only hope the people which will actually make the decision listen to the technical sides' arguments and don't go for the feature-rich but bad-UX solution (I also expect bad UX to be a proxy for yet-to-be-discovered hidden limitations).
One thing that helped me in the past is differentiating on how fast I could move the deployment / customization of our solution vs. a larger competitor. The service we offered was pretty complex in terms of business requirements (periodic, enterprise-wide, hierarchical data collection of say 10-15 schedules with workflows, status reporting, followups, etc) and it took our larger competitors ~2-3+ months to turn the deployment. One tactic I employed was to ask the prospect for an excel spreadsheets they used in the past and customize the system a bit before the presentation. This had a big wow factor since we already had something that looked familiar and was almost there, made my contacts look good in front of their bosses and eleviated most of the deployment risk (savvy clients really understood that most of the risk was in deployment). We were often able to commit to ~2 week deployment and that made a huge difference. We were winning really large accounts, too (Fortune 100s). Now, this may not scale, but that's a beauty of an early startup - you get to and should do things that may not ultimately scale and may win as a result of that.
1- The most important lessons learned from building are watching the product and yourself fail and remembering those lessons for next time.
2- You still haven't failed yet. You haven't launched yet. You haven't run out of money yet. Why would you quit? Don't you want to see how people respond to your product?
3- If you stop now your greatest competitor is you. Not the other guy. You'll just destroy your chance at money, growth, and learning some awesome lessons in launching a Saas.
4- If you quit you will have spent 2 months working on this for nothing.
2- You still haven't failed yet. You haven't launched yet. You haven't run out of money yet. Why would you quit? Don't you want to see how people respond to your product?
3- If you stop now your greatest competitor is you. Not the other guy. You'll just destroy your chance at money, growth, and learning some awesome lessons in launching a Saas.
4- If you quit you will have spent 2 months working on this for nothing.
What if you've spent x months focusing on the product instead of the business (ie, not seeing what potential customers think early on), get to roll-out point and hit a roadblock? A roadblock that lets you pause for a second to realize the product reach may be quite limited vs another path that you could've gone with from the start.
This is my situation. As for your 4 points, I realize all of that now and totally agree with it, but I do wonder about the certainly larger market if I'd go down the other path now.
This is my situation. As for your 4 points, I realize all of that now and totally agree with it, but I do wonder about the certainly larger market if I'd go down the other path now.
[deleted]
If you're already worried about competitors and looking to compete merely on price, I'm afraid you might not be cut out for this. For starters, I would highly doubt that you and this big company would be going after the same customers. It's relatively easy to find niches that big companies can't or don't want to serve.
I see your point. My worry is mostly on the lines of wether I can fight with them as a solo founder working part-time on this. But on further analysis, I feel there is a chance of holding a good fight by focusing on certain niche markets as you've highlighted.
A couple of points:
Find a vertical niche that you can dominate and build out from there. If it's a new area, or a relatively new area, your competitor can't build a product that will appeal to everyone. So you two may not even compete head to head for a while. And since you're small, you're probably more nimble and can make a better reputation. And you won't have to compete on price -- you might even be able to charge more than they can once you have a few customers.
Once you start a company (assuming you do) you can offer stock that costs less for a larger stake in the company than your competitor could. The only people who want to work for Google or Facebook are those who work for the salary -- the stock is high priced and isn't going to go up by any appreciable multiple. So in addition to the fun and terror of working for a startup, you have something the other guy can't offer.
Find a vertical niche that you can dominate and build out from there. If it's a new area, or a relatively new area, your competitor can't build a product that will appeal to everyone. So you two may not even compete head to head for a while. And since you're small, you're probably more nimble and can make a better reputation. And you won't have to compete on price -- you might even be able to charge more than they can once you have a few customers.
Once you start a company (assuming you do) you can offer stock that costs less for a larger stake in the company than your competitor could. The only people who want to work for Google or Facebook are those who work for the salary -- the stock is high priced and isn't going to go up by any appreciable multiple. So in addition to the fun and terror of working for a startup, you have something the other guy can't offer.
I recently chose an invoicing/payment provider. And also a gateway/merchant. For each of those there are at least 10 solid offerings in my price range. I ended up making my choices based on really specific features I preferred when anyone else looking at the situation would think they're all comparable. The world's a big place and people will choose you.
Furthermore, sales is a powerful skill if used right and striking up an email conversation can be more persuasive than a bullet list of features or meeting some price-point. And when you're building you're product from scratch you're in a great position to add features based on initial feedback and build the product that at least a small set of users really want. I think solo technical founders have an enormous advantage here as there's no obstacle to reform the product in an early stage.
Furthermore, sales is a powerful skill if used right and striking up an email conversation can be more persuasive than a bullet list of features or meeting some price-point. And when you're building you're product from scratch you're in a great position to add features based on initial feedback and build the product that at least a small set of users really want. I think solo technical founders have an enormous advantage here as there's no obstacle to reform the product in an early stage.
It's unlikely that a competitor with only a $1bn market cap building a similar product to you will be the reason you are or aren't successful unless they're OTHER product makes their new, more similar to yours offering more valuable by extension.
Unless you're certain that their product will be much better than yours no matter what and they've gotten it exactly right, just learn from them and keep going. However I should reiterate: if you think their product is perfect or close, don't keep going. I've seen people do this and there's no point - you've lost the passion for the project at that point because you'll just stare at their product and wish your product could be like that. You won't think critically and differentiate, you'll just try to catch up.
Unless you're certain that their product will be much better than yours no matter what and they've gotten it exactly right, just learn from them and keep going. However I should reiterate: if you think their product is perfect or close, don't keep going. I've seen people do this and there's no point - you've lost the passion for the project at that point because you'll just stare at their product and wish your product could be like that. You won't think critically and differentiate, you'll just try to catch up.
It is good to be aware of competition but if you constantly compare yourself to others you will either be too good or not good enough, which leads to laziness and chasing the leader respectively.
Being first is nice but just the fact that there is competition is some validation that the service is needed. Better to compete early rather than when it is a commodity down the line. Being early but not first does have some advantages as it is market research. The "Google wasn't the first search engine" line of thought.
Being first is nice but just the fact that there is competition is some validation that the service is needed. Better to compete early rather than when it is a commodity down the line. Being early but not first does have some advantages as it is market research. The "Google wasn't the first search engine" line of thought.
The bells and whistles comment struck a chord with me. That can be a tremendous advantage to you if the company bundles all those features. Go talk to customers and find out how many of the features they actually use. If they only use 15-20 percent of the features then focus on that small subset of features and do it better than the big guy. If the majority of users use the majority of the product then I think you will have an uphill battle. Think about your customers not your competitors.
FWIW I personally don't buy any products or services for my business, that are backed by a one man company. The risk that you may get sick or bored or bought out or hit by a bus, etc. is too high.
If you're not a sales ninja, you'll have to finish building the product, before you get any sales. Contact your competitor competitors, see if they'll be interested in cooperating.
If you're not a sales ninja, you'll have to finish building the product, before you get any sales. Contact your competitor competitors, see if they'll be interested in cooperating.
One can very easily check whether one's target customers are averse to dealing with a one-man shop. Ask them to buy your thing. If they don't ask "Are you a one-man shop?", they are not averse to dealing with one-man shops.
A surprising number of enterprise customers are not averse to dealing with one-man shops. It blows my mind at least once a week.
Supposing that a customer does give you the one-man shop objection, you don't say "Oh rats, well, good luck then." You summon your founder gumption and say "Sure thing, I understand that you want to buy this software but have understandable reservations about dealing with a one-man company. What can we do to fix this? Help me understand this a bit more -- is this coming from you? From other stakeholders? Corporate policy? You had a bad experience once?"
After probing for the nature of the objection, you can offer solutions to it.
You might go out of business: I've answered this before. "I've been in business since 2006 and profitable every year since then. Nobody knows what the future holds, but I'm cautiously optimistic. I'd hate to get a real job."
You might get hit by a bus: "I certainly hope I don't get hit by a bus but I'll be extra careful crossing streets, just for you! pause for laughter No, seriously speaking, I totally understand how you guys need business continuity for core services. What if we had a written business continuity plan? Would that help? I can have lawyers and a well-regarded tech firm get one together for us as soon as you get me a LOI."
We need code escrow: "Who is your preferred vendor for code escrow? Great, we'd be happy to work with them. Tabling that issue for a moment, is there anything else you need from me, or can we proceed to the next step?"
You could break stuff: "We carry an industry-standard Errors and Omissions insurance policy in the amount of $1 million. The insurance company was happy to write this policy because we take steps like X, Y, Z to make sure that we don't break stuff. Does $1 million sound adequate?" -> "Great then, we're covered." or "Interesting. Help me understand how you're arriving at your number for how much is at stake here. I'd be happy to quote you for services commensurate with the value you get out of our system, and we'll only move forward if I can get our insurance underwriter to approve that level of coverage."
A surprising number of enterprise customers are not averse to dealing with one-man shops. It blows my mind at least once a week.
Supposing that a customer does give you the one-man shop objection, you don't say "Oh rats, well, good luck then." You summon your founder gumption and say "Sure thing, I understand that you want to buy this software but have understandable reservations about dealing with a one-man company. What can we do to fix this? Help me understand this a bit more -- is this coming from you? From other stakeholders? Corporate policy? You had a bad experience once?"
After probing for the nature of the objection, you can offer solutions to it.
You might go out of business: I've answered this before. "I've been in business since 2006 and profitable every year since then. Nobody knows what the future holds, but I'm cautiously optimistic. I'd hate to get a real job."
You might get hit by a bus: "I certainly hope I don't get hit by a bus but I'll be extra careful crossing streets, just for you! pause for laughter No, seriously speaking, I totally understand how you guys need business continuity for core services. What if we had a written business continuity plan? Would that help? I can have lawyers and a well-regarded tech firm get one together for us as soon as you get me a LOI."
We need code escrow: "Who is your preferred vendor for code escrow? Great, we'd be happy to work with them. Tabling that issue for a moment, is there anything else you need from me, or can we proceed to the next step?"
You could break stuff: "We carry an industry-standard Errors and Omissions insurance policy in the amount of $1 million. The insurance company was happy to write this policy because we take steps like X, Y, Z to make sure that we don't break stuff. Does $1 million sound adequate?" -> "Great then, we're covered." or "Interesting. Help me understand how you're arriving at your number for how much is at stake here. I'd be happy to quote you for services commensurate with the value you get out of our system, and we'll only move forward if I can get our insurance underwriter to approve that level of coverage."
I am a one-man shop and sell software in the enterprise space. I also have competitors and while I see my product as very different, a lot of my work goes into educating my market about why.
Most of my customers are household names and they're not averse to dealing with my one-man shop. It doesn't even come up. Their staff wants my software and they work their process to buy it. That's it.
I have not had to answer any of these objections (thankfully). I'd probably pass on the customer if they came up.
Most of my customers are household names and they're not averse to dealing with my one-man shop. It doesn't even come up. Their staff wants my software and they work their process to buy it. That's it.
I have not had to answer any of these objections (thankfully). I'd probably pass on the customer if they came up.
Like patio said, don't compete on price. Later you will find out your product is worth what your competitor is charging and you'll feel bad about it. Most importantly, your competitor might have many employees, but be sure that the team working on that specific product is small. This is exactly the mentality that Steve Wozniak had when Apple first started.
You should definitely continue with your product, and you've now got a big stamp of product validation in terms of a huge company putting resources into the same market. To be clear, you should still do your own validation study (get your own product in front of customers) but I see this as good news that confirms you're heading in the right direction.
You've lost First-Mover Advantage, that's all. I'm sure your business model was premised on more than simply doing something first, wasn't it?
if there are no competitors, there likely is no market. ideas are rarely unique (and even when unique, are quickly imitated). execution is everything. don't see increased competition as a bad thing. Rather, view it as confirmation you are onto something. keep going. be prepared to fight. and do it better.
You have more freedom to iterate your product than them :-)
But now I see my potential competitor also rolling out the same product I am making. They have a $1b market cap, have a large customer base and I can imagine they would find it easy to sell it than I do. I was sure that this would happen some day but not so soon. Their offering seems good enough to entice customers. The only thing I can compete with them right now is Price. They charge a lot for their product and I can beat it by being a fraction of what they charge.
I am currently confused wether to continue building or give up and start-over on something else?