@andrewchen

Today we have a guest post from my sister Ada Chen Rekhi about user acquisition based on experiences at her new startup Connected. Connected is a new contact management product they’re working on for professionals to easily manage their relationships across their email, calendar and social networks. Enjoy! -Andrew

When Does Paid Acquisition Work for SaaS Startups?
by Ada Chen Rekhi

Introduction
After recently moving on from adventures building a consumer gaming portal at Mochi Media (acquired last year for $80 MM), I’m now working on a new startup called Connected, which provides contact management without the work. I decided to blog some of my thoughts based on my experience thus far with deciding on the right user acquisition channels to focus on.

When does ad buying work for SaaS businesses?
It’s a convenient belief that after you decide to build your software as a service (SaaS), Google AdWords and other networks will enable you to outsource all of your marketing efforts and focus less about user acquisition. This is not always true. Here’s a “napkin math” model to quantitatively decide whether or not ad buying is right for your startup based on reality, not guesswork.

A model for user acquisition

Paid user acquisition works for you when the following proves true

• LTV > CAC

The lifetime value (LTV) of your users should exceed the cost of acquisition (CAC) to get them in the door. As a reminder

• LTV = Expected Life x Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) x Gross Margin

In addition, for SaaS, you care quite a bit about costs and conversion rate for your funnel to trial, and from trial to paid. In specific, these look like

• CPC – cost per click to get traffic
• % trial conversion rate – users who convert to a trial of your product
• % paid conversion rate – users who convert to paid account

To estimate your cost of acquisition, you can base it off of estimates for your trial and paid conversion rates.

• CAC = CPC / (% trial x % paid)

An example of cost of acquisition
Let’s pick an example and work backwards. Let’s say you have a

• $20/monthly subscription
• 5% paid conversion rate – from trial to paid
• 10% trial conversion rate – from visits to trial

Then let’s pick a two different points for cost per click

• $0.50 CPC
• $2.50 CPC

In order to get a user at these CPC points

• CAC = CPC / (% trial x % paid)
• CAC = $0.50 / (10% x 5%) = $100
• CAC = $2.50 / (10% x 5%) = $500

In this example, it costs anywhere from $100 to $500 to get a single paying user at $20 per month. If you were trying to acquire 100 users ($2000/month), at $0.50 CPC that’s $10k ad spend, and at $2.50 it’s $50k. Drew Houston from Dropbox brought up very similar issues from his Dropbox Startup Lessons Learned presentation, where their initial search marketing test had a whopping $233-388 cost per acquisition for a $99 product!

Compare this against lifetime value
Compare this against the lifetime value of your user, or the total amount of profit you expect to receive over the user’s use of your product. This value should factor in the churn that you’re seeing from users canceling their subscription over time as well as what the payback period and working capital which you expect. Even though you might expect a user to be retained over a period of years, most startups don’t have the capital necessary to tie up their money for that long.

Let’s go back to the example above. We have the two users who cost

• $100
• $500

Assuming zero churn and zero operating costs on their $20/month subscription, you would recoup your cost on these user over a fixed period of time

• $100 / $20 = 5 months
• $500 / $20 = 25 months

In the case of second user, it would take over two years to recoup the initial $500 you spent to acquire them. You can offset this issue of working capital by setting the value at the amount of revenue you receive over a fixed period of time, or by being more aggressive with pushing them to prepay for longer periods of subscription cost upfront.

For example, what if you could get these users to pre-purchase their $20/mon subscription for $149/year? You’d be able to recoup the first user’s cost instantaneously, and get back a significant percentage of the second user’s acquisition cost.

Making the model work
The path to achieving profitability looks like making the model of having your cost of acquisition beneath your lifetime value work. You can quickly get a back of the envelope idea of whether paid acquisition is for you based on the examples and model above.

Doing this will help you determine whether or not you can profitably use ad buying as a source for getting users. You can also fine-tune your model to incorporate even more granularity such as

• virality
• traffic source
• retention
• working capital
• churn
• etc.

Trying paid acquisition on for size

Now that we have the framework down, the question is whether or not paid acquisition works for you.

If this works for you, then congratulations- you are on the path to scalable riches! If it doesn’t work, then you should think about how far off it is. Getting ad arbitrage to work out profitably is extremely sensitive to changes in the steps of your conversion funnel, as well as the source of the traffic. So if you’re not many factors off, it may make sense to spend a few months refining your funnel and trying to optimize the channel the traffic is coming from. Here’s a few things to consider-

Does the math work?
Once you launch your product and get a sense of what the conversion rates are in each step along the funnel and the churn rate, it may be that the math doesn’t work out. If you’re not too far off, then it may be worth spending time trying to make the metrics work out through landing page optimization, increasing conversion along the steps of your funnel and trying to optimize your traffic sources. However, if you’re several factors off (this is common in highly competitive markets) paid acquisition may not make sense as a strategy for you.

Is your product in an existing market or a new market?
Intent-based paid acquisition channels like search advertising work best in an environment where users are aware of the problem and actively searching for solutions which your product meets. You can look up potential search terms and volumes through Google AdWords Traffic Estimator, including estimated average cost-per-click and monthly search volumes. If not, you can also experiment with targeting sites that reach the demographics of your users.

How much working capital do you have?
While theoretically you might be willing to pay up to the full LTV of the user, you may want to limit the amount you’re willing to pay based on a fixed time period, for example the expected value from the user over 6 months. This may be because at some point you run into working capital issues paying for users who may take years to break even.

I’ve had two recent conversations in which people have mentioned the “grow first, monetize later” philosophy as one of the signs of the coming bubble apocalypse, and this post is to argue why it’s very smart and rational to focus on getting millions of users first. (This post is part of my 2011 blogging roadmap)

Regarding monetization, I’ll note that…

• in general, consumer products mostly suck at monetizing
• any business model built on 1% subscriptions of 0.1% ads need millions of users
• costs are ridiculously low for new startups, and N millions of users is not expensive
• ignore this for products like marketplaces where monetization is part of the value prop

An ad-based example
Here’s some quick math- let’s say that you are a typical seed-stage team of 4 trying to get your startup off the ground, and your burn is approximately $40k/month. If you monetize at $0.25 CPM, which is a pretty typical ad rate for every thousand ad impressions, then that means you need a whopping 160M ad impressions per month to break even[1]. Even if you get 2X or 10X that ad rate, you’re still in the millions of users to get there. Scary right?

A subscription-based example
Similarly, if your site has a freemium business model, you’ll find that something like 1% of users subscribe for a pretty nicely tuned freemium configuration. So if you have 1% of registered users paying you $5/month, that means your average user is worth $0.05. Given this, you’d need 800k registered users, and if only 10% of your users register, you’ll need millions of users to get there.

Ultimately, the key is new user growth
Given the difficulty of monetization for consumer products, ultimately the best way to get to breakeven isn’t to try to optimize the 1% subscription rate to 2%, but rather to pick a huge market, create a killer product, and try to acquire millions of users. Because this is the biggest risk, you want to focus on growth first and foremost.

Here’s a different analogy that Steve Blank uses to get at this- let’s say that you wanted to create a cancer-curing drug. You don’t need to crunch the business model for that- if you had it, it’s valuable. You don’t need to price test or do customer development. All the risk is in the science, so you just focus on the science.

Similarly, I’d argue that in consumer internet, the real risk is that you can’t get millions of users actively engaged in your product, and that risk is ultimately driven by growth and long-term user retention. Thus focus on that first, then figure out the monetization once you’re at scale.

Stuff is so cheap these days
Note also that running a site with millions of users is cheap. The cost of hiring developers/designers will vastly overshadow the cost of maintaining the infrastructure- all you need are a few dedicated servers or just use Amazon Web Services- unlike the 90s, you don’t need a huge datacenter to get started. Because these costs are pretty low, you can just focus on making sure your designers and developers are productive and you’re getting to product/market fit.

Ignore this advice for products where revenue is part of the value prop
Of course for products where you are helping people make money as the central value, you need to do this sooner rather than later, so that you can make the entire network happen. So if you’re building a marketplace, collect money early, even if you don’t take very much profit. Same with Groupon-esque startups.

[1] CPM to revenue calculation
$0.25 CPM = $0.25 for every 1000 impressions
$0.25 / 1000 = $0.00025 per ad
$40k burn / $0.00025 per ad = 160M ad impressions per month

This post is part of my recent 2011 blogging roadmap post, where I created an outline of going from zero to product/market fit. Getting to this endpoint is obviously a good goal in theory, but question is, what does it even mean to hit this goal?

The original definition
In Marc Andreessen’s original post on the topic, he writes:

Product/market fit means being in a good market with a product that can satisfy that market.

You can always feel when product/market fit isn’t happening. The customers aren’t quite getting value out of the product, word of mouth isn’t spreading, usage isn’t growing that fast, press reviews are kind of “blah”, the sales cycle takes too long, and lots of deals never close.

And you can always feel product/market fit when it’s happening. The customers are buying the product just as fast as you can make it — or usage is growing just as fast as you can add more servers. Money from customers is piling up in your company checking account. You’re hiring sales and customer support staff as fast as you can. Reporters are calling because they’ve heard about your hot new thing and they want to talk to you about it. You start getting entrepreneur of the year awards from Harvard Business School. Investment bankers are staking out your house. You could eat free for a year at Buck’s.

His partner, Ben Horowitz, follows it up with a bunch of other observations about the fact the event isn’t a “big bang” kind of event – instead, there’s lots of gray area as your product starts working for the market: I’d encourage everyone to read his subsequent post here.

So the short answer is, there’s no easy test.

Now given that caveat, I’m going look at this through the lens of consumer internet to add some additional thoughts.

What is a market anyway? And how do you validate it’s real?
How do you even define a market for consumer internet? Ultimately, I concluded that the most useful definition of “market” is 100% consumer-centric. Here’s an attempt at a simple definition, focused on consumer internet:

A market consists of all the consumers who can search for and compare products for a use case they already have in mind.

This definition is very focused on the notion of pre-existing demand for products in your market, and is scoped narrowly to avoid confusion.

The most concrete test of pre-existing demand is using the Google Keyword Tool, which tells you how many people are searching on Google for a particular keyword. To try this out, you’d execute the following steps:

1. What keyword do people search to get to your site?
2. Put those keywords into Google Keyword Tool
3. How many people are searching for this keyword?

If the answer to #3 is large (millions or more), then you have a large market. This test is very concrete, and also very finicky. By design, terms like “vacation package” score high on this test, whereas “travel experiences” do not, even though an educated entrepreneur or investor might abstractly group them together. Similarly, by design, a person who’s building a “social network for musicians” might be inclined to list the # of musicians in the US as part of their market sizing, but under this test, you’d quickly see that there’s not too many people are specifically looking for that. Also interestingly enough, you’d never say there was a “Photoshop market” but a quick search will show that in fact almost 40 million searches per month on “photoshop,” and it might be a great strategy to position yourself relative to that keyword.

Validating that you are part of a pre-existing market comes with all sorts of benefits, which I’ll address in later posts. But for now, the most important benefit is that you know the # of potential customers is large.

(In general, I’ve been constantly confused about how to even define a market in consumer internet, given that there’s so much similar featureset between otherwise very different products. For example, early on, people talked about “social” as if it were a type of site, whereas now it’s seen as an aspect for all new products coming to the web. Similarly, people sometimes talk about “Facebook apps” as if it’s a market when, again, it’ll probably just end up an aspect of every new online service.)

What’s a great market?
What are other attributes that make a market attractive? For consumer internet, a great market is commonly defined by:

• a large number of potential users
• high growth in # of potential users
• ease of user acquisition

Not competition, in my opinion, because for consumer internet there is often literally billions of potential users, and you’re mostly competing against obscurity. So even if there’s a ton of competition, if it’s easy to acquire consumers to your product, that’s great! Then get a good enough product, and you’re ready to go.

Not monetization, in my opinion,  because making money is pretty straightforward. You can throw on some ads and get $0.1-$1 CPMs, or you can charge subscription rates and get 1% to convert, or you can do the virtual goods thing. The biggest risk in all of these monetization models is really about whether or not you can get millions of users or not.

Picking a great market leads to better products
Leading with a great market helps you execute your product design in a simpler and cleaner way. The reason is that once you’ve picked a big market, you can take the time to figure out some user-centric attributes upon which to compete. This leads to a strong intention for your product design, which drives a clean and cohesive UX. In a market of all black Model Ts, you can sell otherwise identical cars of different color and that’ll work. Picking the right attribute is it’s own topic though!

The important part here is that you can usually pick some key things in which your product is different, but then default the rest of the product decisions. This means that your product’s design can be more cohesive because you’re trying to do less, but better.

Once you’ve executed your product, then there are various ways to validate that it’s “good enough” and your product fits the market:

• When user testing, do people group your product in with the “right” competitive products?
• Do they understand the differentiation of your product versus your competitors?
• Will some segment of users in the overall market switch to your product?
• Are some users who’ve “rejected” the products in the market willing to try your product?
• How do your underlying metrics (DAU/MAU, +1 week retention, etc.) compare to your competitors?

All of the above are signals towards product/market fit. Thee above tests are interesting in that they fundamentally anchored on pre-existing competitive products in the category. In a new market, you don’t have the luxury of comparing yourself to other things.

In future posts, I’ll try to give some more concrete metrics based on my research for what are good numbers in each of these cases, but for now, the important idea is just that in a large existing market you have more datapoints to at least say, “my product is at least as good as the other guy’s.”

New markets are a danger to good product design
In fact, one of the scariest things to me about new markets is that doing great product design for them is extremely hard. It’s so unconstrained that it’s hard to do anything other than add features, see what sticks, and iterate. This is fun except that keeping a cohesive product experience is quite hard, and removing features is usually harder than adding them. So at the end, you incur tons of product design debt that never gets paid off. (It’s not a surprise to me that Apple has a history of simplifying already successful product categories, rather than inventing brand new ones from scratch)

Conclusion
To summarize my main points in this essay, I’ve come to some simplifying definitions on how to validate product/market fit in consumer internet. For market, if you constrain the definition to people who know how to search for products in your category, you can develop a pretty concrete test evaluating pre-existing demand. And by leading with a market, you can develop a central design intention that leads to better product design. This in turn can then be validated by comparing your product metrics to competitor numbers, as well as user tests that focus on grouping and differentiation.

This leaves lots of unanswered questions, but hopefully is a start to my new blogging roadmap! More to come soon.