Loading...
Answers
MenuWhat are the most important metrics early on for a B2B SaaS startup?
This question has no further details.
Answers
Two: (a) Top-line growth and (b) Cancellations.
I like businesses where "growth" means "revenue," otherwise to me it's only an indication that people are mildly interested rather than proof that it's a *business* that is turning into a validated business model. But of course with consumer often you have to be content with "active users" or somesuch.
True revenue growth I measure (early on) in $/mo of new recurring revenue, not in percentages (because those will be all over the place and large, just because the denominator is small). It's nice to see that number steadily growing, usually linearly (no, not exponential!). It's OK for it to bounce around early on, e.g. you get a big pop from good PR or a dip because it's December.
Soon I like to see you follow that with increasing ARPU, because almost always your prices are too low and you need higher ARPU to drive a real, profitable business, and to allow for higher CAC which means the ability to get varied sources of new signups. But that's not for very early on -- you can do that next. Just having people sign up at all for any amount of non-zero dollars is a wonderful sign.
The other is cancellation. I've seen companies where their cancellation rate is 25%/mo. That means people turn over completely in 4 months, and that means it's NOT a SaaS business!
More importantly, it means that although you've gotten them in the door, and even paying, the fact is you're not delivering perceived value, and that means you don't actually have a product people want, nor a business.
Note I said "perceived." Sometimes you ARE delivering value but they don't understand that, so education or a better UX or follow-up is actually what's needed. Usually you are in fact not delivering much value, and that's what needs to be addressed.
If cancellations are above 5%/mo, you don't have this "fit," and there's no sense in spending time/money growing fast when the bucket is so leaky. You're just force-feeding something rotten.
Actually a SaaS business needs to be more like 2%/mo in the long run, else it cannot grow large enough and without tremendous marketing/sales expense. But to me, <5%/mo *early* on is good enough that you can address that over time.
This depends entirely on the stage you're at with the business. Although some people have mentioned churn, no one has mentioned any measurements around engagement -- i.e. "Is anyone using this product at all, and in ways that mean they'll keep using it?"
In the early stages that's what I would focus on -- a measure of engagement. If you prove engagement (or what I describe as "Stickiness") you can move to the next stage, and now you're interested in seeing if engaged users stick around long enough. That's where LTV comes in. But there's no point measuring LTV or CAC at the beginning--you just started, and you don't know if your product is doing what it needs to in the first place.
If you get solid engagement with a small group, you might then say, "Now I want to bring more people in the top of the funnel and see how they respond" and care about sign-up conversions, while also looking at free to paid conversion from the early adopters (if you're going freemium).
If conversion looks good, and you can map out a scalable business based on that simple number, then you look at churn and LTV. "People are engaged and using the product, converting to paid and then dropping off..."
My2Cents.
P.S. This answer is heavily influenced by Ben Yoskovitz's writing :)
1) Site visitors (they can't try if they don't come)
2) Trials as a percentage of visitors (they can't buy if they don't try)
3) Purchases as a percentage of trials (if they don't buy, nothing matters)
4) Other engagement metrics like growth in positive social proof, repeat visits, newsletter signups etc. are fine but the first three are what really matter in early days.
Retention (aka churn). This is the most important because it drives all other decisions around sales, marketing and product. If churn is high it's because: a) sales people are not setting expectations properly (e.g. selling too much sizzle and not enough steak); b) your marketing is bringing in the wrong type of customer; c) your product doesn't solve a big enough problem/pain point for your customer.
It's also the key to forecasting; if you can accurately predict churn, you know how much you need to sell, how many leads you need to generate, etc. etc.
Don't wait, track this asap. And don't fake it (like Salesforce.com used to say, oh, we have less than 1% churn per year, when they were actually tracking the % of customers that don't renew contracts). That's not churn; people cancel or stop paying ALL THE TIME. As soon as you know you're not going to get money again from that customer, they've churned, track that end date right then and there.
Engagement and Referrals.
Engagement answers, "Do people like this and how much?".
Referrals answer, "Is this good enough to refer to other people like me?"
At an early stage company, you're still not quite sure of the best way to monetize but you cannot monetize without seeing engagement.
For an early B2B SaaS company, getting customers is more difficult than building a product. If your early users or customers are not referring the product, the limited people, time and focus you have still needs to be put into improving the product.
Customer acquisition and retention. And your customer acquisition cost (CAC). Will it be scalable at some point or are the sales economics just not there. I.e. you continue to burn cash even though ARR is growing.
Related Questions
-
What percentage of VC funded startups make it to 100m+ revenues in 5 years or less?
100M+ in revenues in 5 years or less does not happen very often. As an example of one sector, here is an interesting data visualization (circa 2008) of the 100 largest publically traded software companies at that time that shows their actual revenue ramp-ups from SEC filings (only 4 out of these 100 successful companies managed this feat, which themselves are an extremely small percentage of all of the VC-funded software companies): How Long Does it Take to Build a Technology Empire? http://ipo-dashboards.com/wordpress/2009/08/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-technology-empire/ Key findings excerpted from the link above: "Only 28% of the nation’s most successful public software empires were rocketships. I’ve defined a rocket ship as a company that reached $50 million in annual sales in 6 years or less (this is the type of growth that typically appears in VC-funded business plans). A hot shot reaches $50m in 7 to 12 years. A slow burner takes 13 years or more. Interestingly, 50% of these companies took 9 or more years to reach $50m in revenue."MB
-
how to start earning on clarity.fm
Most of the earnings come from the people you are in contact with. The platform is not that big at the moment but it can be earned. My recommendation is to create content on your private page web, facebook, instagram ... and leave a clarity link through your work. If you need extra help call me for 15 minutes.DB
-
What is a normal churn rate for b2b saas company with an average monthly revenue of $850 per customer? Is 10% of the total monthly sales high or low?
10% of the total monthly sales churning on an absolute basis is near fatal. That means that within 5 months, you have 50% absolute churn per year, which reveals fundamental flaws with the service itself. Anything above small single digit churn is telling you and your team that customers are not seeing enough value in your product. I'd start by doing as many exit interviews as you can with those that have churned out, including, offers to reengage at a lower price-point while you fix the issues that matter to them. Happy to talk through this in more detail in a call.TW
-
What is the average series A funding round at pre revenue valuation for a enterprise start up w/cutting edge tech on verge of our first client.
With all respect to Dan, I'm not seeing anything like that. You said "pre-revenue." If it's pre-revenue and enterprise, you don't have anything proven yet. You would have to have an insanely interesting story with a group of founders and execs on board with ridiculous competitive advantage built in. I have seen a few of those companies. It's more like $3m-$5m pre. Now, post-revenue is different. I've seen enterprise plays with $500k-$1m revenue/yr, still very early (because in the enterprise space that's not a lot of customers yet), getting $8m-$15m post in an A-round. I do agree there's no "average." Finally, you will hit the Series A Crunch issue, which is that for every company like yours with "cutting edge tech" as-yet-unproven, there's 10 which also have cutting edge tech except they have customers, revenue, etc.. So in this case, it's not a matter of valuation, but a matter of getting funded at all!JC
-
For every success story in Silicon Valley, how many are there that fail?
It all depends on what one decides to be a definition of a "success story." For some entrepreneurs, it might be getting acqui-hired, for some -- a $10M exit, for some -- a $200M exit, and for others -- an IPO. Based on the numbers I have anecdotally heard in conversations over the last decade or so, VCs fund about 1 in 350 ventures they see, and of all of these funded ventures, only about 1 in 10 become really successful (i.e. have a big exit or a successful IPO.) So you are looking at a 1 in 3500 chance of eventual venture success among all of the companies that try to get VC funding. (To put this number in perspective, US VCs invest in about 3000-3500 companies every year.) In addition, there might be a few others (say, maybe another 1-2 in every 10 companies that get VC investments) that get "decent" exits along the way, and hence could be categorized as somewhat successful depending on, again, how one chooses to define what qualifies as a "success story." Finally, there might also be companies that may never need or get around to seeking VC funding. One can, of course, find holes in the simplifying assumptions I have made here, but it doesn't really matter if that number instead is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000. The basic point being made here is just that the odds are heavily stacked against new ventures being successful. But that's also one of the distinguishing characteristics of entrepreneurs -- to go ahead and try to bring their idea to life despite the heavy odds. Sources of some of the numbers: http://www.nvca.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ven... https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTP... http://paulgraham.com/future.html Here are others' calculations of the odds that lead to a similar conclusion: 1.Dear Entrepreneurs: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-success-2013-5 2.Why 99.997% Of Entrepreneurs May Want To Postpone Or Avoid VC -- Even If You Can Get It http://www.forbes.com/sites/dileeprao/2013/07/29/why-99-997-of-entrepreneurs-may-want-to-postpone-or-avoid-vc-even-if-you-can-get-it/MB
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.