The contact center and CRM collision leads to a new dominant species

Some weeks ago I wrote that CRM and contact center are on a collision course. I argued that as the technologies used in CRM and the contact center will naturally mash up, the vendors of these traditionally distinct technologies will collide.

In this post, I will expand upon that idea and talk about the future and a key aspect that will be important to successful synergies: how each domain leverages behaviors.


CRM/contact center collision

The first post argued that a co-mingling of the technologies used in CRM and the contact center worlds have occurred. This has been more of a lending of functionality. Seldom has true synergy emerged.

The example I used is when a CRM desktop may be used by call takers (or in industry lingo, “agents”) as part of the processes of answering incoming telephone calls. In a customer service center, for instance, call control features may be made available to the agent through computer telephony integration (CTI) techniques. In some deployments, automatic retrieval of information about the calling party, using the incoming telephone number (calling party ID, in industry terminology) as a search key, is also be made available.

The evolutionary journey of contact center

This idea emerged as call center technologies were maturing. In the same era, the industry of Contact Management (CM) software came into being. Dominant players in this market came to be companies such as ACT, SageGoldmine (for the accounting professions) and Borland Sidekick. It wasn’t long before the two worlds of CM software and telephony collided.

Here CTI allowed for the trigger of an automatic retrieval of information in the CM software based upon the calling party ID. In these days before client/server and later web technologies when applications could be shared, typically CM software was installed in a single instance on a personal computer. After a rudimentary integration with a telephone, the software could be configured to retrieve information from personal contacts accumulated in the CM software and displayed as a phone call arrived to a “knowledge workers” desktop. An automated “screen-pop” could be configured by the user to display information as the call was answered.

Read more here!

Salesforce vs 1CRM vs SugarCRM Price Comparison

1. Salesforce Pricing Structure

Versus SugarCRM, Salesforce’s pricing structure is determined by cloud-based, SaaS applications only. This means that you cannot host Salesforce on-premise. You can host SugarCRM on premise, but most people elect not to anyways. There is a simple, monthly-based subscription fee for Salesforce just as there is in SugarCRM. You do have to pay for the costs for a year up front. Below is a breakdown of Salesforce license pricing structure. For a full comparison between Salesforce , 1CRM and SugarCRM

Link :

Salesforce Edition Monthly Cost / Per User Annual Cost / Per user
Professional $65 $780
Enterprise $125 $1500
Unlimited $250 $3000


Salesforce vs. Sugar Hidden Costs:

Salesforce has a much higher data storage costs than Sugar, which some amount to “hidden” costs. In addition to their license pricing, Salesforce also charges $50/per user/per month for access to their mobile app. Sugar does not charge for mobile access. In short, Sugar’s data storage costs appear expensive at first ($200 per extra gig of data).

Salesforce vs. Sugar Implementation Costs:

A typical Salesforce implementation runs about double the cost of a Sugar implementation. Because Salesforce is built in a proprietary language and is not open-source (they don’t let you access the software code), it is a bit harder to find affordable developers. Conversely, because Sugar is open-source (meaning the code is available to manipulate) and written in PHP (a very popular web language), it has a development community that can more-afford-ably implement and customize the software.


When is Salesforce a Better Value Than Sugar?

If you’re a company that tracks inventory line items (sales broken up into a bunch of individual products), you’re going to need the Enterprise level of Sugar. Sugar Enterprise is still more affordable than Salesforce Professional, but the line item situation is the only situation where Salesforce scrapes the value of Sugar. If you do choose Sugar Enterprise, that unlocks advanced workflow functionality that would cost huge amounts more money in Salesforce ($125/per user/per month for Salesforce Enteprise vs. $60/per user/per month for Sugar Enterprise).

2. 1CRM Pricing Model

Having lot of functionality besides SugarCRM and Salesforce as Sales Orders , Invoices , Purchase Orders , Billing ,

Payments , Inventory tracking and many others 1CRM is an old established CRM on market and a viable alternative to SugarCRM and Salesforce .


Edition Monthly per user costs (on-premise) Annual costs per user  (on-premise)
STARTUP + $15 $144

3. SugarCRM Pricing Model

Versus Salesforce, SugarCRM offers a very similar pricing structure with the exception of the license costs themselves. Sugar is far more affordable than Salesforce for most of the functionality you get at the higher levels of Salesforce. Again, Sugar also does not have any additional costs for their mobile pricing. Because their mobile is built in PHP, it looks good on just about any device you own. In short, SugarCRM aims to limit the “hidden fees” that some CRM providers do not include in their base license costs.

Link :

Edition Monthly per user costs Annual costs per user
Professional $40 $480
Enterprise $60 $720

Why SugarCRM needs to be considered a direct competitor of Salesforce:

It’s important to note that SugarCRM’s operating costs often come in at less than half of Salesforce. Salesforce continues to tout it’s brand-name as a major selling point, but Sugar’s CEO explains that they have a much more scale-able system:

“I think we measure up better or well than anybody in the industry when it comes to extensibility of platform.” — Larry Augustin, CEO of SugarCRM

For a more in-depth version of Salesforce vs SugarCRM, download the full white paper below:

SugarCRM Facebook Leads Integration

SugarCRM Facebook Leads Integration has been released to help automate the integration between lead ad and CRM. The problem with Lead Ads is that you can’t store these leads in any other form other than a simple CSV that Facebook lets you download. The easiest and fastest way to retrieve lead information is to set up lead ads to sync with SugarCRM.  In other words, SugarCRM connects your Lead Ads campaigns to your CRM tool and lets you import them instantaneously, all without having to deal with CSV files.

More info can be read here:

uShip Finds 2016 Increase As Cargo Automation Interrupts Logistics Landscape

uShip, the on-line transportation marketplace and cargo automation software provider, today announced several key landmarks, along with traction within its cargo automation initiative serving business customers, less-than-truckload (LTL) transportation customers and consumers within cargo’s “forgotten” $26 billion bigger-than-package (LTP) market.

“The $2.2 trillion cargo world may be sliced and diced in endless ways, but there’s a common thread of thought throughout: the demand for quicker, simpler and more affordable transportation, which have been core to uShip from the start,” said Matt Chasen, creator and CEO of uShip.

Large scale business relationships, exemplified through uShip’s venture with DB Schenker, among the world’s biggest logistics firms, showcases how businesses can use uShip PRO, the business’s business platform, to reach pricing and functionality transparency, real time bid/offer pricing, cellular tracking technology and auxiliary capacity through uShip’s on-line supplier network.

The uShip market continues to see growth within cargo’s “forgotten” $26 billion bigger-than-package consumer transportation section—vehicles, furniture, homes, boats, bikes, planes, pets, common and the unusual and more. This section has mostly been dismissed by conventional carriers given the cargo’s unstackable and generally unwieldy nature.

Nevertheless, entrepreneurial suppliers, from single-truck owner operators to midsize fleets, have adopted this bid-based chance on uShip, giving companies and consumers help from high transportation costs and logistical headaches.