Customizing Sales Offers

M&A “String of Pearls” strategy Using Merck's Deal to break the jargon As a markets person, I had not heard of this term until last week, but it’s a very simple idea. Instead of making one huge, high-risk acquisition, a company collects a series of smaller, targeted deals over time. Each one adds a specific capability, product, or technology. Individually, they may not transform the company but together they reshape its future. Last week’s $9.2 billion Merck-Cidara deal is a textbook example. With Keytruda, a >$20 billion a year cancer drug losing patent protection in 2028, Merck isn’t searching for one single replacement. It’s building a necklace: ↳ Acceleron ($11.5bn) pulmonary hypertension ↳ Verona Pharma ($10bn) COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) ↳ Cidara ($9.2bn) long-acting flu protection (CD388) ↳ Plus heavy internal R&D investment Each deal adds a 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭 that extends Merck’s pipeline, smooths the revenue cliff, and spreads scientific and commercial risk across multiple assets and therapeutic areas. That’s the power of the strategy: ↳ Diversification without dilution ↳ Multiple shots on goal instead of one ↳ A more predictable growth path into the next decade The phrase may sound technical, but it’s simply good portfolio management, applied to M&A.

Last year, I was advising a founder who wanted to buy a competitor. Deal looked clean. Numbers made sense. But halfway through the diligence - chaos. The seller didn’t even know what they were selling. Shares? Assets? Business as a going concern? Three completely different things. Three completely different tax, legal, and compliance outcomes. If you’re acquiring (or selling) a company, there are three main structures you need to understand: 1. Share Purchase: You buy the company’s shares. You inherit everything - assets, liabilities, history, skeletons included. Simple to execute, but risky if diligence isn’t airtight. 2. Asset Sale: You buy specific assets (like brand, plant, tech, customer contracts). You leave behind the liabilities. Clean structure, but painful paperwork - every contract, lease, and license must be transferred. 3. Business Transfer (Slump Sale): You buy the entire business as a going concern. Assets + employees + contracts move together. Tax-efficient in some cases, but needs careful structuring and valuation. Here’s where deals derail: >> Founders jump in without preparing. >> Buyers don’t check structure, sellers don’t clean up compliance, and both sides end up negotiating chaos. Whether you’re buying or selling - structure drives strategy. It affects valuation, tax, cash flow, and even post-deal freedom. #Acquisition #FractionalCFO #Valuation #Finance #Founders

One of the least-discussed challenges in AI adoption today is pricing. Everyone talks about model performance, benchmarks, or features. But for enterprises, the real sticking point often shows up when the bill discussion starts. The problem: current pricing models don’t align with how enterprises budget and buy. Usage-based pricing makes perfect sense for vendors, but it feels like a blank cheque for buyers. If adoption succeeds, the bill grows in unpredictable ways. No CFO wants to be surprised by a doubling in costs because usage spiked. Flat subscriptions feel safer for buyers, but they put vendors at risk. The underlying compute costs fluctuate, and a heavy customer can easily push margins underwater. Hybrid models try to balance the two, to put in predictability for buyers’ forecast, and vendors try to to defend and improve profitability. This mismatch slows progress. Solution: a new generation of pricing models. Simple enough to understand, predictable enough to budget for, but still sustainable for vendors. It could also mean having periodic reviews instead of fixed term pricing for multi year deals. That could mean outcome-based contracts, tiered usage bands with hard caps, or bundled services that absorb variability in spikes. Until AI economics are solved, adoption will remain slower than the technology itself.

Relying solely on traditional ad revenue simply isn’t enough anymore—sustainable growth depends on diversifying income streams. Ad revenues are under pressure, with CPMs declining 18% year-on-year (Reuters Institute, 2024) and stricter privacy regulations limiting traditional advertising’s effectiveness. A case study from The Guardian demonstrates that a strategic shift to hybrid revenue models can significantly boost performance. The Guardian transformed its approach by introducing tiered memberships that offer premium analysis and live editor Q&A sessions. This strategy not only tripled revenue in 12 months but also achieved a 32% membership uptake. Similarly, Forbes tapped into NFTs, providing over 10,000 subscribers with exclusive event access and early article previews—clear evidence that audiences are ready to pay for exclusivity. Even more telling, The New York Times now derives 64% of its revenue from subscriptions, while publishers like The Information have further strengthened their community ties by launching subscriber-only apps that reduce third-party dependencies. These initiatives reflect a broader shift in audience expectations. Consumers are increasingly drawn to high-quality, exclusive content and personalised experiences rather than generic, ad-supported material. Moving beyond an ad-only strategy isn’t just about following trends—it’s a practical move to secure your business for the future by building deeper relationships and ensuring long-term financial stability. Here are the key insights: 1. Diversify Revenue Streams: Embrace innovative approaches such as tiered memberships and NFTs to reduce reliance on declining ad revenues. 2. Enhance Audience Engagement: Offer exclusive, value-driven content that fosters deeper connections and builds community trust. 3. Future-Proof Your Business: Transitioning to hybrid revenue models is essential for long-term sustainability and resilience in digital publishing. The shift towards diversified revenue models not only strengthens financial performance but also cultivates a more engaged and loyal audience. Would your audience pay for exclusive content? Why or why not? Share with me in the comment section. #DigitalPublishing #SEO #RevenueDiversification #MembershipModels #MediaInnovation

Selling services without an offer is the easiest way to waste efforts and possibly burnout... Because your clients don't buy just services. They buy specific outcomes that makes their lives better. And creating irresistible offers is the easiest way to communicate that outcome. Here’s 5 tight steps I used to create irresistible offers that sell: 1. Define the outcome: ⤷Write, in one sentence, the specific result your client will see and when. I 2. Name the buyer ⤷Stop saying “business owners.” Pick one profile: industry, role, or problem. The more specific, the better. 3. Package the deliverables ⤷List the key deliverables that guarantee the outcome. 4. Set a clear price and payment option ⤷One price,one anchor, one easy payment method. (installments if needed). 5. Remove the fear ⤷Add a simple guarantee, a trial, or a small-risk initial package so the buyer can say yes without overthinking. Master these 5 steps. And clients will rarely question your price. PS: Which of these moves are you implementing this week?

If your offer doesn't hurt to say no to, it's not strong enough. Most businesses build offers that are easy to ignore. They list features, explain processes and describe deliverables. And prospects nod politely. Then they do nothing. The problem is not your traffic. It is not your pricing. It is not your ad creative. It is that your offer creates no cost of inaction. When a prospect walks away and feels nothing, you have a positioning problem disguised as a sales problem. Here is what separates a forgettable offer from one that converts: 1. A forgettable offer describes what you do. A strong offer describes what the buyer loses by waiting. 2. A forgettable offer lists features. A strong offer stacks outcomes with timelines and specifics. 3. A forgettable offer sounds reasonable. A strong offer sounds unreasonable to refuse. 4. A forgettable offer asks for trust. A strong offer removes the need for trust entirely by leading with proof and guarantees. 5. A forgettable offer competes on price. A strong offer makes price irrelevant because the return dwarfs the investment. The Offer Gravity Framework: 1. Outcome clarity. State the exact result the buyer gets. Not "better marketing." Revenue, pipeline, conversion rate, cost per acquisition. Name the number. 2. Time compression. Attach a specific timeline. "First qualified leads in 14 days" carries more weight than "we will grow your business." 3. Risk reversal. Remove the downside. Performance guarantees, milestone payments, audit-first engagements. Make saying yes the lowest-risk decision they will make this quarter. 4. Proof density. Stack evidence before the pitch. Case studies, before-and-after metrics, client timelines. The offer should feel proven before you ever present pricing. 5. Cost of inaction. Quantify what staying still costs them. Monthly revenue left on the table. Pipeline leakage. Competitor ground lost. Make the status quo more expensive than hiring you. I have rebuilt offers for B2B operators that went from a 4% close rate to 22% in under 60 days. The service did not change. The positioning did. What would your pipeline look like if half the people you spoke to genuinely struggled to say no? DM me "OFFER" and I will share how we audit and rebuild offer positioning for B2B businesses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Who am I I'm Lukas Otompasis, founder of LDS Digital. What I do I help businesses build steady lead and revenue systems. What LDS Digital does We turn interest into real enquiries and booked calls using SEO, paid ads, conversion, and simple automation. Who we help B2B operators who want growth without guesswork. The outcome A clearer pipeline, better lead quality, and more predictable revenue. Why this works This approach works because it focuses on fundamentals, clean execution, and systems that keep performing over time. If this resonates, feel free to DM me.

Having founded two SaaS companies (Statista and ECDB), I've watched pricing models evolve from simple seat-based subscriptions to something far more nuanced. Today, I want to share my findings on what pricing model works for many SaaS companies, and what we’ve learned. Seat-based pricing means you buy x seats, use 70-80% actively, and everyone gets tool access. Simple. But the world has changed. Today, data flows through multiple channels, which means a seat does not reflect actual usage anymore. Data can now be accessed in various ways: 📈 Direct API integrations with BI tools 🤖 AI assistants answering ad-hoc questions 🖥️ Automated workflows pulling market data daily 🧑💻 MCPs (APIs for LLMs) enabling new use cases A single developer might automate queries for an entire organization. Ten analysts may share one dashboard but rarely log in. Why should they all pay the same? It doesn’t make sense. According to an OMR/hy study, usage-based pricing adoption in SaaS jumped from 31% to 67% in just two years. The reason? AI and automation are making per-seat models obsolete. When one employee can automate what previously required five, charging per seat doesn't reflect value delivered. The software’s true value comes from enhancing efficiency, output, or outcomes, not the headcount. That is why we at ECDB are moving to a hybrid model: platform access + consumption credits. 👇 Here's our approach: 1. Platform tiers remain - You still choose a plan based on team size and features needed. 2. Credits introduced - Each plan includes base credits for downloads and light API usage. Heavy automation requires add-on credit bundles with volume discounts. 3. Fair pricing across channels - Whether you access a data point via xls, API call, or AI query - same credit cost. No more arbitrary pricing based on how you access the data. We found that this model works best for us right now. I welcome feedback from our customers, other SaaS founders, and industry experts. Are you seeing similar shifts in your products?

Post #4: M&A Deal Structuring: The role of Earnouts (performance‑linked) Earnouts - where part of the purchase price is paid only if post-closing targets are met - have become a vital tool in Indian M&A, particularly when buyer and seller valuations differ or ongoing seller involvement is seen as crucial. Why Earnouts? strategic flexibility by: bridging valuation gaps between parties; limiting buyer exposure for uncertain growth scenarios; incentivizing sellers (esp. founders) to deliver performance; retaining key management during integration and beyond. Key considerations: Performance metrics: Clear, measurable targets like EBITDA, revenue, regulatory approvals, etc. Timeframe: Typically 1-4 years, balanced range to optimise seller commitment and execution feasibility. Payout design: Graduated or milestone-based structures favored over all-or-nothing for fairness. Audit & dispute rights: Audit clauses, financial transparency, dispute teams to ensure fairness and resolve disagreements. Regulatory: Cross-border earnouts structuring is nuanced and must comply with FEMA rules. Tax: This is critical as it determines the overall tax liability and can go into the highest tax bracket and is nuanced. Others: Control imbalance since buyers usually run business post-sale, which may limit seller influence over performance targets; integration pull for the buyer; differing accounting methods and valuation mismatch. Bottom line: Earnouts can be a powerful mechanism to align expectation and execution - bridging valuation gaps, incentivizing performance, and protecting both buyer and seller interests. But they’re not plug‑and‑play and can be effective if there are: measurable performance metrics; balanced timelines; robust governance and audit controls; legal, tax, regulatory, accounting alignment; commercial congruence with the underlying deal thesis - ensuring the earnout structure reinforces, rather than distracts from, integration and post-deal strategy. Up next: While earnouts tie payouts to performance, deferred consideration structures spread payments over time - regardless of results. When used right, they can ease cash flow pressure for the buyer, create a softer exit for the seller, and help bridge execution and trust during the transition phase. We’ll break down how these structures work, real-world examples from India, and how to navigate their tax, legal, and commercial nuances. #M&A #Earnouts #DealStructuring #CorporateFinance #PrivateEquity #IndiaM&A #TransactionDesign

Everyone agrees usage-based pricing is the future of SaaS. But is it ACTUALLY delivering stronger performance? We dug into the 2025 Software Equity Group B2B SaaS report and layered in Monevate’s own pricing and segmentation data. Here’s what we found: 💡 Usage-based pricing is now more common than user-based (37 companies vs. 24 in the dataset). The shift is real. 📉 But the performance tells a more complicated story. Usage-based models show similar growth to user-based, but with significantly lower EBITDA margins. 🤔 However, valuation multiples for companies with each model are nearly identical. That disconnect suggests investor preference is inflating usage-based multiples beyond what fundamentals alone would justify. Does that mean usage-based pricing isn’t delivering? No—there’s a variant that is clearly a winner. 🔀 Hybrid pricing, combining elements of user-based AND usage-based models, is outperforming both. On ALL key performance metrics. ✔️ Higher growth. ✔️ Higher margins. ✔️ Higher valuation multiples. Often seen as “the best of both worlds,” hybrid pricing’s performance data suggests it might just be living up to that title. 👇  Seeing this in your own data or GTM shifts? Want the full findings? Drop a comment or DM me and I’ll send the full 10-slide deck + dataset. #SaaS #Pricing #HybridPricing #UsageBasedPricing #Valuation #SaaSGrowth #SaaSInvesting -- Hybrid pricing outperforms user- and usage-based models on growth, margin, AND valuation.