The appeal is obvious – anything that lowers the barrier for a potential customer to sign up has to be a good thing, right? It’s attractive when you are scrambling for sales, any sales, that month to month subscription without a long term contract has become the default business model for young B2B SAAS businesses. Unfortunately it’s the wrong model for nearly all of them. Personally I blame the Signal 37 guys at Basecamp for embedding this in start-up culture, but that’s another story.
Why is it such a Bad Model?
- No upfront cash means as sales scale so does the level of investment required to fund the sales channel
- Lack of customer validation creates an onboarding bottleneck and high early churn rates
- The customer is not invested in your mutual success leading to more failed customers
- Commission modelling and payment become messy leading to salesperson disatisfaction
- Revenue modelling is more uncertain meaning that financing becomes more difficult especially debt
Caveat – Month to month contracts can work well if there is a purely automated sales channel.
Fund the Sales Channel with Sales or Investment
Imagine it costs you €1,200 to make a sale, i.e. it costs you €1,200 to find a potential customer and complete a sale. Now imagine that you only have €1,200 and your monthly subscription is €100. On Day 1 you spend your €1,200 and make your first sale. When do you make your second sale?
You make your second sale in Month 13, when you have collected the €1,200 to fund it from your first sale
Now think about the exactly the same scenario, except this time you charge a €1,200 annual subscription upfront. On Day 1 you spend your €1,200 to make your first sale. When do you make your second sale?
You make your second sale on Day 2 using the subscription collected on your Day 1 sale. By the time month 13 rolls along you’ve made about 230 sales – a 23,000% improvement over the first example.
I accept this is contrived, however the core message is valid – you either finance your sales channel with investment cash or your customers’ cash and it’s nearly always preferable to do it with your customers’. After all, earning money from customers should be your company’s core competence, not getting investment.
Lack of Customer Validation
If a salesperson closes a month to month subscription, then what exactly have they sold? Maybe they sold a three year revenue stream or maybe just one month’s fee that won’t even pay the sales person comp. The only thing that’s definitely validated is that the customer is willing to pay for the first month. Should you even regard them as a customer at all? Maybe it would be best to think of them as being on a trial until they have paid a certain number of invoices and are actively using the product. This makes a difference because your customer success and onboarding teams will get frustrated and will rightfully demand that they not be handed half completed sales.
The Customer is not Invested in your Mutual Success
Okay, I’ll admit that getting a months subscription off of a customer isn’t nothing. It’s a lot better than a free trial. But what proof do you have that they are committed to your mutual success? The first month fee is a trivial amount and there is no long term commitment. No wonder your onboarding team have difficulty getting them on the phone and engagement is weak.
Contrast this to the customer that signed up to a one, two or three year contract – there’s a committed customer. There’s a customer that will call you angry when things aren’t working. There’s a customer that will fight to make sure they receive value. There’s a customer that you want.
Comp Models Become Messy
What are you going to comp a salesperson selling month to month subs on and what money are your going to use to pay them their comp? If you comp them just on the month’s sub then you’re incentivising them to find customers who are willing to pay a one month sub – not customers that will be with you for the long term. If you comp them on revenue from the customer as it comes in then the reward is disconnected from the actions you want to incentivise. If you advance comp on the basis of future revenue you create a cash flow issue and de-motivational claw backs when the customer cancels.
Comping on an annual contract is easy, and paying the comp is easy if the customer pays upfront.
Revenue Models and Investment Become Difficult
Month to month contracts have no committed revenue stream by definition. Revenue models have to use average churn rates to calculate the following month’s revenue with ever increasing levels of uncertainty the further out you go. In contrast annual contract business only have to use average churn rates for revenue a year out. Having this contracted revenue stream makes financing, especially debt financing, easy when compared to month to month contract. This is all the more important as month to month contracting needs more financing to fund the sales channel.
So why do start-ups almost invariably opt for the month to month sub? Its because they are afraid to ask for the sale, so they attempt to minimise it. They don’t charge what they’re worth (more on this in a later blog post) and then they split the sale into the smallest segment possible in an attempt to make their pricing irrelevant to the customer – I’ve even seen companies split it into a weekly fee.
What if customers won’t sign up for an annual contract?
If you’re a B2B company with a manual sales process then there is a good chance that you just have to accept that you’ve got a longer sales cycle than you think you have. If you are sure that your potential customer will only sign up to month to month then accept that this is a trial period and after the trial period ends they move onto an annual plan. This division makes it very clear that during the trial period the sales process is still ongoing and you don’t count the client as a customer until they sign up to the annual plan. In this way your customer numbers stay clean and responsibility for the sales cycle is clearly defined.
Usual disclaimer: Context is king, actual results may vary, etc.