Tag: Strategy

Why Alfresco follows the same strategy as closed source commercial software companies

soundwalk_by_finishing-schoolMy friend and colleague, Peter Löfgren, recently wrote a blog post on what he sees as the two possible strategies Alfresco could pursue. He describes the two approaches as follows:

Vertical: You try to get as many as possible Community installs be converted to paying Enterprise customers. Convert from the bottom and up if you so like.

Horizontal: You try to get as many as possible to run Alfresco, even if they run the free Community version. A fair share will always want commercial support to have a professional backing. A broad approach, where you get market presence and self-sustained marketing.

Peter argues that, to date, Alfresco has used a vertical approach, which is really about pushing Enterprise Edition and begrudgingly acknowledging that Community Edition is an acceptable alternative, only when the client can’t currently justify the expense of an Enterprise Edition license.

Peter observes that the vertical approach pits Alfresco Enterprise Edition squarely against Community Edition making it very tempting for Alfresco sales people to badmouth Community Edition, because they often see it as cannibalizing their revenue. I actually don’t see this happening much anymore–sales people know that denigrating Community Edition is counter-productive because customers are savvy enough to know it is the same software and a good portion of the sales team understands the bigger picture.

Before I go any further, I should refer you to a blog post I wrote about a year ago called, “The plain truth about Alfresco’s open source ethos“. In it, I argue that Alfresco’s marketing strategy isn’t the community’s concern, and that the company is basically a “normal” software company that won’t ever be the dogmatic open source company many of us wish it was.

But Peter brought it up and I like discussing such things, so I’ll ignore my own advice and provide my take on why I think Alfresco will continue to ignore the horizontal strategy and will continue to basically act like any other traditional software company…

Here’s my take

First, let’s compare Alfresco with another commercial open source company, Elastic. Elastic is the company behind the popular search engine Elasticsearch as well as a variety of related big data and analytics tools such as Logstash, Kibana, and Beats. Like Alfresco, Elastic makes money from support, and their incentive to get people to pay for support is to offer a set of products they make available only to paying customers. Unlike Alfresco, Elastic ships a single distribution of their products. For a given release of Elasticsearch, for example, there is no difference between what a paying and non-paying customer downloads and runs. It’s just that if you want some additional value-add on top of what’s freely-available, you have to pay.

So this is an example of a horizontal pursuit as Peter describes it. The reason it is working for Elastic, though, is that their offerings are much more horizontal than Alfresco’s. Elasticsearch is more popular and more widely used in all kinds of use cases. Their download stats are impressive and increasing steadily.

Alfresco, on the other hand, is niche software. It is quite narrowly focused on document management. Yes, there are a lot of use cases within that, but it isn’t something that you see embedded in all sorts of applications like you would a database, a workflow engine, or a search engine. I suspect download stats are flat or maybe even decreasing, although this is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison as the two products are in different phases of maturity and adoption.

The other issue is one of leadership. Elastic’s CEO, Steve Schuurman, exudes open source. He was a co-founder of SpringSource, for example. Both he and Shay Bannon, the creator of Elasticsearch, have said repeatedly that Elastic will always be open source and that they’ll never have an Enterprise-only distribution of their core software. That’s the kind of leadership I expect from a commercial open source company.

Contrast that with the current leadership at Alfresco. When former CEO John Powell announced his retirement, the board could have chosen someone with open source credibility like Elastic’s Steve Schuurman. Instead, they went with Doug Dennerline. He and his lieutenants have next to zero open source credibility or experience. It is clear they were brought on solely to take the company public. For them, open source is not a driving part of their worldview. Instead, their focus is simply to build a software company and take it public, employing whatever strategy gives them and their shareholders the biggest revenue numbers year-after-year. (I don’t mean to paint this in an overly-negative light–it is what it is. I’m just trying to point out the stark contrast in motivation and philosophy between the two leadership teams).

Unfortunately, a horizontal strategy does not necessarily equate to those kind of numbers. With Red Hat as the notable exception, it is hard to find a commercial open source company with financials that Doug, the board, and investors are looking for.

Do the math. Let’s assume there are 50,000 installs of Alfresco Community Edition. I have no reason to believe that is accurate–this is just an exercise. What kind of conversion rate would you expect? You’ll probably guess too high, forgetting that Alfresco is now very expensive, even for modest installations, and that the company is still working to add more differentiation in its paid offering compared to the free product. Let’s use 2%. So that’s 1,000 paying customers, which is roughly the number John Newton disclosed publicly in a keynote several years ago. It’s probably higher now, but remember that there is attrition we haven’t accounted for and those customers have to be earned year after year.

Now, what do you think the average sales price of Alfresco is across all of their paying customers? Again, just spit-balling, let’s say it is $100k annually. Multiply that times 1,000 and that’s “only” a company with $100 million in annual revenue. If you’re looking for a $1 billion IPO, that’s not enough. (If EMC sells Documentum to someone for 10x revenue I’ll have to update this post, but I think I’m pretty safe).

In a horizontal strategy, those are your levers: Total installs, conversion rate, attrition, average sales price. For example, using the horizontal approach, to increase revenue from $100 million to $300 million you would have to triple the number of Community Edition installs from 50,000 to 150,000. Alternatively, you could keep CE installs steady at 50,000 and instead triple your conversion rate from 2% to 6%. Which seems easier?

My bet is that rather than increasing total Community Edition installs, Alfresco will find it easier to increase the conversion rate by increasing differentiation between the two products, cutting attrition by implementing “customer success programs” and consulting, and continuing to put upward pressure on the average sales price by charging more for the core product and finding new paid add-ons to sell.

The horizontal approach Peter advocates may be the one we all wish would work, but I think that ship has sailed.

What we’re dying to hear at Alfresco Summit

For the first time, ever, I will not be in attendance at this year’s annual Alfresco conference. I’m going to miss catching up with old friends, meeting new ones, learning, and sharing stories.

I’m also going to miss hearing what Alfresco has planned. Now, more than ever, Alfresco needs to inspire. As I won’t be there I need the rest of you to go to Alfresco Summit and take good notes for me. Here’s what you should be listening for…

What Are You Doing With the Money, Doug?

At last year’s conference Alfresco CEO, Doug Dennerline, made a quip about how much fun he was having spending all of the money Alfresco had amassed prior to his arrival. Now he’s secured another round of funding.

I think partners, customers, and the community want to hear what the specific plans are for all of that cash. In a Q&A with the community, Doug said he felt like there were too few sales people for a company the size of Alfresco’s. In the old days, Alfresco had an “inbound” model, where people would try the free stuff and call a sales person when they were ready for support. Doug is inverting that and going with a traditional “outbound” model. That obviously takes cash, and it may be critical for the company to grow to where Doug and the investors would like, but it is rather uninspiring to the rest of us. Where are the bold, audacious plans? Where is the disruption? Which brings me to my next theme to listen for…

Keep Alfresco Weird

Remember when Alfresco was different? It was open source. It was lightweight. It appealed to developers and consultants because it could approximate what a Documentum aircraft carrier could do but it had the agility of a speedboat. And, perhaps above all, it was cheap.

Now it feels like that free-wheeling soul, that maverick of ECM, that long-haired hippy love-child, born of a one-night stand between ECM and Linux, is looking in the mirror and realizing it has slowly become its father.

Maybe in some ways, growing up was necessary. Alfresco certainly feels more stable than years past. But what I want to hear is that the scrappiness is still there. I want to see some features that competitors haven’t thought of yet. I want to look into the eyes of the grown-up Alfresco and see (and believe) that the mischievous flicker of youth is still glowing, ready to shake things up.

Successfully Shoot the Gap Or Get Crushed?

Alfresco is in a unique position. There are the cloud-only players on one side who are beating Alfresco on some dimensions (ease-of-use, flawless file sync, ubiquity) and are, at least for now, losing to Alfresco on other dimensions (on-premises capability, security, business relevance). On the other side, you’ve got legacy players. Alfresco is still more nimble than they are, but with recent price increases, Alfresco can no longer beat them on price alone. That gap is either Alfresco’s opportunity or its demise.

Every day those cloud-only players add business-relevant functionality that their (huge) user base demands. They’ve got endless cash. And dear Lord, the marketing. If I have to read one more bullshit TechCrunch article about how Aaron Levie “invented” the alternative to ECM, I’m going to lose it. Bottom-line is that the cloud-only guys have their sites set on Alfresco’s bread-and-butter.

And those legacy vendors, the ones Alfresco initially disrupted with an open source model, are not only showing signs of life, but in some cases are actually introducing innovative functionality. If Alfresco turns away from the low-cost leader strategy they miss out on a huge lever needed to unseat incumbent vendors. “Openness” may not be enough to win in a toe-to-toe battle of function points.

So what exactly is the strategy for successfully shooting the gap? We’ve all heard the plans Alfresco has around providing content-centric business apps as SaaS offerings. That sounds great for the niche markets interested in those offerings. But that sounds more like one leg of the strategy, not the whole thing. I don’t think you’re fighting off Google, Microsoft, and Amazon with a few new SaaS offerings a year.

So Take Good Notes For Me

Alfresco has had two years to establish the office in the valley, to get their shit together, and to start kicking ass again. What I’m hoping is that at this year’s Alfresco Summit, they will give us credible details about how that $45 million is going to be spent in such a way as to make all of the customers, partners, employees, and community members glad they bet their businesses and careers on what was once an innovative, game-changing, start-up called Alfresco.

Take good notes and report back!