It seems strange that pricing is still kept a secret by so many software vendors. In the current financial climate, cost is certainly an important topic, so why are vendors making it so difficult for buyers to find out what their products cost?
Here some good and bad examples of how different vendors approach pricing:
- Alfresco, which I thought was an open source alternative, has a Purchase page, for their Enterprise Edition, but you still need to contact sales for pricing. Perhaps a legacy from the fact that most of Alfresco management comes from successful commercial vendors?
- Ektron has a purchase link and even an Ektron Store, but you have to “ask your sales person for details” if you want to buy the CMS400 product
- FatWire seems to have nothing about pricing. I gave up searching on the website for anything on license cost.
- Google has a page titled “What is the price of the Google Search Appliance?” but the page only tells you about the licensing model and not the cost.
- IBM offers to “lock in savings with Lotus software” with discount incentives for multi-year agreements, but I searched in vain for pricing
- Microsoft has a detailed and complex licensing overview for SharePoint, but like so many other vendors, without any numbers or cost indication.
- Oracle has an Oracle Store where you can view prices and purchase products directly. Very good!
- Sitecore has a page called Sitecore Pricing, but the page has no numbers and you have to contact Sitecore for pricing.
So, where do you find the price? The usual and time-intensive route is that you contact the vendor and enter into the normal sales dialogue. Alternatively you can consult your favourite analysts or talk to existing customers. Customers might also be able to share valuable anecdotes about discounts. I am also happy to share the prices I know and have already publicised a few on this blog, e.g. on the J. Boye CMS Shortlist 2009.
We are approaching the end of the calendar year, which is also the end of the fiscal year for many vendors. This tends to increase their willingness to give discounts.
If you are looking to buy some software, you might be able to do a really good deal during the next couple of days. In my experience the vendors who are less transparent about cost are usually those who give the biggest discounts. Good luck!
For an interesting perspective on this topic, see Software pricing: to hide or not to hide? by Tristan Renaud at open source vendor Jahia.
Jon Marks December 23rd, 2009 13:40
Here’s why they don’t do it. It’s an old yet excellent post. Long read, but worth it:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html
In summary, the vendors *think* that they maximise profit by not charging everyone the same price. It’s not clear if they’re right or not. As I said, read Joel’s post.
Shawn Shell December 23rd, 2009 13:40
Janus:
Excellent article. However, Microsoft generally posts “retail” pricing for all products. I agree that it’s not obvious on Microsoft’s site, but here’s the pricing page for SharePoint 2007: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointserver/FX102176831033.aspx?ofcresset=1. Also, if you want a detailed quote for Microsoft products, you can visit the automated licensing advisor: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/mla/default.aspx. This tool allows you to stipulate what you want and they produce a real number.
Shawn
Steve Green December 24th, 2009 13:40
Isn’t it just simply a way of ensuring you get in contact with the customer as early in the decision making process as possible? From a sales point of view the last thing you want them doing is putting together a spreadsheet containing a list of prices without you having a chance to say why your product is special.
I know that was the reasoning I had when I ran my own software company, we figured that the handful of customers we lost because they didn’t want to call us was worth the estimated greater number who did.
Dave Scalera December 28th, 2009 13:40
This is a great article and I’m happy to discuss this as one of the vendors mentioned (Ektron). I’d be interested to hear other’s points of view as well (practitioners, implementers, and vendors). To be blatantly honest here, the concern is far less one of transparency than it is of market perception. Part of the CMS community (analysts included), and software community at large, has identified tiers of vendors (i.e. SMB, Mid-Market, Enterprise) by the price of the offering and not necessarily the scalability or functionality of the solution. This has posed a challenge to vendors who have moved their product legitimately from one tier to the other, or who serve multiple market segments, while still offering value-based pricing. The reality that we’ve experienced is that the “traditional” Mid-Market vendors are solving very similar business problems that the “Enterprise” vendors have been solving. I think customers are realizing this as well and this is why we are seeing such successful results coming from these vendors that are covering multiple market segments. There are still many scenarios, however, where certain buyers are falling into the trap where they see more as better. Thus the dilemma that we’re facing…
Ektron will gladly offer a price quote to any prospective customer that asks. Our pricing starts at a single URL, single server, 5-user license at $5,000 (USD). Our pricing also scales well into 6-figures for certain Enterprise configurations. Our options in between are based on a rather simple formula of number for users/URLs/Servers. It’s actually a rather simple model that works for an extremely large percentage of our customers. However, we have no issue in saying that for organizations with unique environments that somehow don’t align with the way we’ve modeled our licensing options, we reserve the right to get creative to meet their needs. And yes, we won’t break any stereotypes – feel free to call your local sales rep if you’re looking to use up the rest of your 2009 budget!
-Dave Scalera
Web Solutions Evangelist, Ektron
Rob December 29th, 2009 13:40
@Jon Marks : Thanks for the link to an excellent and funny post. It really summarizes everything in a great way.
__
I can confirm from experience that one of the companies listed above – years ago anyway – didn’t list prices on certain software packages because they (at least in one instance) charged customers based on how much they figured the client could afford.
Back then, I worked for company, and we where in the process of deciding whether we should buy a particular software package from one of the companies listed above. No prices were listed anywhere.
Before the decision was made, my boss left the company we worked for, for a higher position in a smaller company, and I had to take over. We ended up purchasing the software.
About half a year later, I met my old boss, and he told me, that he had purchased the same software package for his new company, and asked me what we had paid.
Turned out, he had gotten the exact same software package for a lower price. The difference in percent more or less exactly reflected the differences in the stock value of the two companies we worked for back then.
Since this is years ago, and the company in question might have changed practice, I haven’t mentioned the company’s name, but my practice remains the same: If possible, I avoid dealing with companies that seems unable to give basic information like prices.
Jon Kee December 29th, 2009 13:40
I agree with the sales principles noted about wanting to get contact with a client as early as possible. I can tell you that while we get a handful of requests for Ektron license pricing (as an Ektron Partner), the requests simply asking for pricing rarely turn into anything. If they’re not willing to make a call or at least engage in an online chat, they’re probably not too serious about your solution. I think the ‘starting at; philosophy works great and at least semi-qualifies the prospect before expending any sales effort.
Gabe Sumner January 5th, 2010 13:40
I think Dave Scalera hit the nail on the head. Very broad generalizations get made from pricing. Nor do I blame anyone for doing so… CMS selection is complex. Consequently, it isn’t surprising that pricing (or technology platform, or a features matrix) is used to arbitrarily whittle down the list of choices.
“Starting at” pricing lets people know if a product exceeds their budget. Beyond that, non-specific pricing shifts the conversation to the project requirements and the product’s merits.
Gabe Sumner
Telerik – Sitefinity CMS
Dave Lane June 10th, 2010 13:40
I can’t see why anyone is even thinking about CMS pricing these days. The proprietary CMS marketplace is dead: open source CMSs are grabbing marketshare so quickly and comprehensively that no compelling business case can be made for a license-cost bearing proprietary CMS today.