i.e. The MOST Important Clause in Your (Procure) Tech (SaaS) Contract (Part IV)
We know what you’re thinking.
After reading your three-part exposé (group) on the most important clause in your (Procure) Tech (SaaS) contract, I’m pretty sure I’m going to be screwed to some extent on a significant number of my SaaS contracts. How can I minimize the chances of this happening?
Do your diligence and limit your pool to vendors with the right vendor profile.
This means you have to go beyond a deep analysis of:
- the product, and does it do what you need
- the platform, and will it support growth
- the services capability, and can they implement and integrate the system without resorting to third parties
- the consulting/training capability, and can they provide basic help when you need it
which is where most people stop. And then you have to go beyond Legal and Risk Management’s staples of
- legal status
- financial stability
- legal jeopardy
- brand sentiment
because that’s not enough either! All that does is tell you the likelihood of being screwed over today, it does nothing to tell you the likelihood of being screwed in the next 6 months, 18 months, or 3 (to 5) years, which will be typical contract duration for a SaaS app of moderate complexity and significant importance.
So how do you figure that out? Well, there’s no golden rule or single predictor guaranteed to always work, as anything can happen to the best and worst of companies over time, but there is one highly correlated factor to SaaS company success you need to compute because, when it’s low, chances of crisis (that lead to your company getting screwed) are high.
What is that factor?
Relative Corporate Debt*
In a (PE/VC/etc.) investor funded company, where msi = “months since investment”, this is defined as:
1.4^((60-msi)/12) * revenue
————————————
investment valuation
In a private company, this is defined as:
annual revenue
———————
annual operating cost
If this is less than 1, you’re taking a risk!
In the second case, for a private company that isn’t yet profitable, unless you can plot a trend line over the past year and a half on a quarterly basis that sees the vendor reaching profitability within a year and a half, you’re taking a big risk as loans and founder savings tend to only take a company so far. (And if the ratio is greater than 1, the company is stable and has a good chance of staying that way if it has a solid solution that improves annually.)
In the first case of an investor funded company, you need to understand that a provider that just raised 7, 10, 15X its current annual revenue is not a guaranteed winner. In fact, it’s not even guaranteed to be stable in the long term! One needs to remember that most investors expect a return within 5 years, and many of the bigger firms will expect a return within 3 years (and will slash operating expenses, i.e. headcount, to get it, especially if they bought it to flip it to a bigger investor down the line). This means that the investors who invested amounts at these ridiculous valuations are hoping it’s the next unicorn and expecting exponential growth.
But exponential growth is very hard to obtain!
First of all, exponential growth either requires creating a whole new market, which takes time, or displacing a lot of established competitors, which also takes time … especially if the majority of customers are still locked into those competitors for years. In the first case, it also requires businesses creating whole new budgets and then taking money away from other functions, which takes time. Plus, in both cases, it requires the company to create a broad and deep platform capable of displacing mature providers who might have spent a decade or more on their products, and that also takes time. Just like 9 women cannot have a baby in 1 month, there is a limit as to how fast even the best teams can create broad and deep software that is better than the last generation, scalable, secure, and reliable. (Given that [almost] half [or more] of AI code has been found to contain [significant] security flaws in multiple studies, AI code is not going to accelerate development as much as the AI players want you to believe. Sometimes it slows things down!)
Moreover, even once the market is ready (as a result of existing contracts expiring, millions of dollars spent on marketing to normalize the new player, millions more on development that might be enough to displace customers where the existing solution was bloatware), there is not only the resistance to change to overcome, but the reality that a provider can only take on so many customers so fast and support them adequately.
Despite what the investors want to believe, and what the C-Suite might promise, most back-office installs aren’t just “flipping a switch” and require a lot of time and effort by the provider to load data, integrate with the key back-end systems, configure the systems to the client’s needs, train the client’s personnel, monitor the system and usage during the first few months to make sure everything goes according to plan, etc. That means a provider can only handle so many new customers a month. Moreover, you can’t just add people at will to handle support needs because those support people will need to be trained and that will also require time from existing personnel, which will then have less time to support the clients.
The harsh reality is that, in IT and SaaS, most companies CANNOT grow at more than 40% year-over-year and maintain aggressive platform growth and leading customer support. Any growth beyond that leads to development slowdowns, significant interruptions (to complete failures) in customer support, and other missteps.
Doing the MATH, this means that a company can’t realistically grow more than 5X in 5 years without making some sacrifices along the way, which, in IT/SaaS, typically means SACRIFICING YOU! And that’s what the formula captures! Realistic growth expectations against current revenue and whether it will hit investor expectations in time!
So this means that if the provider accepts funding at a valuation that is significantly more than 5X, their chances of meeting the investor expectations are not good (unless, of course, they significantly raise prices on the renewal, which will also screw you), and that means your chances of great support will steadily decrease as time goes on and your chances of being one of the customers that eventually gets screwed (even if there was no ill intent or false promises when they signed you) increases.
Moreover, if the provider accepts funding at a valuation of more than 7X, their chances of meeting the investor expectations are really (really) bad. If they can more-or-less double functionality and increase the average annual sale price by about 50% within a year or so, then they can make 7X, but beyond that, there’s usually no way to make the math work in a manner that can be expected to satisfy the investors!
So do the math first. If the investment multiple is too high, or the company too far from profitability, it doesn’t matter how good it, or the solution, looks. If you want stability in your purchase, you need to walk away. If the situation changes in a couple of years, there’s no reason you can’t look at them again if the provider you go with ends up not doing everything you wanted. After all, if you ensured the contract had the IT’S MY DATA clause, and tested it rather promptly after implementation, nothing stops you from switching.
And this clearly demonstrates yet again why the IT’S MY DATA clause is the most important clause and any vendor who can’t, or won’t, guarantee full access to all of your data all of the time is not one you should go with.
Furthermore, and this is the kicker, chances are good that any vendor who is confident not only in their solution but in their ability to keep improving their solution will happily guarantee this. And who’d you rather? A vendor that feels the need to lock you in to a proprietary solution that holds your data hostage in order to keep you as a customer or a vendor that is so confident you’ll stay with their solution after mastering it that they give you the access codes to their competitor’s suite? I know who I’d rather!
* (which is not the same as relative debt in estate law by the way!)
