
Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?
Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021



SaaS Fest 2016 took place in Boston, Massachusetts in December. The theme for the latest SaaS Fest was consumer satisfaction and 13 speakers gave presentations on the topic during the two days of the meeting.
David Cancel, Founder and CEO of Drift (a firm that developed a messaging app for sales teams), hypothesized that 50% of SaaS companies will fail because they still think of customers as leads and don’t spend enough time connecting with and listening to them. Cancel calls this approach SaaS 1.0, where companies focus mainly on their technological prowess. They “know” they’ve developed a useful service, so all they need do is market it. Customers will subscribe to the service and will be satisfied, and their companies will continue to attract new customers and grow. Cancel describes these firms as thinking of their customers more like names in a database than as real people with varying needs.
Cancel advocated taking a customer-centric approach that he called SaaS 2.0. With this model, companies focus on providing the best customer service, with the motivation that if they don’t, customers will take their business elsewhere. He pointed out that a recent study by PwC Digital Services revealed that 94% of senior company executives thought that personalizing services was important if they wanted to attract and retain customers.
Cancel made the point that a customer-centric approach was a smart business approach for any company that faces competition, not just SaaS enterprises and that no company can afford to ignore their customers regardless of how successful they’ve been in the past or how strong a reputation they have.
He gave US automotive pioneer Henry Ford as an example. Ford believed he knew what customers needed and that he didn’t have to take the time to listen to them. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses,” said Ford in the early years of the Ford Motor Company.
As Cancel stated, Ford would have invented the Model T regardless of what the public thought at the time, but not listening to his customers as the automobile market grew cost him dearly. In 1921, Ford had 60% of the automobile market. By 1927, its share of the market fell to 15%, and Ford stopped producing the Model T. Ford’s competitor General Motors (GM) listened to what automobile customers wanted – cars with different options and designed for different purposes. GM significantly eroded Ford’s market share by offering consumers a choice of different models that satisfied different consumer preferences.
Cancel recommended that SaaS companies make a concerted effort to listen to the needs of all their customers. He likened the effort to treating customers like friends rather than just a source of revenue. He suggested making customer service a high priority and to make it easy for potential and existing customers to find the appropriate department and person who can answer their inquiries quickly, including having 24/7 customer support if a SaaS company is providing a mission-critical service.
As Cancel concluded, listening to your customers is not just the right thing to do – it’s the smart thing to do from a business standpoint.
Share this

3 min read The allure of OpenClaw is undeniable. You deploy a highly autonomous, self-hosted AI agent, give it access to your repositories and inboxes, and watch it reason through complex workflows while you sleep. It is the dream of the ultimate 10x developer tool realized. But as any veteran DevOps engineer will tell you: running an LLM-backed
7 min read There are cloud outages, and then there are us-east-1 outages. That distinction matters because failures in AWS’s Northern Virginia region rarely feel like ordinary regional incidents. They tend instead to expose something larger and more uncomfortable: too much of the modern internet still behaves as though one place is an acceptable concentration point for infrastructure,
7 min read Artificial intelligence is making software easier to produce. That much is already obvious. Code that once took hours to scaffold can now be drafted in minutes. Boilerplate, integration logic, tests, refactors and small internal tools can be generated with startling speed. In some cases, even substantial pieces of implementation can be assembled quickly enough to
10 min read Whilst AI has compressed the visible stages of software delivery; requirements, validation, review and release discipline have not disappeared. They have been pushed into automation, runtime and governance. The real risk is not that the lifecycle is dead, but that organisations start acting as if accountability died with it. There is a now-familiar story about
4 min read How AI Is Shifting Software Engineering’s Primary Constraint For most of the history of software engineering, the primary constraint was production. Code was expensive, skilled engineers were scarce, and shipping features required concentrated human effort. Velocity was limited by how fast people could reason, implement, test, and deploy. That constraint shaped everything from team size,
5 min read Autonomous Code, Trust Boundaries, and Why Governance Now Matters More Than Ever In Part 1, we looked at how AI has reduced the cost of building monitoring tools. Then in Part 2, we explored the operational and economic burden of owning them. Now we need to talk about something deeper. Because the real shift isn’t
Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021