Category: Usage-Based Pricing

Rethinking the Recurring Billing Status Quo: Why Analyst Reports Highlight a Broken Market

On August 6, 2024, Gartner released their latest Magic Quadrant for Recurring Billing Applications followed by Forrester’s The Recurring Billing Solutions Landscape, Q3 2024 on September 3, 2024. These reports assess a competitive landscape that has been evolving for over a decade, evaluating vendors based on their ability to manage the entire sales-to-finance process for recurring billing.

While these reports are valuable, they also reveal a deeper problem in the industry—a problem rooted in how standalone billing systems approach the recurring billing challenge. At Continuous, we believe the way the market has evolved has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the recurring billing problem, making it difficult for analysts to cover accurately and even more painful for customers to select the right solutions.

Both the Gartner and Forrester reports rank vendors based on their ability to handle the entire recurring billing lifecycle, which includes tasks such as:

Sales Process and Quoting:
Creating flexible pricing models and accurate quotes within the sales cycle, ensuring they align seamlessly with both CRM and billing systems.

Contracting:
Managing the transition from quoting to contracts, including drafting, signing, and handling amendments or renewals, while integrating pricing and terms from the sales process.

Service Provisioning:
Setting up and activating services according to contract terms, tracking usage in real-time to ensure accurate billing.

Usage Data Collection and Rating:
Capturing, mediating, and rating usage data in real-time, applying pricing rules to ensure accurate and scalable billing for consumption-based models.

Billing and Invoice Generation:
Consolidating one time, periodic and usage charges into detailed invoices, ensuring timely delivery to customers via their preferred channels.

Payment Processing:
Facilitating payment collection, managing recurring payments, and ensuring accurate reconciliation with financial systems.

Revenue Recognition and Financial Reporting:
Ensuring compliance with accounting standards by accurately recognizing revenue and providing detailed financial reports that integrate with the ERP system.

These tasks encompass a wide range of functions traditionally handled by CRM (Sales) and ERP (Finance) platforms. However, over the past decade, specialized billing vendors have emerged to address gaps in these systems. Their solution? Introduce a “billing system of record” – a third platform that sits between CRM and ERP to manage these critical processes. This shift has created a new category of software, one that analysts like Gartner, Forrester, IDC, and others are now tasked with evaluating.

The Rise of Standalone Billing Systems: A New Category Emerges

Around 2010, a belief took hold that CRM and ERP vendors couldn’t handle the increasing complexity of billing as companies shifted from traditional perpetual license models to subscription billing models. In response, a range of specialized billing systems began emerging, offering solutions to support this new “Subscription Economy”.

By 2017, this new category of standalone billing systems had matured enough to receive formal analyst coverage, leading to the release of reports like the Gartner Magic Quadrant and Forrester Wave. These vendors promised to simplify recurring billing by offering a third-party solution that could manage the billing lifecycle independently. This trend accelerated as consumption and prepaid credit models gained popularity, leading to the crowded market landscape we see today.

But here’s the issue: billing is not, and never should be, a standalone process. It’s intertwined with sales, finance, and customer management. When billing is siloed into a separate platform, businesses are forced to build complex integrations, juggle multiple systems, and deal with costly maintenance—problems that CRM and ERP systems were originally designed to solve.

What These Reports Reveal: Complexity, Not Simplicity

The criteria used by Gartner and Forrester to evaluate vendors include tasks that traditionally belong within the domains of CRM and ERP systems. However, instead of enhancing these core systems, standalone billing vendors have introduced an unnecessary third layer of complexity.

Consider the following:

  • Quote Creation and Negotiation are native functions of CRM systems, where sales teams manage customer interactions and quote data from all channels should be stored.
  • Contract Drafting and Management should flow naturally from CRM to ERP, enabling seamless financial reporting.
  • Invoice Creation and Payment Processing are core functions of billing that should reside within the ERP or CRM system, where financial and sales data is already managed.

By positioning a third-party billing system as essential, standalone vendors have shifted what should be natural extensions of CRM and ERP into fragmented processes. This fragmentation forces businesses to build complex integrations, making it harder to achieve a seamless sales-to-finance workflow.

The Problem with Standalone Billing Systems

At Continuous, we believe the current approach taken by standalone billing vendors is fundamentally flawed. Instead of simplifying processes, these vendors create friction by placing themselves as overlapping solutions with the CRM and ERP systems they are also dependent on. This introduces costly, cumbersome integrations that are difficult to maintain—particularly as pricing and packaging models evolve.

There’s no inherent reason why traditional sales and financial processes should be managed by a separate system when sales and finance teams have already invested in systems like Salesforce and NetSuite. Standalone billing vendors want businesses to believe they must control these processes, but the reality is that doing so makes their systems “stickier” by requiring complex customizations and significant services investments. The end result for customers of these vendors are deployments that are:

  • Expensive to integrate: Building and maintaining integrations between CRM, ERP, and standalone billing systems often requires costly services and custom work.
  • Rigid and limiting: Once integrations are built, they become rigid, making it difficult for businesses to adapt to new pricing models or market changes without extensive rework.
  • Manual and error-prone: Despite these integrations, many billing processes still require manual intervention, leading to inefficiencies and potential errors in financial reporting and customer invoicing.

This is why the current market is so difficult for analysts to cover: the premise of a standalone billing system is inherently flawed. The criteria that Gartner and Forrester use to evaluate these vendors encompass functions that should naturally belong in core CRM and ERP systems. However, standalone vendors pull these critical processes into a third cloud, which struggles to work effectively alongside CRM or ERP solutions.

The Continuous Approach: Back to Common Sense

At Continuous, we challenge this status quo. We believe that the best way to solve the recurring billing problem is to go back to what was previously common sense: there should not be a third cloud in between CRM and ERP.

Instead, we advocate for enhancing the core applications that B2B companies already rely on—CRM for sales and ERP for finance—and supplementing them with a powerful calculation engine that integrates with customers’ internal platforms. By doing this, we enable a truly unified quote-to-consumption process that is:

  • Easier to maintain.
  • More flexible as pricing and packaging needs evolve.
  • Less expensive to deploy, reducing both software license and integration costs.

Conclusion: Challenging the Status Quo

The release of the Gartner Magic Quadrant and Forrester Wave reports highlights how deeply entrenched the idea of standalone billing systems has become. But as businesses increasingly adopt complex pricing models and usage-based billing, the limitations of these systems become more apparent.

At Continuous, we believe there’s a better way—one that embeds billing awareness directly into the tools businesses use every day, rather than introducing another layer of complexity. By rethinking how billing should work, we can simplify the process for businesses and create a more efficient, flexible future for recurring billing.

Ready to simplify your sales and finance processes?

Stop juggling fragmented systems and costly integrations. At Continuous, we unify your sales and finance workflows by building on the trusted CRM and ERP platforms you already use.

If you’re ready to move beyond the limitations of standalone billing systems, let’s talk. Explore how Continuous can streamline your quote-to-cash process and help your business scale with confidence. Find out more today at: Product | Continuous Technologies.

Should You Nix Time-Based Trials? If You Have a Usage-Based Product, the Answer is YES!!

If Henry Ford had said to customers, “Here are the keys to your brand new car,go out and take a spin” would he have sold more cars? 

Of course he would.

And this is why so many companies offer free trials today.

Free trials can be a great way to provide prospective users with hands-on experience. Because, let’s face it, most buyers are risk averse. We want to know first-hand what we are getting for our money.

For companies, trials also help provide valuable feedback on target buyers, pricing, key use cases, what’s working and where users are falling down. And they hold the promise of landing new customers faster, without a lot of hand-holding and associated costs.

But what’s the best way to go about conducting a trial? After all-we know that SaaS trial conversion rates are incredibly low with 66% of Saas vendors reporting Free Trial conversion rates of 25% or less.

Well, for one, organizations need to make sure their service or product is ready for a trial. And by ready, I mean that it is something that customers can easily get, understand, use and see value from.

But another, perhaps equally important thing companies can do to drive more attach to their trials is to look at how they are setting these up.

Typically most companies look at time-based trials and usage-based trials. Time-based trials allow you to download and use a product or service for a fixed period of time. Usage-based trials don’t restrict your time, but they do put a limit around how much of the product you can use.

There are pros and cons to each approach, but if you are a company with a product or service that is being sold on a consumption-basis, you should seriously nix going with time-based trials and opt for usage-based trials instead.

Here are four reasons why.

  1. Time-based trials rarely work- How many times have you downloaded a time-based trial with the best of intentions and found you just can’t get to use it in the time allotted? This is particularly true if the trial requires any set up, 3rd party integrations or back-end approvals with other teams or users.Time-based trials are meant to create a sense of urgency. But typically that urgency is only felt by the company offering the trial. The person using it is usually on a completely different timeline.So, they have two choices–they can let the trial lapse-which many do. Or they can renew again and again for as long as it takes. But in both cases, your company is no closer to making a sale or getting the feedback they really need.
  2. Usage-based trials provide an easier transition for customers to move from trial to production for usage-based products- If you are planning on putting usage-based pricing in place for your products or services,then, usage-based trials will make it easier for your customers to understand and predict how much of your product or service they will likely need when they move to production. It will also get them more familiar with your metric and will help them put a business case together to support moving to the next phase.
  3. Usage-based trials can serve as an early indicator for the success of a new product or consumption-based  pricing model– Curious about what features are being used? Usage-based trials can give you real-time visibility into which capabilities or features are most widely adopted. These trials can also be fantastic for companies who are introducing consumption-based pricing into the market for the first time-especially if they are using a brand new metric.

For example, one organization wanted to launch a new data access governance product into the market. They thought going with column-based pricing would be the optimal approach. Unfortunately they had no data on how many columns their customers would need and if this type of pricing would fly. Introducing a usage-based trial gave them a window into usage and helped them understand where their customers were getting hung up and whether or not their new pricing model would fly. 

  1. Usage-based trials allow you to minimize costs and maximize customer experience– If you have a new product or service with metered pricing, you likely have to account for some costs on the backend. These infrastructure and hosting costs can quickly add up and will likely be difficult to predict with time-based trials. Going with usage-based trials helps curb costs and ensures organizations can predictably plan and support customers to ensure they have the best possible experience. And as PwC points out, experience is everything. In fact, if you focus on customer experience, you can expect to get a 16% price premium from your customers.Usage-based pricing makes this easier. It ensures companies have the right back-end infrastructure in place to support customers with the best possible experience throughout their trial. 

In the End

Trials are a great way to bring new customers into the fold and secure feedback on products, pricing and services. But as the old adage goes,just because you build it, doesn’t mean customers will come (or use your product). Making sure your trial is is easy to use and adopt is key to driving adoption and conversion. But so too is structuring your trial for success. And this often means-throwing time-based trials out the window in favor of usage-based trials–especially when it comes to usage-based pricing and products.

Looking for an easy way to run usage-based trials with your customers? Be sure to check out Continuous. Continuous is the only solution designed to help you launch and grow usage consumption pricing models on the Salesforce platform. Find out more today at: Product | Continuous Technologies.

Comparing usage-based and subscription pricing

As more and more companies adopt a digital-first approach, pricing models are becoming increasingly important. Two popular pricing strategies are usage-based pricing and subscription pricing. In this blog post, we’ll compare the two models and highlight the pros and cons of each.

Usage-Based Pricing

Usage-based pricing, as the name suggests, charges customers based on their usage of a product or service. This model is particularly useful for businesses that offer services that have a variable usage pattern, such as data storage or cloud computing. Customers are charged according to the amount of data they store or the amount of processing power they use.

Pros:

  • Flexibility: Customers can scale their usage up or down as needed, making this model particularly useful for businesses that experience fluctuations in demand.
  • Fairness: Customers only pay for what they use, which can be seen as a fairer pricing model.
  • Incentivizes customers to use less: Since customers are charged based on usage, they may be incentivized to use less and optimize their usage, which can be a win-win for both the customer and the business.

Cons:

  • Lack of predictability: Because customers are charged based on usage, their bills may vary from month to month, making budgeting and forecasting difficult.
  • Complexity: The usage-based model can be complex, particularly if there are different usage tiers or pricing structures based on the type of usage. This complexity can be a turnoff for some customers.

Subscription Pricing

Subscription pricing charges customers a recurring fee in exchange for access to a product or service. This model is particularly useful for businesses that offer ongoing services, such as software-as-a-service (SaaS) companies or media streaming services.

Pros:

  • Predictable revenue: Since customers are charged a recurring fee, revenue is predictable, making budgeting and forecasting easier.
  • Customer loyalty: Customers who subscribe to a product or service may feel a sense of loyalty to the brand, which can result in long-term customer relationships and a stable revenue stream.
  • Simplicity: Subscription pricing is straightforward and easy to understand.

Cons:

  • Lack of flexibility: Subscription pricing can be inflexible, as customers are often locked into a fixed period of time, such as a year-long subscription. This can be a turnoff for customers who only need a product or service for a short period of time.
  • Potential for unused subscriptions: If a customer subscribes to a service but doesn’t use it, they may still be charged for the duration of their subscription, which can be seen as wasteful.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the choice between usage-based pricing and subscription pricing will depend on the specific needs of the business and its customers. Businesses that offer services with a variable usage pattern may find that usage-based pricing is more appropriate, while those that offer ongoing services may find that subscription pricing is a better fit. By carefully considering the pros and cons of each pricing model, businesses can choose the option that works best for them and their customers.