Enterprise System Spectator blog: ERP and enterprise system vendor evaluation, selection, and implementation.

The Enterprise System Spectator

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Enterprise software: who wants to be the low-cost leader?

As enterprise software matures as an industry, why haven't we yet seen a major player competing on the basis of lowest cost? If anything, the major players--SAP and Oracle--seem to be moving in the opposite direction, raising maintenance fees and pursuing even higher margins.

SaaS as One Answer
As I wrote in the previous post, Attacking and defending software vendor maintenance fees, I think this situation is unsustainable in terms of the economics. I also listed several possible market responses to this situation, including the rise of software-as-a-service providers to provide a low-cost alternative.

Then today, I received a confirmation: Chris Kanaracus at Computerworld emailed me the latest missive from Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com. It's supposedly an email to his management team, but Chris received it from Benioff's PR group, so the audience is clearly the general public.

Benioff writes,
It's time for The End of Maintenance. Every year, companies spend billions on maintenance fees and get relatively little in return. Maintenance fees cover updates that are mostly patches and fixes, but they stop far short of the kind of innovation every that enterprise needs to survive. Companies pay to keep the past working and they end up doubling down on technology that can never keep up with their needs. The fees that companies pay have actually been rising, from something like 17% a few years ago to numbers more like 22% today. Every four or five years, companies are paying for their software all over again.
Benioff is right to take this approach. A large part of the so-called investment that traditional on-premise software vendors, such as SAP and Oracle, make in product development does not go toward new products or new functionality. Rather it goes into porting and regression testing every product change against myriad combinations of databases, versions, server and desktop OS releases, middleware, third-party products, and other platform components. SaaS vendors avoid many of these costs as they write to a single platform: their own. Therefore, they ought to be able to deliver the same functionality for lower cost. In other words, they have a natural cost advantage that they can exploit in competing with traditional on-premise software vendors.

And this does not take into consideration the fact that SAP and Oracle are realizing gross margins somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% on their software maintenance revenue. It would seem that beating these guys on the basis of price should be a pretty easy target.

Disruption of a low-cost strategy
As industries mature, the basis of competition generally moves to price. In fact, there are really only two strategic alternatives for a business: low-cost leader and differentiation (everything else). For example, in retailing, Wal-Mart competes as the low-cost leader. Wal-Mart's entire business model is designed to give it a cost-advantage, resulting in its ability to be the low-cost leader.

Nordstrom, on the other hand, competes on the basis of being different, mainly on the basis of customer service. Nordstrom's entire operation is organized to give excellent customer service.

Today, nearly all of the traditional software vendors compete on the basis of their products being better, and therefore commanding a higher price--either the initial license fee, or more commonly, high annual maintenance fees. But these days it is difficult to differentiate SAP, Oracle, or other vendors on the basis of functionality. In many ERP vendor selections, the leading enterprise software products can check all the boxes—so where is the differentiation?

Perhaps the large vendors think they can be the Nordstrom of enterprise software. If so, they should learn from Nordstrom, as it is difficult to find any buyer that would describe the customer service experience of enterprise software vendors to be "excellent."

So, the time may be right--especially in light of current economic conditions--for some vendors, especially the SaaS providers, to come out and use their inherent cost advantage to compete on price.

If Marc Benioff wants to take the lead, more power to him.

Side note: as I'm writing this, I see Dennis Howlett is making a similar point, about open source business apps gaining ground due to their lower cost. "Low-cost leader" may not sound like the place where enterprise software providers would want to be. But there's nothing special about business applications: as the industry matures, cost must become a dominant element of competition.

Update, Apr. 29. Read Vinnie Mirchandani's post on the same theme today: What Cloud vendors can learn from Southwest Airlines.

And, Dennis Howlett points out that open source CRM SaaS provider SugarCRM just announced a price cut yesterday. It's a long post, worth reading, as Dennis goes into the economic advantage that SugarCRM is enjoying. This very much confirms my point that we may very well be entering into a phase where some enterprise software providers can succeed with a low-cost-leader strategy. Read: Sugar CRM reduces prices across the board, looking for broad adoption.

Now Vinnie points out that SAP has announced a postponement of its maintenance price hike. Maybe SAP is finally seeing that raising maintenance fees is an untenable position, especially in this economy.

And be sure to read the comments on this post, as there is much good discussion.

Related posts
Attacking and defending software vendor maintenance fees
Infor's opportunity: value in maintenance and support
Open source ERP and CRM carry strong ROI
Computer Economics: The Business Case for Software as a Service

by Frank Scavo, 4/28/2009 12:31:00 PM | permalink | e-mail this!

 Reader Comments:

Frank - the tyranny of maintenance fees has long been a sore spot for users, and yet they keep on paying (and asking for surprisingly little in return). And they are not immune from economic hard times, something we highlighted to clients months ago. However, SaaS and open source have yet to prove they are cheaper alternatives (again, something we highlighted in 2007). For all the hand waving, why has no one, Salesforce included, sponsored in independent ROI and TCO analysis. The short answer is simple - add up the costs of CRM or mySQL or pick your favorite product, and the 5 year TCO is surprisingly close to that of the other guys.
If open source was a more attractive business model, why are the open source companies unable to reach profitability? Similarly, if the SaaS model is so much better, why can't Salesforce produce more than $60M on a $1 billion in revenue? Customer churn indicates user sat is not optimal. These business models need greater scrutiny, or better management, or both.
SaaS is an interesting model (although I think the Price of Risk is seldom properly factored in) and yes ERP is yet another software sector moving to commoditisation where the main differentiator is price.

BUT maintenance charges should be viewed as an investment in the future viability of the product. You want to keep your vendor alive just as a farmer wants to keep his donkey alive. When a new opsys comes out in five years time you want the vendor to still be around to port your product to it.

Sure SaaS may short-circuit that argument, if SaaS models do prove to be viable in the long term and more attractive overall - as Andrew says that is yet to be proven.
If the farmer needs 95% gross margins to keep his donkey going, I am leaving software and going into that LOB:)

seriously I am amazed at the sympathy the sw industry gets when its customers are hurting and barely making 30, 40% gross margins, if that.

But this should be not about beggar my neighbor. This should be about value for money. Maintenance should not be an entitlement - 17, 22 % guaranteed each year. It should ebb and flow with customer needs and vendor product delivery...some customers wll gladly pay 22%, others it is closer to 5% because all they want is bug fixes...let the market drive the pricing not the expectation of locked-in guaranteed amounts each year
SFdC could turn the profitability screw very quickly by hammering down its GSA numbers which are among the highest in the industry. It is on a land grab, ergo not showing a huge profit. For now. Price pressure will hit these guys as well -- check what Sugar did today and my remark that it is cash flow neutral.
While I've some sympathy with Vinnie's argument, there are two points to consider:

1) if the customers are making 40% gross, how much would they make
without the software? A lot less, or they wouldn't be using it!

2) if we let the market drive the pricing then we know it will only be driven one way - down.
Culturally we usually believe this is a good thing, and we all love lower prices. But this can be a very short-term view and when we apply it to a long-term strategic business decision it loses some resonance.

Which is why I think The IT Skeptic has nailed it again here. Drive the prices down too far and your business investment in the product
will suffer.
Paul, the flaw with your argument is 90 to 95% of every dollar that goes to your software vendor is not going into product innovation. So how much more could they under-deliver - another 1 or 2% - wow, let's do cartwheels!!

The goal here is to remove huge SG&A inefficiencies - 30 to 60% in every software dollar, and yes balance the margin sharing between investor and buyer. Instead of rewarding only investors, how about also a buyer dividend?

I'm sure your stats are right ... I'm going by the SAP annual report 2008.


Support 4.2bn euros
Software 3.6bn euros
Prof services 3bn euros


Software services 1.7bn euros
Prof services 2.3bn euros
R&D 1.6bn euros
SG&A 3.1bn euros

So how do we spin the figures? With your point that <10% revenue goes into R&D? Or we could say that there's >50% margin on Software. How about the fact that 27% of the revenue is used in SG&A to yield 16% increase in sales?

A personal favourite is that software sales, not support, cover all SG&A with 64% of Support profit going into R&D !

I'm all for SAP reducing inefficiencies where they can, but let's not get too hung up on the stats - they are open to interpretation.

I think the real issue still comes down to how the business perceives the value it is getting from support, and that's something which SAP aims to make clear by using the SUGEN KPIs.
I don't see a problem with vendors wanting a steady revenue, just like customers want steady expenses. Stability is good for vendor and customer alike. But how the vendor goes about actually achieving that might leave something to be desired.

Sure the big enterprise vendors are making hay while the sun shines, before more flexible technology rolls in. And the mega deals are done and dusted meaning new licence windfall income has diminished. Adding to this is license discounting, which means the maintenance charge as a percentage might be bigger yet the absolute amount might be the same. So maybe the change from 17 to 22% is to offset the discount effect. Yeah I'm being to nice.

The vendors would do well to re-brand part of their maintence revenue. If a mobile phone company can give away phones at the start of a contract, I don't see why enterprise software vendors can't do something similar. This way they would never need to quote maintenance in terms of a % of initial sale price. And we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Has anyone got any data on license revenue trend over the past few years?
Matthew makes a good point. There is no clear connection between the vendor's cost of delivering maintenance services and the initial license fee amount. So, why do almost all vendors base maintenance fees on initial license fees? Because that's how it's always been done.

A more rational approach would based maintenance fees on some simple driver, such as number of users times maintenance cost for each module. The maintenance fee per module could vary based on the volatility of changes (e.g. payroll modules would carry higher maintenance charges, as they have more regulatory changes).

Matthew also points out that initial license fees are often heavily discounted, which in effect lowers the cost of maintenance. (This is true and is another reason that there is great variation between customers in what they pay for maintenance--another sign that the current system is not rational.) Therefore, it is even more imperative for buyers to negotiate strongly on initial license fees. As software maintenance rates increase, the impact on total cost becomes even greater.
Paul, the problem is the industry has gotten addicted to low R&D investment, and in the crunch of last 12 months, now every dollar is being scrutinized - annual maintenance was often a cursory review and renewal. Now when a CIO looks at the maintenance budget line items he/she is asking - calculate cost per support call, how was vendor performance on those support calls asking what did we get (and importantly use) in new features etc etc. If I had that dollar to spend on other items would ROI be better - and the answers are eye-opening. Then they get the unsympathetic sw salesperson who spins "the value of that maintenance" and it annoys the CIO even more. The scrunity and increased expectations of value should have started 5-7 years ago...

On the SUGEN KPIs, I have predicted that they will show even 17% is too high given how much of routine queries are being handled by SDN, how much SAP has moved to cheaper locations, how reluctantly companies have benefited from new features in ECC 6.0 etc

Not just picking on SAP...overall value from sw and hw maintenance has been low. Like the extended warranties we get on our home gadgets and the runaround we get when we do file a warranty claim.
My two central points in these discussions have been:

1. SAP haven’t made a good job of defending themselves and
2. People are not putting maintenance costs in any business context.

Now SAP has come back with it’s SUGEN KPI offering and engaging the user community - which I’m pleased to see happening as it addresses both points.

Some companies with a very expensive upfront license cost may well find themselves on a lower percentage than a company with a smaller installation cost.

Normalised out, I guess where they fit on the bell curve will depend on how well they can negotiate ... and rather than everyone knowing where they are with a fixed percentage it will be down to individual bargaining again.
The only way to build long term value of a software business is to charge maintenance with recurring revenue. Cost of sales and Marketing runs very high, and since clients are demanding custom scripted demos and much work from a very expensive software sales team. Buy software from a brochure and specs, do you own mods and support and the vendors could easily drop their prices. Hard to make much money in professional services, it's a necessary evil. So pay the maintenance and smile, its what keeps the Vendors in Business. Period. - Scott LaFata - Managing Director of MyVision3 and former Chairman of MetaVision, Inc.
Scott, this point comes up again and again. The issue is not that customers should pay maintenance. It is that the value they receive from some vendors is too low at the price they are paying. It's not whether maintenance should be paid...it's how much.

As Vinnie and others point out in the comments, 80-95% gross margin on maintenance is simply outrageous.
Having just completed a 6-month ERP comparison/search, followed by a 9-month Oracle implementation, I can offer this: right now Oracle can charge these high prices because many customers don't really have another choice. Functionality-wise they do, but after factoring in the long-term viability of the vendor, and the availability of support personnel, and the quality of available "partners" for implementation, the list gets very small. The quality of the software itself is not very high, comparatively speaking. I really think that in the near future, someone will offer an ERP with modern development tools and techniques, which does not require an army of consultants to configure, maintain, and continually fix. Once that system gets enough user-base behind it, it will be easy for them to beat the big vendors on price. And even easier to beat them on quality.
Robb, great feedback. Thanks. Your experience confirms my thought. That the enterprise software market is ripe for disruption.
For us, the cost of license/maintenance fees, even at 22%, is negligible next to the potential cost of the consulting support. In just over one quarter, a single consultant can charge as much as our entire annual maintenance fee.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:


Powered by Blogger

(c) 2002-2018, Frank Scavo.

Independent analysis of issues and trends in enterprise applications software and the strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and disadvantages of the vendors that provide them.

About the Enterprise System Spectator.

Frank Scavo Send tips, rumors, gossip, and feedback to Frank Scavo, at .

I'm interested in hearing about best practices, lessons learned, horror stories, and case studies of success or failure.

Selecting a new enterprise system can be a difficult decision. My consulting firm, Strativa, offers assistance that is independent and unbiased. For information on how we can help your organization make and carry out these decisions, write to me.

My IT research firm, Computer Economics provides metrics for IT management, such as IT spending and staffing benchmarks, technology adoption and investment trends, IT management best practices, IT salaries, outsourcing statistics, and more.

Go to latest postings

Search the Spectator!
Join over 1,700 subscribers on the Spectator email list!
Max. 1-2 times/month.
Easy one-click to unsubscribe anytime.

Follow me on Twitter
My RSS feed RSS News Feed

Computer Economics
Outsourcing Statistics
IT Spending and Staffing Benchmarks
IT Staffing Ratios
IT Management Best Practices
Worldwide Technology Trends
IT Salary Report


2014 Best Independent ERP Blog - Winner 2013 Best ERP Writer - Winner Constant Contact 2010 All Star Technobabble Top 100 Analyst Blogs

Key References
Strativa: Business strategy consulting, strategic planning
Strativa: IT strategy consulting
Strativa: Business process improvement, process mapping, consultants
Strativa: IT due diligence
Strativa: ERP software selection consulting and vendor evaluation
Strativa: CRM software selection consulting and vendor evaluation
Strativa: Project management consulting, change management
StreetWolf: Digital creative studio specializing in web, mobile and social applications
Enterprise IT News: diginomica

Spectator Archives
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
September 2012
October 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
September 2013
October 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
February 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
January 2017
February 2017
May 2017
June 2017
October 2017
January 2018
April 2018
May 2018
Latest postings