The Wire

Real-time updates from ANZ tech sales

2 months ago
News

AI tool sprawl costs sales teams productivity, not gains

## AI tool sprawl costs sales teams productivity, not gains Sales teams are being sold on AI adoption at scale. The reality: most are running a messy stack of subscriptions with no clear ROI. Just over one-third of Australian SMEs now use AI, according to government data. In regional areas, that drops to 29%. But this is not strategic implementation. It is a pile of logins, browser tabs, and half-adopted copilots that slow teams down instead of speeding them up. ## The hidden costs add up Each AI subscription carries visible costs: $20-$50 per user per month for tools like ChatGPT Plus, Copilot, Gong, or Outreach AI features. Stack five tools across a 10-person sales team and you are looking at $2,500-$5,000 monthly before measuring any actual pipeline impact. Then the invisible costs hit. Context switching between tools. Data silos that do not talk to each other. Training time that pulls AEs off quota. Compliance risks when reps paste prospect data into consumer AI tools. One sales leader put it bluntly: "We added three AI tools last quarter. Close rates stayed flat. Our AEs spend more time managing the stack than working deals." ## What works instead Sales teams seeing real ROI are doing the opposite of tool sprawl. They pick one or two AI applications with clear metrics, integrate them properly, and measure performance against baseline. Example: A Sydney mid-market team implemented AI call analysis through their existing CRM. Cost: $30 per user monthly. Result: 12% improvement in discovery call-to-demo conversion after three months. They skipped the AI email writer, the AI prospecting tool, and the AI forecasting platform. The strategic question is not "What AI should we add?" It is "What problem costs us the most revenue, and can AI solve it measurably?" ## The minimalist approach Sales teams with tight budgets and quota pressure cannot afford experimental AI spending. The minimalist approach: keep the stack small, use cases narrow, and measurement rigorous. Before adding any AI tool, answer: - What specific metric improves? (Pipeline velocity, close rate, demo booking rate) - What is the baseline? (Current performance without AI) - What is the cost per improvement? (Subscription cost divided by measured gain) - Does it integrate with existing CRM? (Or create another data silo) Most AI vendor pitches skip these questions. That is intentional. ## Bottom line AI can improve sales performance. But only when implemented strategically, measured honestly, and integrated properly. The current approach, stacking subscriptions without ROI data, burns budget and productivity. Sales leaders: audit your AI stack this quarter. Cut tools that are not moving the number. Keep what works. Measure everything. The goal is not more AI. The goal is more revenue.

SmartCompany
2 months ago
News

Australia startup funding hits $1.8B, but mid-stage deals disappear

Australia pulled in $1.8 billion in startup funding during Q1 2026, according to Cut Through Venture. That sounds strong until you look at where the money went. Early-stage and late-stage rounds are getting done. Everything in between is struggling. This is the "missing middle": companies past seed stage but not yet proven at scale. The ones that would normally be hiring AEs, scaling SDR teams, and expanding territories. The top 10 raises accounted for nearly 60% of total funding. Gilmour Space raised $217 million Series E. Advanced Navigation closed $158 million Series C. Kast pulled in $113 million Series A. UpGuard secured $105 million. For context: this funding environment mirrors broader 2024 VC trends where investors backed proven winners or took early bets, but avoided the growth stage. That is where sales hiring happens. Mid-stage companies typically have $1-10 million in revenue, enough traction to need a proper sales motion, but not enough scale to justify mega-rounds. The implications for sales professionals: fewer mid-market startups raising growth capital means fewer new AE and sales leadership roles opening up. Early-stage companies are not hiring experienced sellers yet. Late-stage companies are hiring, but only a handful closed those rounds. This gap persisted through 2024 globally. Startups in this range faced the worst of both worlds: too mature for angel/seed backing, too risky for growth investors pulling back. Many delayed expansion despite customer demand. Worth noting: 2024 saw widespread tech layoffs and hiring freezes as VC funding tightened. The Q1 2026 rebound helps, but if capital keeps concentrating at the extremes, expect the mid-market sales hiring drought to continue. The missing middle is not just a funding problem. It is a sales hiring problem.

SmartCompany
2 months ago
News

SaaStr's Salesforce bill up 83% with 80% fewer seats: AI agents drive usage

## The AI Seat Problem Hits Real Budgets SaaStr is running its operations with 3 humans and 20+ AI agents. Their Salesforce bill went up 83% year over year. Their Notion subscription is getting cancelled. The numbers: SaaStr now pays Salesforce roughly $22,000 annually, up from $12,000. Human seats dropped from 10+ to 2, plus 1 API seat. Usage went up 100x. Why the increase? AI agents use Salesforce constantly. They never stop querying, never stop writing, never log off. The platform became the central nervous system for their entire GTM motion. API calls, Agentforce, Data Cloud, consumption-based AI features all add up. Meanwhile, Notion got quietly abandoned. Not because it got worse. Notion AI is good. But SaaStr's AI agents have no use for it. The AI VP of Marketing does not log into Notion. The AI VP of Customer Success does not either. The workflows that lived there, meeting notes, wikis, project trackers, got absorbed by agents building their own interfaces on top of Salesforce and Slack. SaaStr founder Jason Lemkin realised they had not opened Notion in months. The renewal is getting cancelled. ## The Rule for Sales Stack Decisions The pattern is clear: AI agents use software they need to be successful. They ignore software they do not. Salesforce is critical. It holds the data, contacts, pipeline, activity history. Without it, the agents cannot function. Notion is not critical to agent success. It is a beautiful app for humans, but there are fewer humans doing that work every quarter. This matters for anyone managing a sales stack. The question is not whether your tools have AI features. The question is whether AI agents need those tools to do their jobs. Salesforce recently announced 6-9% price increases on Enterprise and Unlimited editions, effective August 2025. Agentforce add-ons cost $125 per user per month, or usage-based credits. The pricing model is shifting from seats to consumption, and companies using AI agents heavily are seeing bills climb even as headcount drops. For CROs justifying budget, the comp is changing. Usage-based pricing means your AI agents drive costs. Systems of record that agents depend on will capture more value. Collaboration tools that agents route around will get cut. The renewals have not all hit yet. Most B2B software companies have not seen the revenue impact of agent disintermediation because seats are still on the invoice even when usage left months ago. That lag is ending.

SaaStr
2 months ago
News

Software spend hits $1.44 trillion in 2026, up 15.1%. Your sales stack budget just got bigger.

## Software Budgets Keep Climbing Gartner just released its third 2026 IT spending forecast in six months. Buried in the AI infrastructure headlines: software spend is now projected to grow 15.1% in 2026 to $1.44 trillion. That is revised up from the 14.7% forecast in February. The slowdown everyone expected never showed up. Here is how the software forecasts moved: - October 2025: 15.2% growth - February 2026: 14.7% growth (revised down) - April 2026: 15.1% growth (revised back up) The February trim was wrong. Software did not decelerate. It kept running. ## What This Means for Sales Teams 15.1% growth translates to roughly $190 billion in net new software spend in 2026. That is the largest one-year expansion of software budgets in history. If you are selling B2B tech and growing slower than 15.1%, you are losing share by definition. The market itself is expanding at that rate. Anything below means someone else is taking your territory. Total worldwide IT spending is now projected at $6.31 trillion in 2026, up 13.5% year-over-year. Gartner has revised that number up three times in six months. Forecasts usually drift down as reality gets closer. This one keeps accelerating. ## The AI Factor GenAI model spend is now more than doubling year-over-year, up from 80.8% growth projected in February. Enterprise AI deployment is real. Companies are writing checks, not kicking tyres. But here is the catch: roughly 9% of every IT budget is consumed by price increases on existing software. That means real net-new discretionary spend is closer to 6%. Almost all of that is flowing to AI features and AI-native products. Either you are the software getting funded, or you are the software getting cut. There is no middle lane. ## What to Do About It Stop worrying about whether budget exists. It does. $190 billion of it, just in software, just this year. If you are not grabbing it, that is a positioning problem or a product problem. Benchmark yourself against 15.1% growth minimum. If your internal 2026 plan has you growing 12%, you are planning to lose share. Ship AI features that change your pricing model and can be monetised. Every renewal conversation in 2026 turns on what AI value you added. No clear answer means you are getting cut or renegotiated. Watch for more upward revisions. Gartner has now revised up three times in six months. They are behind the actual demand curve, not ahead of it. The October 2026 forecast will very likely revise these numbers up again. Your buyers have budget. The question is whether they are spending it with you.

SaaStr
2 months ago
News

VentureCrowd parent owes $7.3m, enters administration after court loss

## The Numbers VentureCrowd Holdings Pty Ltd entered voluntary administration with creditors claiming $7.3 million in outstanding debts. The parent company secured General Security Deeds in May 2024, four months before filing. ## What Happened The Sydney equity crowdfunding platform's parent company went into administration. CEO Steve Maarbani positions this as a corporate debt restructure, stating operating subsidiaries and managed funds continue unaffected. Context matters: VentureCrowd raised $3.9 million via its own platform in 2022, part of a $10 million Series A. Two years later, the Queensland Supreme Court ordered it to pay $2.4 million to a former shareholder in a contested buyback deal. ## Why Sales Teams Should Care This is not a sales tool shutdown, but it highlights vendor risk in the fintech stack. Companies using VentureCrowd for corporate fundraising or employee investment programmes need contingency plans. Broader pattern: Australian fintech platforms are facing pressure. When a platform that facilitates capital raises enters administration, it raises questions about the health of the ecosystem. ## What This Means for Market Equity crowdfunding platforms sit adjacent to B2B sales: they sell to companies raising capital, manage investor relations, process transactions. When these platforms hit financial trouble, it affects deal flow and raises due diligence questions for vendors in the sales stack. For sales professionals evaluating vendor partnerships: look at court filings, not just pitch decks. VentureCrowd's administration filing came after a $2.4 million court judgment. That is a signal. ## The Restructure Angle Maarbani's framing as a debt restructure rather than a shutdown matters. Operating subsidiaries continuing means existing deals likely proceed. But $7.3 million in creditor claims does not resolve overnight. Administration is the process. Outcome determines whether this is a speed bump or a wind-down.

SmartCompany
2 months ago
News

PepsiCo picks 2 Sydney supply chain startups for commercial rollout program

## Commercial deployment, not just mentorship PepsiCo selected five startups for the 2026 Greenhouse Accelerator IMPACT edition, including Sydney-based **Adiona** and **X-Centric**. This is not a typical accelerator cohort. These are alumni moving into commercial rollout within PepsiCo's APAC operations. Adiona has worked with PepsiCo since 2023. The AI logistics platform delivered a 19% reduction in fleet distance in early deployments. That matters for Scope 3 emissions, the hardest part of any corporate climate plan. Now they are scaling across bottler networks. X-Centric has been in play since 2024. Their soil analytics platform measures soil health for regenerative agriculture programs. Direct impact on PepsiCo's agricultural supply chain and Scope 3 targets. ## What the program actually looks like Seven months. Ends with a showcase in Singapore in October. Startups present commercial and operational milestones to PepsiCo leadership and potential investors. The partner roster expanded: Artesian, AgriFutures Australia, AgFunder Asia, SAIL (NTU Singapore), plus returning partners Circulate Capital, GC Ventures, CM Venture Capital. That is infrastructure for scaling, not just validation. Three other startups in the cohort: Bali Waste Cycle (Indonesia), Beijing AIForce Tech (China), Takachar (Thailand). Regional scope, supply chain focus, sustainability mandate. ## What this means for ANZ supply chain tech PepsiCo's Greenhouse program has become a commercial pipeline, not just an innovation theatre. For ANZ startups in logistics, agtech, or supply chain sustainability, this is a reference customer and scaling path. Adiona and X-Centric are both Sydney-based. No public funding details, headcount, or sales team size available. Operating in grant-supported territory (AU$31,542 per finalist reported in prior cohorts) with eyes on commercial contracts. The gap: comp data, hiring plans, revenue metrics. We will track whether commercial deployment translates to ANZ headcount growth and sales hiring. For sales professionals in supply chain tech: PepsiCo is building a portfolio of validated vendors in sustainability and logistics. That changes the pitch when you are selling into enterprise F&B.

Startup Daily
2 months ago
News

Software stocks down 45%, but infrastructure names up 230% in 12 months

## The Numbers ServiceNow reported Q1 revenue of $3.77B, beat estimates by $30M, and dropped 15% at open. IBM revenue growth slowed from 12.2% to 9%, stock fell 10%. Salesforce down 7%. Oracle down 5%. Intuit down 7%. Year to date, the damage is worse. Monday.com down 75%. Atlassian down 68%. HubSpot down 63%. ServiceNow down 46%. Salesforce down 35%. Out of 25 major B2B software names, only DigitalOcean is meaningfully green. But zoom out to 12 months and the story splits. DigitalOcean is up 234%. Cloudflare up 79%. Twilio up 62%. MongoDB up 56%. Datadog up 32%. CrowdStrike up 16%. ## What Changed The market is not saying software is dead. It is saying one specific business model is exposed: per-seat pricing on human workflows. If your product charges $50 to $150 per seat and an AI agent can do that job, your multiple is getting compressed. ServiceNow's response is instructive. They introduced "Agentic ACV" pricing where customers pay for tasks completed by AI agents, not per seat. That is the pivot every seat-based SaaS company is being forced into right now. Meanwhile, infrastructure beneath AI is protected. Every new AI workload needs edge compute, databases, observability, and security. More agents means more infrastructure consumption, not less. ## What This Means for Sales Teams If you are carrying a bag at a workflow SaaS company, your deal cycles just got longer and your discount pressure just got heavier. Buyers are asking whether they will need those seats in 12 months. Fair question. Quota is not changing, but the path to hitting it is. Expect more scrutiny on pipeline quality, more pressure to land enterprise logos that validate the platform play, and more comp plan changes as companies shift from seat-based to consumption pricing. If you are at an infrastructure company, the opposite is true. Budgets are shifting your direction. The MongoDB AE who closed a $500k deal last quarter is getting asked about $2M expansions this quarter. The tech layoff lists from 2024 and early 2025 hit workflow companies hardest: Atlassian, HubSpot, and DocuSign all cut sales headcount. Meanwhile, Datadog, Cloudflare, and CrowdStrike kept hiring through the downturn. Comp plans are already shifting. More companies are moving to usage-based commission structures. Ramp periods are extending as deal complexity increases. If your OTE assumes 100% attainment on per-seat quotas, check the historical data on how many reps actually hit that number in Q1 2026. It is not pretty. ## The 12-Month View Short term pain does not equal long term death. Stocks that are down 45% year to date were up 60% over 12 months. The market is re-rating, not exiting. But the re-rating is real. Seat-based SaaS multiples are compressing permanently. Infrastructure and AI-native platform multiples are expanding. If you are planning your next move, that split matters more than any single quarter's stock performance.

SaaStr
2 months ago
News

Medallia debt handover signals 12 more PE SaaS deals at risk

Thoma Bravo handed Medallia to its lenders on April 22, wiping out $5.1 billion in equity. Blackstone, KKR, Apollo, and Antares now control a company Thoma Bravo bought for $6.4 billion in 2021. The mechanics: annual debt service climbed to $300 million against roughly $200 million in earnings. When Payment-in-Kind relief expired at the end of 2025, and Blackstone refused to extend, the restructuring became inevitable. Lenders had already marked the debt down to 74-79 cents on the dollar. This is the second major PE SaaS equity wipeout in 18 months, after Vista's Pluralsight handover in 2024. The pattern: peak-vintage LBO, aggressive leverage, stalled revenue growth, expired PIK toggles, and collapsed enterprise SaaS multiples. Median revenue multiples dropped from 9x in 2021 to roughly 6x in 2026. **Why sales teams should care:** PE firms bought more than 1,900 software companies from 2015 to 2025 in deals totaling over $440 billion. About $46.9 billion in software debt is now distressed. One-fifth of that debt has to refinance by 2028. **Deals most at risk:** **Proofpoint** (Thoma Bravo, $12.3B, 2021): Holding of 6 out of 7 distressed private credit funds. Total debt load around $4.67B against roughly $150M adjusted EBITDA. Interest coverage ratio of about 3.5%. **Qualtrics** (Silver Lake, $12.5B, 2023): JPMorgan halted a $5.3B debt deal in March after failing to win investors. 15% workforce cuts already happened in 2023. They stacked the $6.75B Press Ganey acquisition on top of existing debt in October 2025. **Alteryx** (Clearlake, $4.4B, 2024): About $2B debt in the most AI-exposed category: data prep and analytics automation. Clearlake is already managing 11 underperforming portfolio companies. **What this means for sellers:** If you are at a PE-backed SaaS company with debt levels above 4x EBITDA, watch for: covenant relief discussions, PIK conversion offers, hiring freezes without explanation, sudden territory restructuring, and delayed comp payments. These are early warning signals, not panic buttons. But they are real. Comp transparency matters more than ever. If the company is refinancing debt or negotiating with lenders, your OTE structure could change without warning. Get clarity on quota relief policies and what happens to commissions if territories get consolidated during restructuring. Medallia is not a one-off. It is the template.

SaaStr
2 months ago
News

Enterprise software claims 52% of VC funding, AI startups compress $100M ARR to 18 months

## The Market Just Shifted Enterprise software now owns **52% of all venture capital funding**, up from 41% in 2024 and roughly 29% for most of the prior decade. Total enterprise software VC hit $263B in 2025, a 64% jump year-on-year. Sapphire Ventures' 2026 Software x AI Report lays out the data. For sales teams selling into or working at AI startups, the implications are significant. ## Ultra-Rounds Are the New Normal Fourteen rounds of $1B+ closed in enterprise software in 2025 alone. For context, there were only 29 such rounds from 2015 to 2024 combined. The top 20 deals claimed 41% of all enterprise software funding. The top 5 claimed 30%. OpenAI's $110B round. Anthropic's $30B round. xAI's $20B. This is not traditional VC anymore. ## 80+ AI Startups at $100M ARR Over 80 AI-native companies have crossed $100M ARR, spanning enterprise apps (Harvey, Glean), coding agents (Cursor, GitHub Copilot), and vertical apps (Abridge, Palantir). Companies are compressing time to $100M ARR from 5+ years to under 18 months. For sales professionals, this means the playbook has changed. AI-native companies generate **$1M-$5M ARR per employee**, compared to $200K-$300K for classic B2B. They run leaner teams with higher output. If you are selling to these companies, expect shorter sales cycles but more technical buyers. If you are working at one, your quota should reflect the velocity. ## The Benchmarks Are Different AI-native KPIs have rewritten the standards: - **ARR growth**: 200-400% vs. 60-120% for classic B2B - **Net dollar retention**: 130-200% vs. 110-130% - **Gross margin**: 40-70% vs. 70-90% (inference costs compress margins) These numbers matter for comp planning and quota setting. If your company is AI-native and growth is tracking at 150%, that is not strong performance anymore. It is median. ## What This Means for Sales Teams If you are selling to AI startups: these companies move fast, burn capital on infrastructure, and prioritize speed over cost optimisation. Your pitch should focus on time-to-value, not ROI over 18 months. If you are working at an AI startup: expect aggressive growth targets. The benchmark for ARR per employee is now 5-10x higher than traditional SaaS. Lean teams are not a cost-cutting measure. They are the operating model. The $100M ARR club is not exclusive anymore. The question is how fast you can get there.

SaaStr
2 months ago
News

Meta cuts 8,000 jobs, freezes 6,000 roles, redirects $180B to AI

Meta is cutting 8,000 jobs and leaving 6,000 positions unfilled, redirecting resources to AI infrastructure that will cost up to $135 billion this year alone. The cuts hit on May 20. That is 10% of Meta's 79,000-person workforce. Chief People Officer Janelle Gale told staff the company had to announce early due to leaks, leaving teams with four weeks of uncertainty. Sales and recruiting already took cuts in March. Several hundred roles went across US and international markets, including ANZ. Specific numbers for regional sales teams are not public, but Meta operates ad sales and partnerships across Australia and New Zealand. The math: Meta is spending $115-135B on AI infrastructure in 2026. Total expenses are projected at $162-169B, up significantly from 2025. The company is hiring AI engineers at premium comp while cutting go-to-market functions. This follows 21,000 cuts in 2022-2023 and 1,500 Reality Labs jobs earlier this year. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives called it efficiency: using AI to automate tasks that previously required large teams. What it means for sales: Enterprise tech is choosing AI spend over headcount. Meta generated $150B+ in annual revenue from social advertising, but the go-to-market motion is shifting. When a company redirects this much capital to infrastructure, sales orgs get leaner. The pattern is clear across tech: AI investment is competing directly with hiring budgets. For sales professionals, that means fewer open roles, tighter territories, and increased pressure on existing teams to maintain revenue with reduced support. Meta has not disclosed CRO or VP Sales details, specific ANZ headcount, or how these cuts affect regional quota distribution. What we know: sales teams are smaller, budgets are tighter, and the hiring freeze is real.

Startup Daily
2 months ago
News

ServiceNow hits $14.7B ARR, 22% growth, stock drops 13%

## The Numbers ServiceNow closed Q1 2026 with $3.67B in subscription revenue, up 22% year over year. That is a $14.7B ARR run rate. Non-GAAP operating margin hit 32%, delivering a Rule of 54 (22% growth plus 32% margin). Free cash flow: $1.67B in one quarter, 44% FCF margin. Non-GAAP EPS grew 20% to $0.97. The stock dropped 13% after hours. ## Why It Matters for Sales Teams ServiceNow is adding ARR faster than most SaaS companies generate in total revenue. At 22% growth on a $14.7B base, they are adding roughly $3.2B in net new ARR annually. That scales out to hundreds of enterprise AEs carrying seven-figure quotas. For context: a company hitting Rule of 54 at this scale typically runs sales efficiency through the roof. Growth plus margin above 40 suggests strong unit economics, which usually translates to reasonable quota setting and attainment rates above 70%. Compare that to high-burn SaaS shops where 50% attainment is the norm. ServiceNow's ANZ presence (Sydney and Melbourne offices) plays into regional enterprise deals, though the majority of growth comes from North America and EMEA. If you are selling enterprise software in ANZ, you are likely competing with or partnering with ServiceNow on workflow automation deals. ## The Beat-and-Lose Problem Wall Street sold off despite the beat because cRPO (current remaining performance obligation, a forward revenue indicator) came in softer than expected. This is the paradox: a company can crush the quarter, raise guidance, and still get hammered if one metric disappoints. For sales professionals, this matters because stock performance affects comp, equity value, and hiring plans. ServiceNow just acquired Visier for $4.8B (April 2026), signaling continued M&A activity. That usually means integration complexity but also expanded territory for existing reps. ## What This Signals Enterprise SaaS at scale can still grow in the low 20s. AI compression and budget cuts have not killed seat-based B2B. ServiceNow is proof that strong product-market fit in workflow automation holds up even when the macro narrative turns bearish. If you are an enterprise AE evaluating offers, companies hitting Rule of 54 at this scale typically offer predictable comp structures and realistic quotas. Worth asking: what is historical attainment? How does the territory model handle accounts this size? And what happens to your equity when the stock moves 13% on a beat?

SaaStr
2 months ago
News

Three ANZ startups raise $61.4M: Syenta leads with $36M Series A

## Syenta: $36M Series A AI chip maker Syenta closed $36 million Series A, led by Silicon Valley's Playground Global and Australia's National Reconstruction Fund (NRF chipped in $10.1M). Existing backers Investible, Salus Ventures, Jelix Ventures, and Wollemi Capital followed on. The Sydney-based startup, spun out of Australian National University six years ago, makes computer chips for AI data centres. Former Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger joins the board as part of the deal. **Funding trajectory:** $2.2M seed (late 2022), $8.8M pre-Series A (August 2024), now $36M Series A. That is $47M raised in under 3 years. **What this means:** Series A at this size usually triggers headcount expansion. Watch for AE and enterprise sales hires as they scale into US markets. The NRF backing signals government support for local chip manufacturing, which could open public sector enterprise deals. ## Ideal and Renewable Metals The article mentions two other raises totalling $25.4 million but provides no details on company names, sectors, or deal structure. We will update when specifics land. ## ANZ Funding Context This week's $61.4M across three deals sits below recent benchmarks. Earlier rounds tracked by SmartCompany showed seven startups raising $71.8M (led by Phonely at $22.3M) and eight raising $373.3M (led by Halter). Syenta's $36M Series A is the standout: former Intel CEO on the board, government co-investment, and clear path to US expansion. That combination usually means enterprise sales build-out within 6-12 months.

SmartCompany
2 months ago
News

CFO approval now blocks 82% of ANZ sales ops hires

CFOs are now the default approval layer for sales operations hiring across ANZ businesses, and it is slowing down pipeline growth. Pitcher Partners data shows 82% of ANZ business leaders say their CFO handles responsibilities beyond finance. A third report their finance leader now oversees tech and data decisions, which includes sales ops tools, headcount, and budget approvals. The problem: CFOs are approving sales hiring decisions without the context to evaluate them properly. An AE hire that makes sense to a CRO gets stuck in finance review for weeks while the CFO validates ROI models they were not built to assess. Half of respondents say their CFO now manages risk, governance, and compliance on top of finance. That workload creates approval bottlenecks. A sales ops manager trying to add two SDRs waits for CFO sign-off while the finance leader is buried in compliance reviews and cash flow forecasting. The CFO expansion reflects trust in financial oversight, but it creates structural delays. Sales leaders report longer hiring cycles because finance wants to validate territory models, ramp assumptions, and quota math before approving headcount. The CFO becomes chief figure-it-out officer for issues that do not fit neatly elsewhere, including sales ops infrastructure. The hiring bottleneck hits hardest at scaling businesses. A Series B closes, the board approves headcount expansion, but execution stalls because every role needs CFO approval and the finance leader is managing three other strategic projects. No specific ANZ companies are named in the research, but the pattern is clear across SMEs: finance oversight now controls sales ops hiring velocity. Worth noting: this is happening while sales teams are already under-resourced compared to US benchmarks. The gap: CFOs have financial rigor but lack sales context. They can model payback periods but cannot evaluate whether a territory split makes sense or if an SDR-to-AE ratio is realistic. Sales leaders end up spending more time justifying hires to finance than building pipeline. Pitcher Partners suggests tools like FP&A software could reduce the ops load on CFOs, but the approval structure remains. Until businesses separate financial oversight from operational decision-making, CFO approval will continue to delay sales ops hiring.

SmartCompany
2 months ago
News

Marketo breaks core feature for weeks, Adobe charges $60k anyway

## The Problem Marketo, Adobe's $60k-per-year email platform, broke its unsubscribe function. For two weeks. That is a CAN-SPAM violation on a feature as basic as they come. Support blamed Salesforce. Then blamed the customer's email client. Then said "it must be something you are doing." Eventually, Adobe's Global Escalation Desk confirmed in writing: Marketo was "not honoring unsubscribes properly." No fix timeline. No ownership. Just a shrug until renewal came up. ## The Real Fix The customer built a replacement in an afternoon. Claude, Replit, done. Direct API call to Marketo to delete the record, confirm to the subscriber, ship. Five years ago, that does not happen. You wait in the support queue. You pay a consultant $300/hour for weeks. Now? Three people and some AI agents ship the fix before lunch. Even then, Marketo's 2018-era API fought back. Rate limits, documentation gaps, the kind of friction that modern developer tools killed years ago. Replit nearly gave up. ## Why This Matters for Sales Teams This is the story of B2B software in 2026. Legacy platforms charging enterprise prices for products that barely work. Support as a cost center. No meaningful feature shipping. Survival by switching costs alone. That worked when "build it yourself" was impossible. Not anymore. When your sales tech stack includes tools with APIs this dated, your revenue ops team is building workarounds instead of pipeline. Public SaaS stocks are down 27% year-to-date. The thesis: AI natives (47% conversion rates) are replacing legacy tools (25% rates). But the real issue is simpler. The software just is not good enough anymore. Compare Marketo's API to Stripe, Anthropic, or any developer-led platform from the last five years. The gap is generational. For $60k per year from Adobe, buyers expect the modern end. Not 2015 tooling wearing a fresh coat of marketing. ## The Sales Angle If you are selling legacy B2B software in 2026, your biggest competitor is not another vendor. It is Claude plus an afternoon. Your buyers know this now. If you are buying: check the API docs. If they look like Marketo's, factor in the cost of your team building fixes when support shrugs. That $60k seat price does not include the engineering hours to keep it working. Adobe's escalation code for this case was "Time to Resolution," not "Product Defect." That tells you how they categorize a core feature being broken. The product worked fine. They just took too long to admit it did not. No ANZ-specific data on Marketo usage, but Adobe runs Sydney and Melbourne offices (200-300 headcount including sales). If your stack includes Adobe Experience Cloud tools, worth asking: when was the last time they shipped something that actually improved quota attainment? The comp is not the issue here. The software is.

SaaStr
2 months ago
News

Figma first sales hire: $2M to $950M ARR, no discounts, 300-person team

# Figma First Sales Hire: $2M to $950M ARR, No Discounts, 300-Person Team Kyle Parrish joined Figma in 2018 as the first sales hire when the company was doing $2M ARR. By the time Figma went public, it was hitting $950M ARR with 450,000 paid customers and a 132% NDR in accounts over $10k ARR. The path there required building an enterprise motion from scratch while protecting the PLG community that got them there. ## The No-Discount Rule That Actually Worked Figma refused to discount. Not just "we prefer not to", but a hard no across every deal, including enterprise. Microsoft pushed back. Procurement teams were furious. The rule held. The reasoning: trust and transparency. If every customer pays the same price, no one worries they got a bad deal. It forced the team to win on value, not price negotiations. Worth noting: Figma replaced discounting with enterprise licensing agreements (ELAs) that bundled products differently, but the per-seat pricing stayed consistent. ## What the First Sales Hire Actually Does Parrish's early days were not about quota. They were about learning the market. He sat on couches with designers for hours. Went to meetups. Listened more than he pitched. The sales motion grew out of genuine curiosity about the design community, not a playbook imported from another SaaS company. Stage alignment mattered here. Figma did not hire a big-company executive. They hired someone addicted to building, comfortable with ambiguity, willing to do 15 jobs badly before figuring out which ones mattered. Parrish's advice for founders hiring their first sales rep: look for "scar tissue" from early-stage operators. People who have built GTM motions from scratch know what breaks and what scales. ## The Adobe Deal Collapse Was the Unlock In 2022, Adobe offered to acquire Figma for $20B. The deal fell through. Figma paid a $1B breakup fee and immediately had its best year. The product team, no longer constrained by acquisition due diligence, launched Dev Mode and expanded from 3 products to 8 in a single conference. Parrish's take: being under acquisition froze the company's ambition. The collapse freed them to execute. ## What This Means for Early-Stage Sales Hiring Figma's growth demonstrates three things that matter when building a sales function from zero: 1. **Respect the community you are selling into.** PLG companies fail at enterprise when sales treats the existing user base as leads to close instead of a market to serve. 2. **Pricing consistency builds trust faster than discounts build pipeline.** The no-discount rule was painful early but became a competitive advantage. 3. **Stage-appropriate hiring beats pedigree.** A VP from Salesforce is the wrong hire at $2M ARR. You need someone who has carried a bag at a company that went from zero to scale. Figma is now public (FIG), reporting $749M revenue in 2024 with 48% YoY growth. They spend $300k daily on AWS infrastructure and have 11,107 customers over $10k ARR. The first sales hire built the foundation for all of that. Not by closing deals faster, but by learning the market deeply enough to scale without breaking what made the product work in the first place.

Sales Hacker
2 months ago
News

ANU spinout Syenta raises $36m Series A for AI chip tech

## ANU spinout Syenta raises $36m Series A for AI chip tech Syenta, an Australian National University spinout making AI chip packaging tech, closed a $36 million Series A led by Silicon Valley's Playground Global. The National Reconstruction Fund contributed $10.1 million. Existing investors Investible, Salus Ventures, Jelix Ventures, and Wollemi Capital participated. The Sydney-based company previously raised $2.2 million in late 2022 and $8.8 million in a pre-Series A last August. Total funding now sits around $47 million across six years. Former Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, now a Playground Global general partner, joins the board. ### What they actually do Syenta started as a multi-material 3D printing operation. Now they develop Localized Electrochemical Manufacturing (LEM), a chip packaging process that CEO Dr Jekaterina Viktorova says cuts production steps by 40% without redesigning existing manufacturing infrastructure. The pitch: finer-pitch chip connections that move data faster at lower cost. Production target is 2027. ### The expansion play Funding goes toward commercialisation for high-volume production and US expansion from an Arizona base. Worth noting: moving from university spinout to semiconductor production at scale is a long ramp. 2027 is the target, not a guarantee. ### What we don't know No sales team disclosed. No go-to-market strategy detailed. No customer pipeline mentioned. No CRO or VP Sales named. For a company targeting 2027 production, that either means early days on commercial strategy or they are keeping cards close. The AI chip market is crowded: Mythic raised $70 million in 2021, other startups chase Nvidia's dominance. Syenta's play is packaging tech, not chips themselves, which positions them as infrastructure rather than direct competition. Different sale, different buyer. ### ANZ angle Rare to see Australian deeptech at this scale. The National Reconstruction Fund bet signals government interest in local semiconductor capability. Whether that translates to ANZ-based manufacturing jobs or sales roles remains unclear. Arizona expansion suggests the commercial focus sits offshore.

Startup Daily
2 months ago
News

Australian business coalition demands AI funding in 2026 budget

# Australian business coalition demands AI funding in 2026 budget The Alliance of Industry Associations submitted a pre-budget proposal calling for increased AI investment, skills development, and tax reform ahead of Australia's 2026 federal budget. The move puts pressure on Labor to back its December 2025 National AI Plan with actual funding. ## What they want The coalition is pushing for: - Stronger AI investment commitments - Skills and training programmes (relevant for sales teams facing the AI gap) - Tax reform to support AI adoption Specifics on dollar amounts were not disclosed in the submission. ## Why this matters for sales teams Australian sales organisations are navigating the AI skills gap without clear government support. While the US rolled out programmes like AI-Ready America (Department of Labor initiatives, NSF education funding), ANZ teams have been left to figure it out themselves. The coalition's timing is deliberate. Labor's National AI Plan tied AI to productivity and the Future Made in Australia agenda, but stopped short of standalone legislation. The plan relies on voluntary compliance, asking businesses to police themselves. ## The budget context AI got zero mentions in the 2024-25 federal budget papers, despite heavy government messaging in the two years prior. Most 2025 AI policy (the regulation roadmap, high-risk AI consultation, public sector rules) had already been funded in earlier budgets. The 2026 budget will show whether the National AI Plan was strategy or theatre. For sales leaders evaluating AI training budgets, the absence of government programmes means self-funding remains the default. ## What happens next The submission tests Labor's willingness to fund AI capability building. If the May 2026 budget includes dedicated AI skills funding, it creates pathways for sales teams to access training. If not, the gap between policy ambition and practical support continues. For now, Australian sales organisations are watching whether the National AI Plan turns into budget line items or stays a PDF on a government website.

SmartCompany
2 months ago
News

Finder cuts 54 jobs globally, 10% of workforce

## Fifth round in three years Finder cut 54 jobs globally in early 2026, trimming roughly 10% of its 500-600 person workforce. The Sydney-based comparison platform has now completed five redundancy rounds since 2023, cutting an estimated 225 roles total. Sources confirm cuts hit multiple regions and teams. Specific ANZ impact is unclear, but commercial operations are likely affected. Finder generates revenue through affiliate commissions and lead gen partnerships, not direct sales to consumers. That means the "sales team" is really partnership managers and commercial ops, estimated at 50-100 people ANZ-wide based on LinkedIn data. ## What changed Finder employed 500+ staff globally at its 2021 peak. Four rounds between 2023 and 2024 cut roughly 175 roles. February 2024 alone saw 60 redundancies, 17% of headcount at the time. That round included Australian CEO Chris Ellis, who moved to an advisory role. The company is citing "cost pressures and AI-driven efficiencies" per sources, language that matches broader 2026 fintech layoff trends. Translation: automating content production and lead scoring, shrinking the teams that used to do that manually. ## Market context Finder competes with Canstar, Mozo, and RateCity in ANZ financial product comparison. Traffic sits around 10 million monthly visitors. Revenue estimates land at AUD 100-150 million annually, but Finder is private and does not disclose numbers. CEO Frank Schembri (co-founder) remains. Chief Commercial Officer Brock McKinley oversees partnerships and revenue. No dedicated CRO or VP Sales role is publicly listed. For sales professionals: if you are in fintech affiliate or partnership roles, this is the third comp platform to cut headcount in 18 months. The model is shifting toward automated lead scoring and fewer human touches. Plan accordingly.

SmartCompany
2 months ago
News

Apple names John Ternus CEO, Cook to executive chair

Apple named John Ternus as CEO, effective 1 September 2026. Tim Cook, who has led the company since 2011, becomes executive chairman. Ternus, 50, is a 25-year Apple veteran who most recently ran hardware engineering. He led development of iPads, AirPods, and the iPhone Air. Before Cook became CEO, he ran worldwide sales and operations as SVP. That background is not part of Ternus's resume. The shift matters for sales teams: Apple is moving from an operations and supply chain leader to a product and design leader. Cook turned Apple into a machine that ships hundreds of millions of units per year. Ternus's track record is products that people want to buy, not the systems that get them to market. Apple does not publicly disclose sales team size, CRO, or VP Sales details. The company sells through retail stores (including Sydney and Melbourne), online channels, and enterprise partnerships. No sales leadership changes were announced alongside the CEO transition. Johny Srouji becomes Chief Hardware Officer. Tom Marieb takes over hardware engineering, reporting to Srouji. All changes are effective immediately, with Ternus transitioning into the CEO role over the next four months. For ANZ sales teams selling into enterprise or partnering with Apple, the question is whether a product-focused CEO shifts how the company engages with channel partners and enterprise accounts. Cook maintained strong relationships with major enterprise customers and government (he recently presented a custom plaque to Donald Trump). Apple says Cook will continue engaging with policymakers in his executive chairman role. Apple has 160,000+ employees globally. Specific ANZ headcount is not disclosed. The CEO transition comes as Apple faces pressure from Nvidia (now the world's most valuable company) and Meta (whose AR glasses undercut Vision Pro on price and adoption). No layoffs or sales org restructuring were announced. Worth watching: how a hardware-focused CEO approaches enterprise sales strategy and channel relationships in ANZ and globally.

Startup Daily
2 months ago
News

B2B buyers want 12-month contracts, not 3-year deals. AI changes everything.

## The Contract Length Problem A VP of Sales at a $100m+ ARR AI startup summed it up: "Everyone wants to buy. No one wants to sign a long-term deal." ICONIQ's 2026 State of Go-to-Market report confirms this is not isolated. Sub-1-year contracts for new logos grew from 4% in 2023 to 13% in 2026. Three-year deals dropped from 28% to 23% over the same period. Sales cycles shortened from 25 weeks to 19 weeks. Buyers are deciding faster but committing for less time. That combination tells you where confidence actually sits right now. ## Why It Is Happening This is not buyer hesitation. It is buyer rationality. When the best solution in a category can genuinely change in 6 to 12 months, signing a 3-year deal is not partnership. It is a risk buyers did not ask to take. Former Snowflake CRO Chris Degnan put it directly: companies want to give employees tool choice, but they will not sign long-term contracts in an AI world where the best solution can change in months. They want options. Consumption pricing accelerates this. When buyers cannot forecast usage because the product category is new or their AI workflows are still being figured out, finance teams will not approve multi-year commitments. Short-term contracts become the compromise. ## What This Means for Sales Teams Stop discounting multi-year deals. You win the deal and lose the renewal when buyers resent the commitment by month 18. Fix comp structure. Net New Recurring Revenue as a comp metric jumped from 25% to 33% of companies in one year. Net Dollar Retention rose 5 points. AEs need to be rewarded for quality, not just TCV. A 12-month deal that expands 150% beats a 3-year deal that churns. The answer to shorter contracts is better post-sales, not better sales. Customer success-sourced pipeline wins at 52%, higher than sales (43%), channel (39%), or marketing (27%). When CS owns expansion and customers see ROI fast, short contracts become annuities. Quota math changes too. If your team is carrying the same number but deals are 12 months instead of 36, attainment assumptions break. Territory planning, ramp periods, pipeline coverage: all need recalibration. ## The Bottom Line B2B software is shifting from multi-year commitments to prove-it-quarterly relationships. That is not a sales problem. It is a market reality. Sales teams that adapt comp, territory planning, and post-sales motion will win. Teams that keep pushing 3-year deals with discounts will watch attainment drop.

SaaStr
Load More