Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is part of the reason why I like working in a B2C company. B2C has it's own set of problems, but we aren't dependent on a small group of unprofitable companies.

One thing that's been really interesting is seeing how many SaaS tech companies products just don't work for us at all, for example Intercom.

Intercom is a great product, but all of their pricing is centered around how many people use your site. If you have a high-touch sales and support pipeline where a customer is worth $$,$$$s, Intercom's pricing makes sense. If you have hundreds of thousands of customers worth $$s, that's still a workable business, but Intercom's pricing is a complete non-starter.

They aren't the only one. I do wonder if they truly understand how much they are locking themselves out of some markets. Another example was the quote we got from Grafana Cloud that was more than our AWS bill.




You may be correct, but I'm just throwing out the idea that perhaps, the needs of these two different kinds of companies are so different that it is a good idea to specialize in one or the other, else you become mediocre at serving either one?

But the flaw in my logic is that the one, sometimes evolves into the other.


No this is a very good point, being B2B serving B2B means likely lower traffic and different concerns to being a B2B serving B2C companies.

My counterpoint would be that the B2B companies don't always seem to recognise this, but it's not to say they haven't internally decided not to pursue that market. I think it's a shame if they have, it's a very large market!


Huh? AFAIK I'm getting billed by the (employee) seat for Intercom, irrespective of the number of customers. It's been great.

Their pricing page is pretty confusing, I'll be disappointed if I hit some sort of hidden price cliff.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: