Sage 100

Customer response to my suggestion to upgrade to 100c: ""after years of taking our renewal money and not providing any worthwhile updates, now that they made some screens look prettier, they want an additional 15% annually...no thanks."". Needless to say, I had nothing to say after that.

I cannot think of a compelling reason to suggest to a customer that they ""upgrade"". So I won't be.

I have a similar sentiment regarding Windows 10 or IE 11 or Office 2016 . . . I actually had no issue with XP, but it had security problems. I'm not all that excited over the new user interfaces and features that are added to each version. Eventually, though, there will be no choice. XP is no longer viable and eventually Windows 7 will become obsolete. 100c at some point will be the only version, and subscription will be the only licensing model. We have no idea what the cost will be in two years to convert (after it has many more added features that were not added to 100). It may not seem like much has been added, but the plan is to provide much more. The reality is that it was prospects who asked for the new look (or voted by rejecting 100 and its tired look), not existing users. It's a start. I don't agree with the customer's response. In addition to maintaining operating system compatibility, there have been many useful enhancements over the years, including integrated and connected functions that the market has asked for. I would agree, however, that the amount being charged for annual maintenance is too high, and that Sage should have an option that does not include their telephone support.

@KennyDaniel - You told them it was only 15%???? I agree as a long time user (20 years now), I am used to the tired old interface and find it hardly compelling to upgrade. But if your client truly thinks there has been little of value added, they are starting to sound like a QB client. There are many ""little"" tweaks that have been added. It may be time to suggest a process review to look at their old habits. I bet they are like many who have gotten used to the pain and don't realize they are spending extra time doing things in six steps that could be achieved in less if they were willing to learn and change. @JohnHoyt - Such a shocking statement about XP!!! I am going to take your Surface away and insist you run XP next month in SD.....

@JeffSchwenk I could have said I'm joining my millennial friends and doing everything on my smartphone.

@JohnHoyt - What is a smart phone? I am still using a brick.....

John, I have to disagree with you. The bottom line is that Sage was, and still is, charging a significant amount every year to keep the software updated and ""fresh"". The reason Sage 100 looks the way it does is because Sage did NOT do that over the last 10 years. And now that they decided to finally do it, they are charging a premium for it. They should have given 100c to every loyal customer that renewed year after year, even though they received little in return. Imagine how far that would have gone with customer satisfaction, but instead, the customer feels they are getting ripped off...once again. Every customer I spoke to was eager to get 100c installed...until they heard there was an additional fee. They didn't understand why and trying to explain is a nightmare.

We can post points for and against, but if you, the consultant, are not sold on 100c and upgrading from 100, then you will probably not convince your customer of it. I actually believe that if it were a free upgrade, there are many that would not upgrade. Reasons are similar to why we still have customers on 4.50 or 4.20 or even 3.71! We have allowed them to do that. The most important reason that Sage, Microsoft and others introduce new versions with new looks is to sell more new units, which is what keeps the publisher profitable. The old look was failing to compete, so 100c/300c were necessary.

While I agree in principle @JohnHoyt, the Sage problem is ""value received"". Customers have paid far in excess of the value received for compatibility and compliance, especially when compared to the competition. And because feature release has been non-compelling to upgrade, the value proposition is further reduced. The necessity cost of maintaining a clunker is far less palatable than spending on that which pushes the speed limit.

I understand the feelings that customers have regarding past years of maintenance payments and their value perception. My experience with our customers is we only have 1% or 2% that have complained about it, if even that, and I have dealt with those complaints. The reality is customers and partners must now only look forward and make the most of what is being offered. That means staying with 100, upgrading to 100c or switching to another software package. The cost of switching, of course, is by far a higher investment, so they have to measure if they are going to receive more value. I just e-mailed an analysis to a customer to upgrade to 100c and it will result in a substantial annual savings That was without any credits to make it be only 15% more than annual maintenance. (Yes, Sage reviewed it before I sent it out.)

Interested in where the savings were achieved. Did they drop modules, users or reduce a plan level. This is actually the first that I have heard that you can save money by switching.

They have additional SI Report Managers and Viewers, in this case as a result of the FRx conversion. I would have thought those wouldn't have been charged maintenance. By converting those to the SI Bundle, it saved a large amount. We have a number of those, where we can convert to the bundle.

As soon as Sage find the ""hole"" in their spreadsheet they close it. Remember they did it with EES when they were pushing that bundle ""upgrade"". That deal was too good to be true. And turns out it was. Sage yanked the rug out from under the upgrades a few years down the road converting them all to user pricing. Sage should get rid of obtuse confusing SI pricing, sell a single user bundle of everything for one price. My experience is customers like simple. They also don't have a problem buying additional users when needed. This reliance on myriad of spreadsheets and data models to give a customer a price on what should be a simple reporting add-on is symptomatic of the deep trouble that Sage is in. It's not that spreadsheets are required for pricing that's the problem -- rather it's the lack of any executive **seeing** this as a problem. Sage should also bag the dumb acquisition $500/user fee for Sage 100c. They're selling on-demand subscriptions to ERP -- not used car leases. Even though in many cases they increasingly seem to act like used car salesmen. Anyone ever subscribe to a service online and also have a pay an acquisition fee? The whole process just smacks of an industry that can't figure out how to advance to the next level without keeping at least one foot firmly in their past.

Wayne, this is response is worthy of a blog. Excellent insight

@WayneSchulz I agree with everything you said. I complained about the complexity and confusion to the RSM, and got no sympathy. When I also pointed out that we should receive tier credit for items that are now included with a Gold Plan, such as Designer, he suggested I bring that up with Laura and Connie. It will certainly be a hot topic at MOTM, so Sage should be prepared. Yes, I've found the holes, and I'm taking advantage of them while I can. The other big one is a user can avoid paying version upgrade fees (e.g. Advanced to Premium) by migrating to 100c, where they can select any version.

@JohnHoyt I also think Sage should discontinue win back penalties in favor of requiring 100c. If you drop your maintenance why should you be able to get back to a more favorable plan? I bet 75% of the channel (that pays attention) would be super enthusiastic at reminding customers that they must not go late or off plan.

In other words - once your plan expires without being renewed the only option to re-activate is 100c.

We are not long from "" publisher makes margin on software, consultant makes margin consulting"" so the tier stuff doesn't particularly gnaw at me. I see trying to protect tier/margin as a losing battle. I want to control my own recurring revenue stream - not a public company with a history of 3 year reorganizations which rely on people from outside the ERP industry to spend two of those years taking meetings and learning.