Asana is now planning to double the size of its sales team in 2020
Asana is the tool we all know even if we don't use it ourselves. With that famous B2C CEO that decided to do SaaS next.
It's crossed $250,000,000 in ARR and is starting to march upmarket
Here are 5 Interesting Learnings from Asana at $250M ARR:
Asana is now planning to double the size of its sales team in 2020
140% NRR for $50k+ customers
125% NRR for $5k-$50k customers
100% or so NRR for < $5k customers
Given it still skews 60% SMB, this is consistent with other market leaders like Zendesk, etc
We saw with Zendesk and Shopify the SMB growth keep pace with enterprise, and we saw with Slack enterprise be the engine of growth
Asana is in middle
Asana has the challenge many of you do. The Big Customers are growing fastest (100% YoY), but 40% of its revenue is still from accounts < $5k ACV.
Asana is growing 55% at $250m+ in ARR!! But new customer growth was ~10% YoY.
So again, lean way, way into your existing customers.
#6. Churn has returned to pre-Covid levels. So no more blaming Covid here.
#7. Asana added 130+ new features in 2020. How about you? Agile wins in very competitive spaces. Asana is in a very competitive space.
You just have to add admin-level controls if you want to go enterprise. So do it early.
More from Trading
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?