Latest Entries

SaaS Metrics – how to improve?

In my last two posts I explained why LTV:CAC and CAC Payback are the two most important metrics for SaaS startups and how to use them to interpret the health and potential of your business.

But what do we do if we need to improve either of these metrics?

Unfortunately there is no easy answer. There are limitless tools and tricks, but with imperfect information there is rarely an obvious ‘right’ answer. Even if there was, the right approach would be specific to each individual business situation, so there is no generic playbook for how to improve.

In practice you have to be constantly testing and adapting, seeing what works and what doesn’t. It is a on-going tactical and strategic battle.

However, in this article I will discuss some high level steps that may help you to forge an informed path and give yourself a fighting chance of making the right moves.

Step 1. Measure

It sounds obvious, but it’s amazing how many businesses don’t track their LTV:CAC and CAC Payback. We have already discussed why these metrics are important, and if you are not tracking how they evolve on a monthly or quarterly basis, you should be.

Of course for an early stage business you can expect metrics to move around quite a bit as you make changes and your business evolves. But by measuring LTV:CAC and CAC Payback, you can see how the changes you make impact the fundamental unit economics of your business.

More on the specifics of how to actually calculate key metrics in a later post.

Step 2. Measure some more

LTV:CAC and CAC Payback are nice, concise metrics that give you an academic read on the overall health and potential of your business. But they are not actionable. To understand how to act to improve either of these two key metrics, we first have to measure their constituent components.

CAC Payback is a function of sales and marketing spend, new Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR)landed by the sales team, and gross margin.

LTV:CAC is a function of average MRR (sometimes referred to as Average Contract Value, or ‘ACV’), gross margin and gross churn.

The simplest way to track these components is using a Monthly Recurring Revenue bridge (‘MRR Bridge’) as laid out below.

Here you can see what your opening MRR was at the start of the month and what closing MRR you finished the month on. You can see how the change between opening and closing was driven by new MRR from new clients, expansion or contraction in MRR from existing clients, and finally gross churn, which is MRR lost due to clients who have left.

It is important to track your gross margin for the month and your sales and marketing spend. I also like to track the total number of customers.

More on the MRR bridge and how to use it to actually calculate your key metrics in a later post.

Step 3. Segment your metrics

Sometimes you can improve your key metrics just by shifting your mix of customers, products or channels, without having to think about driving change in any given component.

For example, you may find that the unit economics don’t stack up when serving customers below a certain size. You may decide to change your approach by cutting sales and marketing spend to that segment, or reducing their account management. In some cases, you could decide to just stop serving customers below a minimum threshold altogether – saying no can be a powerful tool.

But to make decisions about your segment mix, you first need to be able to measure the key metrics and their components at a segment level.

Segmented metrics is probably something I would only consider for later stage businesses (post Series B) because it only really makes sense if you have enough customers and use cases to segment meaningfully and if your product, and sales teams are sufficiently structured.

There are three common axes of segmentation.

1. Customer segments

The most common type of segmentation. Typically broken down by size (e.g. small, medium, enterprise), but sometimes by vertical or use case.

2. Channel segments

It can be useful to see how your key metrics vary by channel. For example, inside sales vs field sales vs re-seller partnerships, or online marketing vs direct mail. Also up-sell vs new sales.

3. Product segments

This is less common, but in some cases where you have different sales teams selling different products, it may be worth considering the economics of each product individually.

If you measure LTV:CAC and CAC payback for each segment you might find that one customer segment, or one channel, or one product group is pulling the rest of the business down. Conversely, it might be that you have one or two star segments with stellar economics where you should be focusing all your resources.

Step 4. Get tactical

You may decide that tweaking your segment mix is not the right approach and that you need to take corrective action to drive improvements in a specific component of your unit economics.

There are too many options, and the answer too dependent on the specifics of the commercial situation, to go into detail here. But below I have laid out some of the questions you might consider when trying to improve each component of unit economics. These suggestions are by no means exhaustive.

How can we increase average MRR (‘ACV’)?

– Is our product suite and pricing optimised to encourage cross-sell, up-sell and volume increases from our clients?

– Can we add functionality or features to drive more value for, and spend from our clients?

– Is our account management team properly structured and incentivised to deliver maximum value from our clients?

– In particular, how do we recognise and compensate up-sell vs the initial sale?

How can we increase gross margin (reduce variable cost to serve)?

– Can we streamline our processes or use technology to reduce delivery and support costs?

– Can we productise further to make the delivery and operations teams more efficient?

– How can we make our account management and support more scalable? Can we productise these services?

– Can we encourage more ‘self-help’ customer behavior?

– Are we offering too much support too cheaply to certain customer groups?

How can we reduce churn?

– Can the proposition be adapted to better serve high churn customer segments?

– Are there common reasons for churn and can they be fixed?

– Are there early warning signs of churn such as falling Net Promoter Score, or usage metrics?

– If so, can we implement processes to flag these signs before it is too late?

– Can we create more ‘sticky’ functionality and features or can we do more to become more embedded in our customers’ workflows?

– Can we see a high churn ‘bedding in period’ after which customers tend to stick around?

– If so, what can we do to increase engagement during this bedding in period to maximise the likelihood that a client becomes ‘bedded in’?

How can we increase sales efficiency?

In other words, how can we deliver more new MRR for the same or less sales and marketing spend?

 – Is the sales team structure and compensation mechanism optimised to match our desired customer and product segments?

– Can we tweak the sales process and compensation structure to shorten the sales cycle and increase sales cadence?

– Can we adjust our terms to shorten the time from landing a sale to revenue recognition?

– Can we improve our training and recruitment processes to reduce the ramp-up time for new sales reps?

– What is the variability in sales rep performance, what can we learn from this?

– What does our marketing funnel look like and where can we improve conversion?

– Which marketing channels are most effective, how can we optimise for this?

– Can we unlock attractive new customer segments with pricing and proposition adjustments?

Over the last three articles we have seen the importance of LTV:CAC and CAC Payback and how they can be used to indicate the health and potential of a business. Finally we have considered ways of improving these key metrics.

In reality it is a constant tactical battle which is never over. There are limitless tools and options and no easy right answer. But a good starting point is to at least measure your key metrics and their constituent components so that you understand what is driving performance. If you have sufficient scale, it can be useful to segment your metrics to see if certain customer groups, channels, or products are holding you back or driving you forward. Finally, there are a whole range of levers you can pull to try to boost the different components of unit economics.

Profile make 2017 Sunday Times Top 100 Best Small Companies List

Profile Financial has been included in the 2017 Sunday Times Top 100 Best Small Companies List. The Sunday Times publish their list every year to honour the ‘cream of Britain’s employers’. The award follows much dedication towards the team environment and to creating a positive culture for everyone who works at Profile.

COO of Profile, Rachel Blundell commented:
We know that Profile wouldn’t be the success that it is without great people and that’s why creating a healthy culture and working environment for our team is crucial to our business strategy. As a young business which has grown quickly in three years, we are incredibly proud to be on the list and we have bold ambitions for the future!”

Read the full story here.

Infinity welcomes three senior hires to UK & new US offices

Infinity, the cloud based marketing technology and call tracking provider, has announced its US expansion as well as three senior hires to lead the implementation of the company’s major growth. Andy Sadler joins as Chief Revenue Officer, while Trent Walter and Michelle Garnham join as Sales Director for North America and SVP of Customer Success respectively.

The three new hires bring a combined 50 years of industry experience to Infinity and they will work with its fast growing customer community to drive value and success, both commercially and with customers.

CEO of Infinity, Paul Walsh commented:
“2016 has been a key growth year for us, despite growing political and economic uncertainty across the world. We doubled the headcount, have three new executives in the team, are opening an office in the US and have exciting product launches coming up. Andy, Trent and Michelle will add the expertise we need to take Infinity and the market to the next level. As many companies seem to reconsider investments in certain markets, we’re looking at 2017 as the year of further global expansion and consolidation, with the UK and US being the primary drivers of growth.”

Read the full story here.

Antidote launch Prescision Medicine for Me

Antidote have announced the launch of a new project, Precision Medicine for Me, with patient empowerment organisation Patient Power. Precision Medicine for Me is dedicated to providing support to patients who want access to the best possible information and services related to precision medicine. It aims to ensure that all patients have access to next-generation tumour testing and the latest treatment options, including promising new drugs currently being tested in clinical trials.

CPO of Antidote, Sarah Kerruish commented:
“We recognised a major problem; it’s very difficult for patients to learn about and gain access to tumour testing unless they are treated at a major cancer centre. This means they aren’t benefitting from the latest treatments, both approved and in development.”

Read the full article here.

Smedvig Capital lead £12m investment in Shipping Container Pricing Index Xeneta

Xeneta, the leading ocean freight benchmarking and market intelligence software platform, has raised $12 million in a Series B investment round led by London-based Smedvig Capital. Existing investors including Creandum and Alliance Venture also participated in the round. The financing will be used to fund Xeneta’s continued global expansion and to strengthen its product development and technology platform. Rob Toms, a Managing Director at Smedvig, will form a part of Xeneta’s board of directors. Smedvig will join Xeneta’s earlier investors Creandum, Point Nine Capital, Alliance Venture and Alden, bringing the total raised by Xeneta since 2012 to $20.5 million.

”We are excited to be backing and working with Patrik, Thomas and their team to continue their impressive growth. The business has already had a major impact in the $200bn+ container shipping market, and we are confident that Xeneta will continue to drive change in the ocean freight and related markets,” said Rob Toms, a Managing Director at Smedvig Capital.

“We were looking for a VC who shared our strategic long-term outlook. Shipping is not a fast-paced industry and Smedvig’s extended investment perspective plays very well with our strategy making them an ideal investment partner,” said Patrik Berglund, CEO & Co-founder at Xeneta.

“One thing that was particularly appealing about Smedvig was that their founding roots stem from the shipping industry. That coupled with their experience in scaling enterprise technology businesses in traditional industries globally made it a perfect fit for us,” said Thomas Sørbø, CBDO & Co-founder at Xeneta.

Xeneta has positioned itself as the leading container pricing platform and challenged the status quo of the traditional volatile shipping industry. By digitizing the crowdsourcing of ocean container prices it has created the most complete global container pricing index bringing pricing transparency to all stakeholders in international container trade.

“Xeneta is one of my favorite Creandum seed deals because from the very first meeting you could see such a massive potential in the team and in the opportunity to bring price transparency to global freight. Xeneta has developed phenomenally and we’re very happy to welcome Smedvig Capital as co-investors, as we share the founders’ long-term vision for the company,” said Fredrik Cassel, Partner at Creandum.

This was also echoed by Jan-Erik Hareid, Managing Partner at Alliance Venture noting that Xeneta has carved out a unique position in the container freight marketplace making it a one-to-watch company.

Founded in 2012 in Oslo, Norway, Xeneta is the largest ocean freight rate benchmarking and market intelligence platform. In just 2 years, Xeneta has grown in its database of contracted shipping rates from 2MN in 2015 to 23+MN in 2017, while increasing revenue by 200% in 12 months. Customers include global market leaders such as Kraft Heinz, Electrolux, Continental, Thyssenkrupp, Akzo Nobel, Brother International, in addition to the world’s leading suppliers in the automotive, chemical and retail industries.  The company has offices in Oslo, Hamburg and establishing a presence in the U.S. east coast, currently New York.

In 2016, Xeneta was named Nordic Startup of the Year – Norway and Patrik Berglund, CEO, received the prestigious Lloyd’s List Innovation in Shipping Award.

SaaS Metrics – What am I aiming for?

In my last post I presented LTV:CAC and CAC Payback as the two most important metrics for SaaS businesses.

LTV:CAC tells us how profitable a business will be at maturity and CAC Payback tells us how much cash it will take to get there. Therefore, these are the two most important metrics, and entrepreneurs should monitor them religiously.

Management should strive to improve these two metrics. But founders often ask us “how good does my LTV:CAC and CAC Payback need to be?”

In this second post of three, I will explain why for SaaS businesses to ‘work’, they need to have LTV:CAC of at least 3x. I will also show that for capital efficient returns, CAC Payback should ideally be less than 12 months.

I will then demonstrate unit economics in action through a worked example.

LTV:CAC must be at least 3x, ideally 5x.

In a previous post I explained that LTV:CAC is a great predictor of profitability at maturity.

As it turns out, there is a direct mathematical relationship between LTV:CAC and ‘steady state’ contribution margin.

By ‘steady state’ we mean once the business has stopped investing in growth and is just spending enough on sales and marketing to replace churn and maintain a constant revenue.

‘Steady state contribution margin’ is the percentage of revenue that is left after taking off variable cost of sales, and sales and marketing costs (churn replacement only). It is what is left over to cover fixed overheads before getting to ‘steady state operating profit’.

The chart below shows how for a given gross margin, steady state contribution increases with increasing LTV:CAC. This improvement is steep at first, but as LTV:CAC increases, the rate of contribution improvement starts to slow.

So, what can we learn from this?

Well, below 3x LTV:CAC it’s going to be almost impossible to make a highly profitable business. Benchmarks (such as those published by Pacific Crest) tell us that even the largest SaaS companies have an overhead base of at least 30% of revenue. Therefore, to leave enough room for a ‘meaningful’ profit margin (say 10%) we need contribution margin to be greater than 40%. Unless LTV:CAC is at least 3x, this will be tricky.

Between 3x and 5x there is a steep improvement in contribution margin (roughly ten percentage points improvement). At 5x LTV:CAC, contribution margin is high enough that a very profitable business should be possible.

Beyond 5x, there are still benefits to be had, but we start to see diminishing returns. Doubling LTV:CAC from 5x to 10x only yields a further ten percentage points improvement in contribution margin.

So in conclusion:

LTV:CAC needs to be at least 3x for a business to have a chance of profitability, but really management should be aiming for 5x to make a great business.

I will explain the maths of this relationship in a later post.

Ideally CAC Payback should be less than 12 months.

CAC payback is an indicator of how much cash a business will need to spend on sales and marketing to reach a certain size in a certain time.

Again there is a mathematical relationship here, although it is more complex than the LTV:CAC rule. I will delve into the maths in a later post, but the rule of thumb that we apply at Smedvig Capital (and has been written about by various other commentators) is:

CAC Payback needs to be less than 12 months for a business to have a good chance of capital efficient growth. But for enterprise SaaS businesses with high value clients, this can probably be stretched to 18 or even 24 months.

This is a slightly more nuanced, less objective rule than the LTV:CAC rule because the amount of cash one is willing to invest depends on the expected size of prize and appetite for risk.

For most SaaS businesses, CAC Payback needs to be less than 12 months to provide the capital efficient growth that attracts investors to SaaS in the first place. But for enterprise SaaS companies with high value, low churn customers (and thus high LTV:CAC), a higher CAC Payback period (18–24 months) can work.

So that’s the theory, but to demonstrate the impact of unit economics, let’s do a worked example.

Thought experiment: unit economics in action

Imagine we have three SaaS businesses with identical P&Ls. Each is raising a £7m Series A round to invest in sales and marketing acceleration.

Three ‘identical’ P&Ls.

All three are run rating £2m Annual Recurring Revenue (‘ARR’) and growing 10% month on month. All three have a gross margin of 75% and all three are spending just under 50% of revenue on sales and marketing and a further 50% on overheads (tech, product, finance, admin). They are all loss making to the tune of -£0.5m. They look like three good, early stage businesses.

But with different underlying unit economics.

Company A has low CAC, quick CAC Payback, small contract values (Monthly Recurring Revenue, ‘MRR’), high churn, low LTV. This is the sort of profile we might expect from a consumer subscription business for example.

Company B has very high CAC, long CAC payback, large contract values, low churn and high LTV. This is more like the profile of an enterprise SaaS business selling large, bespoke, contracts into blue chip companies.

Company C is somewhere in between. Perhaps the metrics of a SaaS product aimed at small and medium sized businesses.

It’s tricky to disentangle all the individual metrics to get a read on how the three businesses will perform overall.

But, they all have the same P&L so should all be pretty similar… right? Well, let’s see where they end up five years after the investment.

Very different outcomes five years later.

Company A: Disaster

To be fair, Company A has grown to a respectable £13m ARR. However, growth has all but stopped now. It burnt through the £7m investment in just over three years and had to raise another £2.6m. It is still not through break even. More worryingly, even if we strip out growth costs, the company would still be loss making (steady state EBITDA ~ -£1.3m).

Company C: Solid investment

Let’s jump to Company C. This has been a great investment. It is now at £22m ARR, growing 11% per year and has reached break even without needing any more cash. It is dropping £1.7m EBITDA whilst still growing, and if we strip out growth costs, its ‘steady state’ EBITDA is £3.5m.

Company B: Big win… eventually

Company B is a really interesting one. After 5 years it is smaller than Company C at £17m ARR. It burnt though the £7m investment in 23 months and needed to raise a further £4.6m — much worse even than Company A. However, it has reached break even (just). More excitingly, it is now growing the fastest at 18%, and if we strip out growth costs its steady state EBITDA is £4.1m. So it is poised to become a more profitable business than Company C and is arguably a more exciting business (depending on your risk appetite).

So, could we have predicted this outcome?

We should have seen this coming.

Well Company A had a LTV:CAC ratio of 2x which should have been a pretty clear warning that it would struggle to become profitable.

Company B had a super high LTV:CAC (15x) which highlights its potential to be a ‘big win’. However, its long CAC Payback period (24 months) was a warning that it would take a lot of cash and a long time to get there.

Company C had a solid LTV:CAC of 5x and a similarly strong CAC Payback of 12 months. This should have told us that it would get to a good level of profitability without burning too much cash. A nice, lower risk, investment even if Company B ends up being the bigger win.

So despite all three businesses having the same P&L, we could easily have predicted their divergent outcomes, just by looking at two metrics.

Avoiding traps: when to invest and when to hold back.

Finally, let’s look at how Company A and Company B evolved over time. This will demonstrate how unit economics can help us to avoid traps when deciding whether or not to invest in sales and marketing. We will ignore Company C for now because it is straight forward — a good investment from the get-go.

Take company A (red line) first. Because it has such a quick CAC Payback (6 months) it was able to acquire new customers and revenue very fast. It grew faster than the other two companies initially and after twelve months it had grown ARR 5 fold to £10m (left hand chart). Consequently its burn had come down the most, to about -£2.5m after 12 months (middle chart), and it had burnt through the least amount of cash, just under £4m (right hand chart).

However, because churn was so high (hence low LTV:CAC at 2x), as soon as it reached any scale, it had to invest huge amounts in sales and marketing to replace churning customers just to tread water. By 24 months, almost all of its sales and marketing spend was going on churn replacement rather than new growth and so growth all but stopped (left hand chart). EBITDA never got to break even and plateaued at -£1m (middle chart). The business continues to lose money today and will never become profitable (dotted line).

The trap: in the first 12–24 months, management could have looked at the stellar growth rate and decreasing burn and decided that everything was going smoothly. It would have been easy to make the mistake of investing further to accelerate growth when in reality they needed to do the exact opposite — cut sales and marketing spend and focus on fixing churn. A quick look at LTV:CAC would have told them this.

Company B (orange line) has a long CAC Payback (24 months) so it took a long time and a lot of money to get going. After 12 months it had only reached £5m ARR (left hand chart) and after 3 years it was still the smallest company despite spending the most on sales and marketing (right hand chart).

However, because it has such low churn (hence high LTV:CAC at 15x), as it began to grow it gathered momentum. The customers it acquired (at high cost) stuck around and spent lots of money. By the end of 5 years, it has a large, stable, base to build from and almost all new investment goes into growth. By year five it is growing the fastest (left hand chart) and is through break even (middle chart). Importantly, because it has a stable base of revenue, it can chose to ‘turn-off’ growth spending at any time to increase profit (dotted line, middle chart).

The trap: management may have lost their nerve and chosen not to invest further when confronted with sluggish growth and high burn early on. This would have been a mistake. Now is exactly the right time to accelerate sales and marketing to win market share and push through the cash trough (right hand chart). Armed with CAC Payback and LTV:CAC numbers, management could have seen what was going on and had the confidence to press on.

Over the last two articles I have demonstrated the importance of LTV:CAC and CAC Payback. Management teams need to be totally focussed on keeping LTV:CAC above 3x and driving up towards 5x. Almost as important is keeping CAC Payback down, ideally below 12 months.

I will discuss various approaches that management can take to improve LTV:CAC and CAC Payback in my next post.

Note: this analysis assumes that the addressable market is large enough, and the competitive environment stable enough, to maintain constant metrics. This is a simplification designed to isolate the impact of metrics from other important factors.

SaaS Metrics — What really matters?

At Smedvig Capital, one of the most common topics we end up discussing with entrepreneurs is metrics.

Investors obsess over metrics because they provide an objective measure of the current and future health of a business. But for the same reason, they should also be an essential part of the entrepreneur’s tool kit.

However, with so many metrics out there now, choosing and making sense of the most important ones can be a daunting task.

When we discuss metrics with founders, they usually ask three questions:

  1. Which metrics are the most important?
  2. What do ‘great’ metrics look like?
  3. How can I use those metrics to add value to my business?

Last week we gave a presentation to a room of SaaS CEOs at Silicon Valley Bank where we tried to answer these three questions from an investor perspective. Over a short series of posts, I will lay out our answers one at a time, starting with “which metrics are the most important?”.

Ultimately, only two questions matter.

The ‘value’ of your business will be driven by two specific questions:

By ‘maturity’ we mean, once a business has reached a ‘fair’ share of its potential addressable market and has stopped investing heavily in growth.

These two factors will eventually define the financial return to the founders, the management team, and the investors.

So how can we go about answering these questions for an early stage business?

These questions are tough to answer.

Sadly, this is easier said than done. Most early stage businesses are investing heavily in growth, growing really fast, and losing lots of money. This makes it difficult to answer these two key questions simply by looking at the P&L.

With SaaS companies, the problem is exacerbated because value is realised through recurring revenues spread over a long period of time. Businesses typically have to spend a significant amount of sales and marketing budget upfront to acquire a customer (Customer Acquisition Cost, or ‘CAC’) and then receive regular, relatively small payments over a long period of time.

This means that high top line growth can mask a fundamentally flawed underlying business, and conversely, many great businesses may need to burn through a lot of cash before realising their potential.

So how can we assess the potential of a business if the P&L can be so misleading? The answer is unit economics, and in particular, two ‘killer’ ratios that tell us everything.

Luckily, two ratios tell us everything.

By looking at the economics of a single (average) customer, we can get a sense of how the economics of a businesses will unfold as it scales.

There are many different metrics of unit economics, which can tell us about different aspects of business performance. But there are two specific ratios, which tell us how all these different aspects aggregate up to answer our two fundamental questions.

These two ratios are ‘Lifetime Value to Customer Acquisition Cost’ (LTV:CAC) and ‘Customer Acquisition Cost Payback Period’ (CAC Payback).

LTV:CAC is the ratio of the total gross profit we expect to receive from an average customer during its total lifetime, versus the average cost of acquiring a customer (sales and marketing spend).

LTV:CAC is a powerful metric because it tells us how profitable the business will be at ‘maturity’. High LTV:CAC means high profitability.

CAC Payback is the number of months of recurring gross profit from an average customer, that it takes to payback the average cost of acquiring a customer (sales and marketing spend).

CAC Payback is an indicator of how much sales and marketing spend will be required for a business to reach a certain size. It is therefore a great proxy for how much investment the business will need in order to reach its next milestone. High CAC Payback means high cash burn.

I will discuss in more detail how these metrics are calculated in a later post.

So the answer is…

LTV:CAC tells us how profitable a business will be at maturity and CAC Payback tells us how much cash it will take to get there. Therefore, these are the two most important metrics and entrepreneurs should monitor them religiously.

These two metrics are not only vital for proving the potential of your business during fundraising but should also be used as a constant barometer of business health.

In my next post, I will demonstrate the impact of these metrics through a worked example and will try to answer the question “what is a ‘great’ LTV:CAC ratio and CAC Payback?”.

An award-winning November for Smedvig Capital portfolio companies

Two Smedvig portfolio companies have won places in Deloitte’s 2016 Technology awards. The Deloitte Technology Fast 50 and Fast 500 rank the fastest growing technology companies around the world.

Quill has been awarded a place in the 2016 Deloitte Technology Fast 50 – a ranking of the UK’s fastest-growing technology companies according to their revenue growth over the past four years. Following wins in 2014 and 2015, Quill has once again made the list, ranking in 43rd place this year with a revenue growth rate of 407%.

Mediamorph has ranked 153 on Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500™, a ranking of the 500 fastest growing technology, media, telecommunications, life sciences and energy tech companies in North America. Mediamorph has grown 558% during this period.

Ed Bussey, CEO of Quill commented:
“I’m thrilled that Quill has once again been ranked one of the fastest-growing technology companies in the UK. I’m confident that this rate of growth will accelerate as we move into 2017, with plans to expand the team, to replicate our UK successes overseas and to continue to optimise our multi-language content production processes. I’d like to thank everyone on the incredibly talented Quill team – who have made all this possible with their unstoppable energy, as well as our investors, who have supported us on the journey and who share the same global ambitions for Quill as we do.”

Rob Gardos, CEO of Mediamorph commented:
“Over the past three years, Mediamorph has made great advancements to our platform and broadened our offering to more types of customers around the globe. We are proud that Mediamorph made the Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500™ and want to thank our customers and employees for driving our success.”

My Home Move have had an extremely successful month winning four awards at three different events.

For the fourth year in a row they won ‘Best Legal Services Provider’ at the Your Mortgage Awards. They have also won ‘Innovation of the Year’ at the Modern Law Awards. Lastly, they won two highly coveted awards – ‘Best Conveyancing Firm’ and ‘Innovation (non-lender)’ at the 2016 Mortgage Finance Gazette Awards.

LOVESPACE have been named ‘Crowdfunded Business of the Year’ for the second time at the Start Up Awards 2016. The Start Up Awards recognise the UK’s most creative, innovative and ambitious new businesses.

Finance Director Simon Fattuhi commented:
“It was a tough competition. We were up against a pool of fast growing start-ups, some of whom will no doubt become household names in years to come. Several of them had raised substantially more money than we did this time round. Given the popularity and prevalence of crowdfunding as an alternative source of finance these days, it was an honour to be nominated. To come out and win is a fantastic recognition of what we have achieved this year.”

Antidote introduce Alzheimer’s Search Tool with GALAXY

This month Antidote have announced a partnership with Galaxy, a new online portal that offers mobile tools and resources that make it easy for patients to participate in Alzheimer’s disease research.

Antidote Match™, which uses natural language processing, artificial intelligence and an army of medical annotators to make it easy for people to find their best clinical trial matches, is now integrated into the GALAXY portal.

Data gathered during the first year of this collaboration will be used to support initiatives across the public and private sector to increase clinical research participation. This includes Antidote’s expansion to make its search tool available at no cost to all Alzheimer’s organisations, patient communities and online health portals and GALAXY’s continued work to give patients a voice in Alzheimer’s research.

Pablo Graiver, CEO & Founder of Antidote commented:
“With so many patients needed to take part in Alzheimer’s trials, now is the perfect time to focus on transforming the way patients find, understand and take part in clinical trials. As we work with GALAXY to spread our search tool far and wide, we encourage any interested organisation to contact us to learn more about how we can work together to stem the tide of the Alzheimer’s epidemic.”

Read the full press release here.

Infinity become Google Tag Manager Partner

Infinity are now the only call tracking provider to become a Google tag manager partner. Google tag manager is a tool that makes it easy to add and update tags and code snippets on website and mobile apps – including conversion tracking, site analytics and remarketing without editing website code. This partnership is the latest in Infinity’s growing network. Infinity already implements with over 25 of the leading web system providers, including Google Analytics, AdWords, Live Chat and DoubleClick Search.

This month Infinity have also been shortlisted for Best Innovation Software at the UK Search Awards 2016.

← Previous posts

Next posts →