electric

Coding is secondary to good business skill. There's a thousand good coders available for hire on a dozen different "rent a coder" websites. If you've got the skill to develop a solid business around Blesta plugin/module development, then go for it. There's lots of good coders that will work for a reasonable price.

With monthly signups in the single digit rate, your opinion is of course still valid but doesn't exactly carry much weight. We see regular signups across multiple brands in the hundreds per month. We've played with this exact question quite a bit (does simple signup affect sales?) and found that the simpler the signup... the more sales we received. This applies to both our low-cost and high-cost brands. GoDaddy is fairly well known for creating a frustrating signup/order process that is replete with extra upselling options. It honestly boggles my mind that they continue to have such a convoluted signup/ordering process, but I think they throw so much money into their advertising that customers just plow through it because they don't know there are lots of other options. Just my 2 cents, but I think a simple order system with an "after order" upselling process would be more affective for the majority of Blesta users. Of course, everyone's needs are unique, but since this is a new feature request, I'd much rather see it implemented in a useful way we can actually use. (ie: We would not enable any upselling capability if it is during the initial order process, so such a feature would be pointless for us.) In all honesty, once Blesta implements the logic for this kind of upselling system, it wouldn't be super difficult to put it into place during the order and then after, as I suggested. The difficult part is doing the logic behind it all, so once that is done... maybe we can see it implemented in both ways, and blesta admin can enabled/disable each method as desired.

What a second guys. This is a great idea, in theory, but... please take a step back and think about this a bit. In our experience, we've found it is better (more completed sales) to initially sell the customer on the most basic services and just get them signed up. Presenting them with various "upselling" offers at the time of initial signup will slow the order process and make it more potentially difficult for the typical non-techy customer, who just wants basic hosting and a domain, to understand. There's a reason why you see the largest web hosting providers have a very simple and basic order system. You normally can't add anything except hosting and a domain name. Upselling is something they do later... once the customer has become a customer. The idea behind this is to completely remove all possible barriers to completing the initial signup process. Giving the new customer too many options and choices makes their signup confusing, and increases the likelihood they will abandon the process. It is better to upsell *after* they have bought something and have already become emotionally and financially committed to your company. Now you can sell them all the other stuff. So it is MUCH better, in my opinion, to have a system where the initial order is very basic. Then after they order.. wait 24 hours and your system then starts sending them applicable product upselling offers. So for example, I think the best sort of order and upselling system is like this: 1. Customer uses super simple order system to purchase a domain name (or transfer) and web hosting. (See the other current thread about simplifying the order process to just those basic steps. One single simple order page. Done.) 2. Now customer has paid and is committed to your company financially. They are emotionally invested. So your system can look at what they purchased and send out an email offer with discount codes or whatever to upsell them on other stuff. You can run these "offers" at any time at the push of a button. I hope that makes sense? I'd rather see Blesta be able to handle step #2 above, which we can then run at any time, then to integrate this into the initial order system, which would likely do nothing but confuse most of our customers (who are non-technical). So... Step #2 would be settings in Blesta where we can specify things like IF the customer has X product AND NOT Y product, THEN send them a sales email offering Y product with Z discount code. This will be much more effective, and will result in more initial signups *and* more purchases of the upsell item.

Yes, exactly. The vast majority of customers are the ones who signup for places like bluehost, 1and1, hostgator, etc. To understand exactly what we want, just go have a look at the bluehost.com order system. Click their "signup now" link, and then see how simple it is. You can tweak a little bit about their layout, but essentially... that is the perfect order process.

It's difficult, because the developers surely want to create an order system that works with lots of different scenarios. However, for us, that vast majority of our customers have very very basic needs and so something that is extremely simple is necessary (critical). 1. Customer searches for domain name. 2. If new domain name, then choose the big "BUY NOW" button. If domain exists, then ask if they own it and want to transfer it. Otherwise, redisplay the search box, and also maybe show suggested names. Repeat as necessary until eventually they have selected a domain name, and we continue. 3. Show all the hosting plans and ask the customer to pick the one they want. Customer chooses the plan, and we continue. 4. Ask the customer what billing cycle they want for the hosting plan. (Monthly, bi-annual, yearly, etc) 5. Done. Press "Pay Now", and complete payment process. NOTES A. All of this should be on ONE page that uses basic AJAX to refresh, and has tally in the top-right area. Each "section" of the order process (domain selection, hosting selection, billing term selection) is displayed as a new area below the previous section. B. If you want to allow addons to be ordered during initial order process, then they can be displayed as part of step 3, depending on the plan they select. Again, keep it all on the same page. Simple is better. (We actually don't even allow customers to pick addons during their intial order, because it was way too confusing for them to see so much stuff they had no idea if they needed or not. It often prevented them from completing the order, which is against basic good business, right? So now, we simply let them pick their domain and hosting plan and that is it. AFTER they complete their order, they can then add addons from within their customer account client area. By then, they already paid, and are "invested" into things, as opposed to being overwhelmed and not completing the order. I hope that helps. If you are looking for some good examples, check out Hostbill's order pages. They have some amazing order screens and processes that we found to be very nice.

My suggestion is to allow Blesta admin to setup a default method of handling late fees, which can then be overwritten on a per-package basis. However, the vast majority of Blesta users will never need to overwrite the default late fee setup so I think you could split this into two new features. First is to have system-wide late fee options, and then later add ability to overwrite per package. This way, at least basic late fee capability can be rolled out to users asap, rather than making this one big feature that is very complicated by trying to add per-package over-ride ability. As for system default method for late fees... our company policy is to add an initial $10 fee if the invoice is over 5 days late. Then we add 2.5% late fee after each month to the initial invoice amount that was due. (NOTE: The 2.5% interest is NOT charged on the late fee itself. So we don't add $10 late fee and then charge 2.5% on it later, or 2.5% on any amount that was added as part of the late fee later... The late fee % is only charged on the initial amount that was due.)

Not yet, because we are still waiting for Blesta to mature into a stable product with the features we need. (eNom module, migration path from AWBS.com, license management module, and a few critical features still missing.) Once Blesta if fully mature and has the features we need, then we'll probably move all our brands and company's into it. This includes: four hosting websites (two low-cost brands and two high-cost brands) a domain-registration-only website, an ssl-sales-only website three different PHP software applications (which will use the license management module) a web design website (so invoice-only). a VoIP sales/billing website We're currently using a combination of AWBS.com, phpaudit.com, whmcs.com, and excel. Needless to say, we are very much looking forward to when we can eventually switch everything into a single installation of Blesta and (hopefully) use multi-company support to manage all the different websites from a single back-end location.

Thanks Paul. That is exactly the information I was looking for.

Yes, I do. Several actually. In addition to hosting, my hope is to use Blesta "multi-company" ability to facilitate multiple software sales websites. (Each company will be a different website that will sell a PHP software my company has created.) We're currently using www.spbas.com to manage our license needs, but it's seriously overkill (and very expensive) for the simple task we use it for. (Ordering, customer and licensing management.) If you need a tester for the licensing system that includes a multi-company setup, let me know. Thanks.

Hello, I'm interested to use Blesta to manage the licensing for a PHP application we sell. I found a little bit of info about the License Manager in the documentation, but where can I find more info and purchasing details? Thanks.

That's a good point. One very nice thing that I have seen over the past year as I've watched Blesta, is that Blesta management is very open and honest. It's what initially convinced me to purchase a license even before v3 was finished, and evangelize about Blesta to other people. And it's what makes me impatient and want to move to Blesta now, even though it doesn't have the necessary functionality just yet for my business. So while I'm reasonably confident they'll eventually move to a true marketplace as I've described, and remove the "extra" stuff from the core product into individual saleable modules... I think they will be ethical and upfront about it, and they will not screw existing license holders. ie: Anyone who has an existing license would be entitled to a free license of every individual module that is removed from the core, including updates. I can't see Paul et al doing it any other way.

I think the hostbill system of sales is pretty good, actually. It's just the pricing and the owner that are nuts. But the concept of having a "core code" that handles the billing functionality, and then selling individual modules to add actual useful functionality is very smart. (Not smart is that hostbill doesn't allow 3rd party modules to be created.) So what I envisioned, and thought Blesta would have, is something like this: 1. Blesta core code. $xxx including $xx recurring yearly fee. 2. Marketplace where you can search and purchase modules to add desired functionality, including order pages, registar integration, gateways, control panels, license methods, whatever. Pricing would be in the $x and $xx range, either one-off or with small recurring fee. The end result, with regard to pricing would be exactly the same total amount as what we see now the Blesta package being sold. Functionally, it would also be the same, since all the modules included with Blesta are just modules that can be added/removed. There would be no difference software-wise as we have now. So then, from the consumer standpoint we would still have the same pricing, but we would have a totally open and highly competitive module marketplace. This would promote active development from high quality developers who want to make some money.

Blesta v3 is brand new. The company has been around for a while, but v3 was specifically designed to be modular. My assumption was that this is because they wanted to create an active module marketplace. That's tough to do if there is no monetary incentive for good developers to compete against Blesta themselves. Hostbill has been around for a few years, too. It wasn't until a short while ago that the owner went crazy. I am not asking for a price guarantee (although that would be nice if they offered, but I would not believe it anyway, since it's a sure sign of lack of long-term business foresight.) What I am asking for is an understanding into the intentions of Blesta with regard to their module marketplace, and if they will be splitting out the development/sales of their currently "included" modules at a later time. I am asking about this, because I really don't understand why they spent so much time and effort to make the core product modular, and then they include all the modules people really need, thereby negating any reason for serious developers to create their own modules and try to compete (and make money). See, this is where I disagree. For example, I am considering to use Blesta to manage some software that I sell which needs licensing. It has nothing to do with web hosting. So why should I be paying for cpanel and other control panel development that is included in core Blesta? Or what about the datacenters that will want to use blesta to manage their facility but don't need anything like registrar domain name integration? I guess what I 'm saying is that I thought the Blesta guys were building a billing and customer mgmt. software that could be used for *anything*, including web hosting, with the simple addition of modules to add desired functionality. So I'm confused as to why they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot (imho) by including hosting control panel modules, gateway modules, etc.. which they must now support and develop forever, with no additional revenue, and essentially stopping good quality developers from participating in a module marketplace for any modules that are "included" in the core product.

There is very little incentive for module developers like ModuleGarden to create an eNom module or KB module or any module that exists as an "included" part of Blesta core. Sure, there might be a few amateur attempts, but high-quality developers do not work for free. If they aren't going to get paid for their work, then they aren't going to participate in the blesta module marketplace. For example, if Blesta decides they want to include something similar to the new "extended cpanel" that modulesgarden just released... I think that even if the blesta version is only 75% or 80% as nice, it will result in virtually zero sales for modulesgarden. Most people will just say, "I've already paid for it, so it's good enough". This negates the whole point of modulesgarden and other developers to participate. It's a big risk for them, unless they only develop modules that are really unlikely to later be included in the Blesta core. Ultimately, what the consumer wants is a billing / customer management system that is reasonably priced and easy to understand and use. I think Blesta can readily achieve both those goals with a core+marketplace system as I have suggested. Despite my opinion of its owner, Hostbill is a great example of this, but their pricing is crazy. If they had realistic pricing for their individual order pages and modules, I have little doubt they could quickly rule the marketplace (and IF their owner was not also crazy, which makes the whole software a no-go.) The idea of purchasing only what you need is very attractive. Also, from Blesta's point of view... every new module they "include" in the core product must be continually developed forever, with no additional revenue. Or they can increase their yearly fee, but then consumers like me might start feeling resentful that prices are increasing because of logicboxes module development when I don't even need that. But my real concern is, as I mentioned, that the module marketplace Blesta wants to promote isn't going to get off the ground and supported by serious high-quality developers unless there is some incentive for them. (Money) For example, I have little doubt that modulesgarden would develop a very nice eNom module if they knew it would not compete directly with an "included" eNom module from Blesta. Heck, I might even sponsor an eNom module myself if I thought I could sell it head-to-head against a module from Blesta. But if they "include" it into the core product? No way.

It's also worth considering how things work in the module marketplace that I presume Blesta wants to establish and promote and prosper. Well... any developer is going to think twice if they feel they will be competing against Blesta directly. For example, what is the point to spend time and effort to develop a nice KB module when Blesta is going to include one in the core product? Even if it's not as nice as a 3rd party KB module, the vast majority of people will simply not bother changing. This runs counter-intuitive to fostering a marketplace of modules, where you want a lot of developers to participate. They won't unless there is $$ involved. (Well, I should clarify... the GOOD developers won't.) Ditto for an enom module. If Blesta is going to develop their own included module, then why should ModulesGarden create their own? If the Blesta included enom module is "meh"... then it's still going to be ok for most people, and now blesta devs are forced to continue development of a module that few are happy with but everyone uses... now multiple that by every "included" control panel, payment gateway, registrar, etc.. I think it makes more sense to lower the cost of Blesta core a little bit and then charge for each module the customer desires. Then there will be nice competition in the module marketplace, including from Blesta themselves. This grows the business of Blesta, since it's the core product and presumably they will strive for best-in-class module development, too. Honestly, I was a little surprised that Blesta didn't release this way from the start, which is why I am seeking clarification and confirmation now. I think it's inevitable, since I can't understand otherwise why Blesta was created with the whole concept of "modularity" as a central point.

I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your opinion, but I would prefer to have this assurance directly from Blesta than from a customer. I've been in business a long time, and seen a lot of things. Without the direct word of someone in Blesta management, this is a risk I must continue to consider and try to mitigate. I would argue that "what is best for business" is to actually sell their modules individually. Blesta core is created with a fantastic ability to have a marketplace of drop-in modules. I see no reason why Blesta wouldn't submit their own modules to compete in that marketplace. If they include a few basic modules with the core product, then they are somewhat obligated to develop them... but there is little incentive to continue really developing those modules to make them best in their class since there is no additional funding for them. So I would argue that charging extra for their non-core modules is a good business decision for both the company and consumer, since the company gets more revenue specific to that module, and we (consumer) get more active development of the modules we've purchased. For example... let's say Blesta includes the core product and three modules -- cPanel, Support and KB. Not everyone needs either the Support and/or KB module and/or Cpanel module. So this means that: - 1. Consumer is paying for things they don't want or need. - 2. Blesta is being paid for something the consumer isn't going to use. - 3. Blesta must support and continue development of all three modules, since they are "included" in the basic package. There is no additional revenue for them, but yet they must spend time/development effort on all of them. What are the odds that every "included" module is going to be best of class when compared to the (hopefully eventual) module marketplace? - With #3 in mind, if the included module isn't best-in-class.. you are likely to purchase the best one anyway. So now you've spent more $$ on something that perhaps would have been better to just go to Blesta to begin with. I think the better business setup is to sell Blesta core product, and then individual modules as add-ons. This sort of structure makes a lot of sense when you consider how many different control panels there are, domain registrars, payment processors, and other plugins are needed by so many different customers. The big advtantage of this setup is that Blesta gets paid for continuing development of their core code, and individual revenue that justifies development of individual modules. Customers get the advantage of purchasing only what they need. If it's done correctly (not like hostbill), then the pricing would work out pretty much the same for everyone, but it's a much more sustainable business structure. Just my 2 cents.

That's what hostbill said when we purchased a license from them a few years ago. Then they (recently) split out all their different features into individual plugins/modules and started charging (a fortune) for them individually. Even though our license was 2 years old... we were not grand-fathered into the new modules/plugins, and if we want to get latest version of xyz functionality (that was previously included in the core product).. we must purchase the new module by itself. It's crazy and certainly unethical, but nothing we can do. I don't want the same thing to happen with Blesta. If they are going to eventually split out and charge for individual modules, I want to know about it now. Honestly, I don't think it's a bad business concept or decision, as it allows the company to make more money on their hard work. But I want some assurance that either existing license holders should be grandfathered, or we can "purchase in" with a one-time price now. Thanks.

Thanks Paul. Can I ask if you guys (Blesta, the company) are planning to go the hostbill route, and split everything up into individual components that each are sold separately? I understand the business reasoning behind that kind of plan, and it makes a lot of sense. I just don't want to be surprised if it happens. If you are planning to do that sort of thing, then may I politely suggest that you make a special offer similar to your $99 pre-v3-release special? This way, those of us who are watching and willing to help initial funding of things could pay a bit upfront and then receive a permanent license for the desired module. So we pay $50 or $100 or whatever now, and then don't have to pay anything else in the future if/when you charge individually for each module you sell. I hope that makes sense? I might be way off to lunch on my assumption that you will eventually sell individual modules separately... Thanks!

In all honesty, I'd rather see a kickstarter for a good KB that is created by the Blesta developers. For example, anyone who contributes $50 gets the module for free for life. (I am assuming they would otherwise release it as a paid extra to the core Blesta software.) My reasoning for wanting the KB to be developed (and maintained) by the Blesta developers is that I expect the KB module to be tightly integrated with the support module. And since the Blesta devs wrote the support module, it makes sense they would create and integrate a matching KB module. By "tight integration", I mean things like: - predictive search in the support module. Potential KB results would be displayed in the support ticket page when customer is typing the subject and support description. So this way, a possible match could be found in the KB thereby negating the need to submit the support ticket. - Ability to see and link to KB articles when the admin and staff are replying to support tickets. About 75% of our support tickets can be easily answered by a KB article. So being able to quickly see and select articles while responding to a ticket would be immensely helpful. - Ability to add a new KB article, based on a support response. For example, admin or staff replies to a ticket and clicks a "add this reply to KB" checkbox. Then when submitted a new window pops up with the "edit this new KB article" page. When submitted, the article is added to the KB. This saves some copying and pasting, and makes adding new KB articles quicker and more natural, since most of them are in response to helpdesk tickets... Thanks.

No, their forums are basically dead, aside from the periodic "Where is everyone? When is the next release going to be?" topic, with no response from the company. It's a real shame, since the software is really stable, tons and tons of features, and their support is fast and actually very helpful. I'm actually very happy and content with it... but it just seems like development has stopped. I've been trying to get the owner/developers to say something for over 6 months now, and there has been zero response. Not even a simple, "Yes, we're still around" reply. Nothing. So that's why we're considering to switch over to Blesta, since it would be foolish to risk my business in the hands of a company that seems to have basically disappeared. (What if there's a security hack or license problem. etc?) We were part of the Blesta beta testing, and found it very good. The production release looks great, albeit not quite ready for us to move over to yet as there's still a few missing critical features we need before we can switch without disrupting our customers too much. ;-) I don't have any extra keys, but I can give you access to a copy of one of our AWBS installations (we have multiple brands and installations) which will give you a working install so you can take a look. Please send me an email and I'll get one of my guys to set it up for you and send you the login details. Thanks!

I'd also like to see price override ability. It's pretty much critical for one of our brands, as we offer customized hosting that is different for every client. (ie: No set packages and pricing. Each customer negotiates what they need and we set them up with a custom price.) So what we'd like to see is the ability to just create a "Generic Package" in Blesta and then set it up for each customer with a pricing override for each customer. Thanks.

We are using AWBS for the last 10 years. It's a rock solid billing system. One of the originals, way before WHMCS. The reason you don't hear much about it is because: 1. It rarely breaks. New releases are usually bug free. 2. The owner never promoted it. I don't think the owner even knows about webhostingtalk.com. 3. It hasn't been in active development for over a year. This last point is important, since now that it seems AWBS development is dead... there are many AWBS users who must change (reluctantly) to a new software. The options are small -- whmcs or blesta. I think that if you posted a AWBS to Blesta migration path somewhere, you would find a lot of refugees ready to switch over. I'd be happy to post into the AWBS forums, to bring it to other user's attention. Their forums are rarely moderated, so the post would not likely be deleted. So... +1 from me. I would love to see a migration path from AWBS to Blesta. Thanks!