<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Friday Q&#038;A: Is chasing “big name” customers worth it?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.groovehq.com/blog/friday-qa-june-23-2017/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.groovehq.com/blog/friday-qa-june-23-2017</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2019 11:38:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Chestra Cobalt		</title>
		<link>https://www.groovehq.com/blog/friday-qa-june-23-2017#comment-554</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chestra Cobalt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2017 15:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groovehq.com/blog/?p=750#comment-554</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This article makes it sound like the deal had been worked out clearly and everyone was on the same page. Is that actually true? Sometimes companies put resources into deals without having set clear terms. This can lead to disappointment.

I was in a situation recently where I had been speaking to a company about renting an office space and though the company was always vague about specifics, it sounded like a dream when they would ring me. I gave that company the benefit of the doubt, thinking that the terms would clarify themselves. Then at the last minute, they threw in a huge monkey wrench that I was just not okay with - I realized that they were putting at least one other tenant in there with me. This was actually heartbreaking and a dealbreaker for me since I thought I&#039;d have the office space to myself.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article makes it sound like the deal had been worked out clearly and everyone was on the same page. Is that actually true? Sometimes companies put resources into deals without having set clear terms. This can lead to disappointment.</p>
<p>I was in a situation recently where I had been speaking to a company about renting an office space and though the company was always vague about specifics, it sounded like a dream when they would ring me. I gave that company the benefit of the doubt, thinking that the terms would clarify themselves. Then at the last minute, they threw in a huge monkey wrench that I was just not okay with &#8211; I realized that they were putting at least one other tenant in there with me. This was actually heartbreaking and a dealbreaker for me since I thought I&#8217;d have the office space to myself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Niko Roberts		</title>
		<link>https://www.groovehq.com/blog/friday-qa-june-23-2017#comment-558</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niko Roberts]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 06:52:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groovehq.com/blog/?p=750#comment-558</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[If you can white label at a relatively low cost but still remain 95% an off the shelf product/service big customers have definite upsides.
Internal referrals have a very good rate of return and their isn&#039;t the problem of public brand usage.
Aside from product change demands (which have to be pushed back against wherever they don&#039;t make sense), the biggest negative for large corporations is the procurement process. Bring an approved vendor can take months (legal, security, compliance and the contract).
Every downside has a upside though, because of this the barrier to entry for competitors is high.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you can white label at a relatively low cost but still remain 95% an off the shelf product/service big customers have definite upsides.<br />
Internal referrals have a very good rate of return and their isn&#8217;t the problem of public brand usage.<br />
Aside from product change demands (which have to be pushed back against wherever they don&#8217;t make sense), the biggest negative for large corporations is the procurement process. Bring an approved vendor can take months (legal, security, compliance and the contract).<br />
Every downside has a upside though, because of this the barrier to entry for competitors is high.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Joshua Benson		</title>
		<link>https://www.groovehq.com/blog/friday-qa-june-23-2017#comment-563</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joshua Benson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groovehq.com/blog/?p=750#comment-563</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Speaking as someone who has closed several big logos for my employer, it works out well if their requests are in line with your product roadmap and target audience, because the enhancements will most likely benefit your other subscribers. We do not chase deals that are not in line with our vision, and will even recommend competitors who would be a better fit. It&#039;s better to do what&#039;s in the best interests of your customer&#039;s success rather than shoehorn them into your product when it&#039;s clear that they won&#039;t have a great experience.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking as someone who has closed several big logos for my employer, it works out well if their requests are in line with your product roadmap and target audience, because the enhancements will most likely benefit your other subscribers. We do not chase deals that are not in line with our vision, and will even recommend competitors who would be a better fit. It&#8217;s better to do what&#8217;s in the best interests of your customer&#8217;s success rather than shoehorn them into your product when it&#8217;s clear that they won&#8217;t have a great experience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Robert Acevedo		</title>
		<link>https://www.groovehq.com/blog/friday-qa-june-23-2017#comment-564</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Acevedo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:18:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.groovehq.com/blog/?p=750#comment-564</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[While big logos are profitable the resources need are problematic. One thing I like to do is get an iron clad agreement for a purchase after the customizations so if they decide to walk away the investment is covered. just tell them its a contingency and if they have an issue you have an answer about their level of commitment]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While big logos are profitable the resources need are problematic. One thing I like to do is get an iron clad agreement for a purchase after the customizations so if they decide to walk away the investment is covered. just tell them its a contingency and if they have an issue you have an answer about their level of commitment</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
