Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?
Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021
SaaS Fest 2016 took place in Boston, Massachusetts in December. The theme for the latest SaaS Fest was consumer satisfaction and 13 speakers gave presentations on the topic during the two days of the meeting.
David Cancel, Founder and CEO of Drift (a firm that developed a messaging app for sales teams), hypothesized that 50% of SaaS companies will fail because they still think of customers as leads and don’t spend enough time connecting with and listening to them. Cancel calls this approach SaaS 1.0, where companies focus mainly on their technological prowess. They “know” they’ve developed a useful service, so all they need do is market it. Customers will subscribe to the service and will be satisfied, and their companies will continue to attract new customers and grow. Cancel describes these firms as thinking of their customers more like names in a database than as real people with varying needs.
Cancel advocated taking a customer-centric approach that he called SaaS 2.0. With this model, companies focus on providing the best customer service, with the motivation that if they don’t, customers will take their business elsewhere. He pointed out that a recent study by PwC Digital Services revealed that 94% of senior company executives thought that personalizing services was important if they wanted to attract and retain customers.
Cancel made the point that a customer-centric approach was a smart business approach for any company that faces competition, not just SaaS enterprises and that no company can afford to ignore their customers regardless of how successful they’ve been in the past or how strong a reputation they have.
He gave US automotive pioneer Henry Ford as an example. Ford believed he knew what customers needed and that he didn’t have to take the time to listen to them. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses,” said Ford in the early years of the Ford Motor Company.
As Cancel stated, Ford would have invented the Model T regardless of what the public thought at the time, but not listening to his customers as the automobile market grew cost him dearly. In 1921, Ford had 60% of the automobile market. By 1927, its share of the market fell to 15%, and Ford stopped producing the Model T. Ford’s competitor General Motors (GM) listened to what automobile customers wanted – cars with different options and designed for different purposes. GM significantly eroded Ford’s market share by offering consumers a choice of different models that satisfied different consumer preferences.
Cancel recommended that SaaS companies make a concerted effort to listen to the needs of all their customers. He likened the effort to treating customers like friends rather than just a source of revenue. He suggested making customer service a high priority and to make it easy for potential and existing customers to find the appropriate department and person who can answer their inquiries quickly, including having 24/7 customer support if a SaaS company is providing a mission-critical service.
As Cancel concluded, listening to your customers is not just the right thing to do – it’s the smart thing to do from a business standpoint.
StatusCake Team
Share this
More from StatusCake
When Code Becomes Cheap: The New Reliability Constraint in Software Engineering
4 min read How AI Is Shifting Software Engineering’s Primary Constraint For most of the history of software engineering, the primary constraint was production. Code was expensive, skilled engineers were scarce, and shipping features required concentrated human effort. Velocity was limited by how fast people could reason, implement, test, and deploy. That constraint shaped everything from team size,
James Barnes
March 25, 2026
Buy vs Build in the Age of AI (Part 3)
5 min read Autonomous Code, Trust Boundaries, and Why Governance Now Matters More Than Ever In Part 1, we looked at how AI has reduced the cost of building monitoring tools. Then in Part 2, we explored the operational and economic burden of owning them. Now we need to talk about something deeper. Because the real shift isn’t
James Barnes
March 18, 2026
Buy vs Build in the Age of AI (Part 2)
6 min read The Real Cost of Owning Monitoring Isn’t Code — It’s Everything Else In Part 1, we explored how AI has dramatically reduced the cost of building monitoring tooling. That much is clear. You can scaffold uptime checks quickly, generate alert logic in minutes, and set-up dashboards faster than most teams used to schedule the kickoff
James Barnes
March 11, 2026
Buy vs Build in the Age of AI (Part 1)
5 min read AI Has Made Building Monitoring Easy. It Hasn’t Made Owning It Any Easier. A few months ago, I spoke to an engineering manager who proudly told me they had rebuilt their monitoring stack over a long weekend. They’d used AI to scaffold synthetic checks. They’d generated alert logic with dynamic thresholds. They’d then wired everything
James Barnes
March 4, 2026
Alerting Is a Socio-Technical System
3 min read In the previous posts, we’ve looked at how alert noise emerges from design decisions, why notification lists fail to create accountability, and why alerts only work when they’re designed around a clear outcome. Taken together, these ideas point to a broader conclusion. That alerting is not just a technical system, it’s a socio-technical one. Alerting
James Barnes
February 25, 2026
Designing Alerts for Action
3 min read In the first two posts of this series, we explored how alert noise emerges from design decisions, and why notification lists fail to create accountability when responsibility is unclear. There’s a deeper issue underneath both of those problems. Many alerting systems are designed without being clear about the outcome they’re meant to produce. When teams
James Barnes
February 18, 2026