Onboarding Packages - creating multiple packages for new customer onboarding

Mike Komadina

Hi GGR community!

We are in the process of building tiered onboarding packages that will be available to our customers during the Sales process. The goal is to help set appropriate expectations and boundaries with customers about what they will receive during onboarding, while also justifying the associated price we charge for onboarding.

Currently, we only offer a single paid option or self-guided onboarding experience and that will not support our scaling efforts.

Has anyone built onboarding packages? If so, what did you include in the packages - set number of Implementation Manager hours, # of Professional Services hours, type of Support, duration of total onboarding support?

Thank you!

Mike

Jeffrey Kushmerek

Hi Mike, 
I have done this many times (I actually do this as a business now). You definitely want tiers, and I tend to make them Essential > Standard> Enterprise. For the LMS business, you can imagine a standard onboarding 30-60 day plan where you have a kickoff, weekly training topics. I would not try to mention # of hours but instead list results (train members, etc). You probably know what the other options that are applicable for Skilljar, but as you go enterprise, you can include things like data migration, and other more concierge efforts, unless you have a PS team that does those things.
If you PM me I will try to dig up some screenshots.

best,
Jeff

Shareil Nariman

Hey Mike!

Just shot you a note on LinkedIn as well to connect, and happy to chat more. I've built onboarding programs and have used Skilljar as part of my own self-guided flows I've built. 

I think packages can work so long as it's clear what you are offering and how that differentiates between packages. As long as customers know what to expect, you should be fine segmenting this way. You don't want to surprise new customers with hidden costs (for onboarding they thought was included) or pushing them through a self-guided funnel when they were told they'd talk to someone (so clear process internally is critical to make sure departments outside of onboarding or implementation also know what to promise). 

Shoot me a message on here or LinkedIn and we can find some time to talk!

Shareil

Jeff Breunsbach

@Ryan McKeown any thoughts you'd want to drop in here.

Nicholas Ciambrello

Ive been going through this for a very long time here at Semrush. The biggest advice I can give is do NOT guarantee any set number of hours or sessions. One clients dont care about number of session/time spent they care about results... From your teams perspective you want them driving towards results not activity. If you set, for example, this tier gets 3 hours of training and this tier gets 5 your team is just going to be chasing activity and not chasing results/satisfaction for your clients.

Everything else from a tiering perspective is easy enough from a concept. Whats the bare minimum your customers need to do during onboarding to find success? Thats tier 1, Whats the bare min plus an add-on that can take them to the next level? Thats tier 2. Whats the white glove approach that if a customer goes through it theres no way they could fail using your software? Thats your premium tier.

You can also approach it in reverse how do you deliver your white glove approach to every tier but in a scalable way? Tier 1 might get a human (or multiple humans) every step of the way while the lowest tier might just get 1 human who acts more like a Quarterback/Point Guard and just directs them into the right directions.

No matter how you chose to approach the building of the tiers, SaaS is not just a software its a Service as a Service so build your Onboarding program like you would any other type of service job. If your customers are buying through a human well then you should have a human who can service them post sales. Tech and resources are there as tools they shouldnt replace the human.

Andreas Knoefel

I have a slightly different perspective:

Service caps: I see three types of customers: Champions who exceed, the cruising majority who do just fine, and the laggards, who are struggling due to bad solution fit, inability to execute, ... The caps are for the laggards, who are a constant drain on your resources, and you may be best off to say Goodbye (There are other options of course). That applies to all tiers you may provide.

Tiers: If you follow Geoffrey Moore's customer model, Innovators and Early Adopters are more prone to self-service, Early & Late Majority, in particular large enterprises want a full solution and are willing to pay for it. That is why they they have an entrenched partner, who you need to work with. I had $1M+ ARR accounts that paid another $3M for the onboarding, and a big SI in place. That need for comprehensive service typically extends then also to the touch-dimension beyond onboarding, but I have seen F100's with deep pockets for services, but a hollow purse for the subscription. Hence I split the onboarding service tier from the subscription tier and "empower" the customer to make their own decision.

Nicholas Ciambrello

Hey Andreas! Great comment! Love how you brought some science (or perhaps great experience) into the fold. In the spirit of collaboration and conversation Id like to add a little more to your response.

My comment about not providing a set number of limits to your service (which youre totally right on with the early adopters etc) is that as Customer Success people focus should be on the human to human relationship that drives adoption and ultimately successful use of the product. By putting limitations on the interactions, you set yourself up to putting your customers into a box.

To me the Customer Success teams are the human bridge between Product / Marketing and the customer. Everyone buys a software because they believe it will change their business in some significant way that it will lead to a better desired state. If you also believe that Customer Success is a philosophy adopted by the whole company and not just a team then how could you possibly put limitations on the interactions we have with our clients?

I believe in tiering your services department, as we do it here at Semrush, however the tiers are built by level of experience and expertise of the rep as opposed to client facing (set number of meetings, set time between meetings, number of QBRs etc) We feel those things distract from the ultimate goal of proving successful use to our customers vs having meetings/chasing activities just because we said they should have 4 meetings over the course of the year. Some clients need a million meetings some only need a proactive email once in a blue moon. As long as we understand the customers Goals, Plans Challenges and Timelines the only thing the CSM has to worry about is the role our product plays in helping them achieve that. 

We deal with a lot of very low ACVs however so my perspective is built more on bringing value to many users vs those in an enterprise solution. LOVE this topic and looking forward to your reply as well as any others who want to share their perspectives.

Andreas Knoefel

I love it, healthy discourse ?.

I follow the data-driven results from my annual benchmark study. One interesting result is how much time/interactions a CSM has with executives. They (typically) are not the resource drain, and lower engagement with them leads to lower NRR. 

Similar, if you benchmark your customers and find your baseline average, you can also find the baseline engagement and can set the limits for the CS team to spend their time in a managed way. I have encountered too many situations where not setting boundaries leads to the whole CS department is like a loony bin, burnout and CSM churn ensues, and NRR drops through the floor. Under the lens of those boundaries a CSM has of course the freedom to deviate, as long as the performance does not suffer.

Nicholas Ciambrello

Great point! I totally agree its a necessity to set boundaries and establish baselines for performance. We try to accomplish the same thing with a lens around creating value for the customer. Perhaps were both saying the same thing.

At the end of the day you need your tiering in a way that delivers value to the customer in order for them to stay your customer. 

I do, admittedly, struggle with envisioning limits around time (how long they'll be with the CSM) or number of meetings when it comes to matching an appropriate experience to our customers. Were a recurring subscription model, our focus is not only to getting customers to adopt our product but also staying adopted. Every time we tried to build some kind of tiering we found holes in one of those 2 parts. So now our CSMs own the accounts and use our systems to help them prioritize their book.

Have you seen other companies go through this in your different studies? If so, what advice could you share so we can avoid the looney bin as well! lol