General Consultant Discussion

Do you think within 5 years Sage 100c users will be told by Sage that they underpaid for their Advanced or SQL 100c licenses and now must be ungrandfathered with a price hike because they underpaid during migration?

Will the question be relevant in five years?

Five years from now Sage will be moving people back to perpetual in order to boost revenue for a year or two...

I voted yes - Sage will rely on the channel to deliver the news. I believe the reality is that Sage will make the subscription price of Advanced more expensive than Standard, and Premium more expensive than Standard and Advanced. Of course this will infuriate customers, particularly Premium users as they will not have a path to downgrade the data. Today users are told they can convert from 100 to any version of 100c for the same price. In a year or two Sage will raise the subscription price of Advanced and Premium @PhilMcIntosh I believe there will be a good market in five years for perpetual. It may not be Sage but some publishers will offer perpetual to serve the market. There are many small businesses that don't want to upgrade every couple of years. The new features aren't relevant or worth the cost to upgrade. The customers that only upgrade every six or seven years or more want perpetual. It is less expensive for them pay three years back maintenance plus a 20% late charge every six years when they are ready to upgrade.

@DougHiggs - subscription version price differences will be sooner than that. One of the Sage execs at the Road Ahead responded to talk of that with ""We need to close that loophole"".

LOL.... ""loophole"". That isn't a loophole. It is a deliberate strategy to convert users to 100c and then raise the prices. Users have little choice but to comply or change software. Unable to change back to perpetual and Premium users are unable to downgrade to lower the price.

I voted No, because I believe that Sage knows this is a benefit for 100c and that was an added value to almost nothing of value (""modernized screens""). Yes, in 5 years all current users will be on 100c and made their choice. If we knew it was happening in advance, we move everyone to SQL and install what they want if no more cost. What I can see is new customers paying more for each of the options. I don't see this as that much of a revenue generator as just selling more product and add-ons. Of all the customers we have ever had, less than 5 have decided to go to SQL and perhaps 10 - 15 to client/server, so the numbers are not there.

I have no doubt this type of initiative is already well underway. However, in the unlikely event it is not - I believe it is well worth it for 90 Minds to ""lobby"" Sage on these types of strategic ""big picture"" initiatives deemed worthy of group attention and funds. For this to be effective we must overlook the non-decision makers and interact with the VP, EVP and President level at Sage. The group needs to develop multiple contacts so that when one contact leaves at Sage there are others that can provide some continuity. In my thoughts, this means regular meetings with Sage outside of MOTM and Summit. It means dedicating group funds to send assigned 90 Minds representatives to meet with VP (and higher level people) regularly in Atlanta and UK as well as be seen at major events. BPAC and Product Advisory slots are nice. However, by all accounts, they are ""rear view mirror"" type organizations. 90 Minds, IMO, should focus on longer term big picture initiatives so that customers and consultants are not blindsided by poorly executed initiatives such as payroll tiers and 100c migration (where the PM gets up in front of a road ahead and admits 100 = 100c and there's really no difference). 90 Minds need to be proactive and speak as a 170+ member organization who has the best interest of customers at heart.

Excellent point about 90 Minds speaking as a large group. A single customer or partner has limited leverage with Sage. On the other hand, 170 channel partners representing a large group of active Sage customers can influence decisions A question to address is what would be the actions by 90 Minds when this large voice is ignored. If the group believes that a decision by Sage will have significant negative impacts on the product's position, customers and the channel, what will we do? Such action needs to influence Sage to reconsider without making its management angry. A core principle is that 90 Minds is acting in the best interests of the product, the customer, the channel and also Sage, even though Sage may not see this in the short-term.

90 Minds is starting to be more regularly recognized in Sage circles as evidenced by the excellent attendance at our Summit Social by Sage VIPs, and our members being on BPAC and Product Advisory. We are interested in developing the relationship as an influencer for Sage's programs however we will remain true to our goals for our membership first and always. Believe me we are working on the best way to engage and be engaged with Sage.