Running a SaaS Business Costs Money?!?

May 6, 2007 by Sinclair Schuller

Being in the SaaS platform space, one of my passions (yes, really) is to breakdown the SaaS provider model and figure out where costs are. The one area that is most intriguing is cost of revenue (CoR) - that is, costs directly associated with delivering the service to end users. This cost generally includes, but is not limited to:

1. Bandwidth
2. Hardware(Amortized) & Hardware Related Expenses
3. Operations Staff (if applicable)
4. Storage
5. Backup & Recovery
6. Licenses
7. Co-location (real estate, electricity, cooling, etc.)
8. Product Support

Basically, any cost that is proportional to and incremented with a rise in your subscriber base, is relatively predictable, and is directly responsible for service delivery is part of cost of revenue. Now, I’ve read blog posts and spoken with people that have made comments like “SaaS shouldn’t be very expensive, after all Web 2.0 is about starting companies in a capital efficient manner” or “Digg.com scaled to tens of thousands of users with only a couple of servers.” While I agree with those observations, they don’t really play into true SaaS. SaaS is not about applications with shoddy reliability, or about applications that have simple, repeated read/write transactions. SaaS is about stable, reliable, customizable, and robust business applications. As a provider to other businesses, you have an ingrained duty to provide fanatical (borrowed from Rackspace) service and uptime. These properties requirements do one thing and one thing well: they increase the cost of service. To drive costs down, you need to become operationally efficient, make wise architectural choices at both the software and hardware level, automate as much as possible, and meticulously maintain metrics. No programming language/framework combo (yes, not even the panacea of the day, Ruby on Rails) can save you from poor architecture, inability to automate, and nack for getting operations wrong.

So, as a provider, what does it cost to run a service? To answer that, we have two primary sources: (1) the financials of publicly traded SaaS companies and (2) discussions with some private SaaS companies. I’ll start with public companies. For public company’s I took a look at members of the SEG SaaS Index, including Taleo, Salesforce.com, RightNow, Workstream (not on index), and DealerTrack. I’ve extracted what they consider to be “Cost of Revenue” and generally have a description that goes like so:

Cost of application revenue primarily consists of expenses related to hosting our application and providing support, including employee related costs for network related staff, the depreciation expense associated with computer equipment and the cost of extra data center capacity.

Here is the breakdown for 2006 alone, accounting only for revenue and cost generated by subscriptions ($ in thousands):

 

As a percentage of revenue, there is a large amount of variation. TRAK is the only oddball because they factor in “revenue share”, which is some sort of commission paid to 3rd parties, thereby driving CoR up. The other data samples adhere quite closely to the aforementioned description. Interestingly, this provides some rudimentary evidence for economies of scale (factoring out TRAK): Salesforce.com has the highest revenue and best CoR percentage, with WorkStream having the worst and the other two falling in order between them.

Having had conversations with smaller, private SaaS providers, the picture is even bleaker. Many times, starting off requires a provider to overpurchase to provide availability and over-capacity, yielding CoR that is higher than revenues. Overtime, the companies I have spoken to begin reducing CoR as economies kick in, but even those in the $10 million – $30 million range are still in the 20% - 25% band for CoR. Delivering a SaaS application is not inexpensive.
This highlights something very important: the best in the industry manages 14% with others nearing 30%. Take that into account when analyzing your costs. Yes, costs have and will go down for things like hardware, bandwidth, etc., but remember that will means in the future, and that there is still uncertainty. Many SaaS providers are looking at utilizing service solutions such as billing or an entire delivery platform (disclosure, self promotion). The data above should give you a good baseline to work from when deciding if something is expensive or whether your projections are in-synch. If you’re a SaaS provider, is your CoR experience relatively similar? Do you factor in other things, or leave things out that I’ve included? I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.

read more

The SaaS Investment Landscape

Apr 27, 2007 by Matt Ammerman

Although many in the SaaS-choir have long since been sold on SaaS, it seems that venture capitalists are finally joining us.  Existing firms are padding their portfolios with SaaS companies.  More interesting, though, is the fact that firms are forming with core strategies focused on SaaS investment.  Why is this?  Perhaps the most definitive evidence comes from market research as illustrated in Phil Wainewright’s most recent article “Resistance fades as SaaS goes mainstream”.  Bullet points like ‘Adoption is surging‘, ‘Resistance is fading‘, and ‘Deployments are multiplying‘ instill great confidence in the minds of financiers. That’s right, as investors see more research from sources such as Gartner and Saugatuck indicating that SaaS is viable and sustainable, it becomes a much prettier investment picture.

As always, the proof is in the proverbial pudding:

Warren Weis from Foundation Capital says “Software as a service is clearly a very interesting area because of the ease of selling into these types of environments where users can use it without a big IT implementation … We have about 11 of these types of (SaaS) investments and they’re doing very well… we’re looking for new investments in that area.”

Jeff Horing from Insight Venture Partners says ”SaaS offers a more predictable revenue stream and lower research and development expenses to software vendors than packaged software products.”  He continues, “Overall, if you can build a successful company it’s a much better business model than license sales.”

Horing says he and other investors at his firm are skeptical about growth for companies looking to make their mark by selling enterprise software applications, as opposed to those that market the SaaS model.

VCs have had time to watch the progress of early SaaS companies.  They’ve seen stability and better yet, growth.  Evidence is found in the performance of these four SaaS companies over the past two years (CRM, RNOW, VOCS, and SVVS):

 
(bigger)

It’s no wonder SaaS companies whet the VC community’s collective appetite. IPO valuations of SaaS companies such as SalesForce.com, NetSuite and RightNow Technologies have come in as high as 10X revenue (although not the general case)!  Now there’s a nice exit.

Obviously, SaaS investments come with considerations, both positive and negative.

The Pros

• Demand from the enterprise IT community
• Predictable and stable revenue
• Predictable cashflow and growth
• The market for SaaS is expected to grow to 25% of all new business software by 2011 (Gartner)
• SaaS is an easier sell than traditional packaged software
• See Wainewright’s article for more.

The Cons

• A longer time to achieve cashflow positive (longer development times and amortized revenue model)
• Higher startup capital requirements

What do you think? Are you looking to invest in SaaS companies? Are you planning any SaaS deployments within your organization? What’s holding your back? We would love to know your thoughts, share them though comments!

read more