You pay a lot to acquire customers up front but as long as your churn is net negative (ie., customers end up spending more year over year) you end up coming out way ahead. Sales reps only get paid on a contract one time, based on the value of that initial subscription revenue. $0 commission when it renews next year, and the year after, and the year after...

(Small caveat that someone probably gets commission on follow-on expansion revenue, but not that initial subscription amount.)

Based on the quality of support I think they will have high retention. We’re currently a relatively small customer and the support has been excellent. I submitted a bug and it was fixed on our production account in less than two months. This included a step through on our dev account. It would have taken me two months just to convince Oracle and Microsoft that they had a bug.

I had a couple of other minor issues and got very good response.

It's absurd. How can you trust any of their "growth" numbers? For all we know, they are paying people $10 to give them $8 in revenue.

Or is it $8/year for several years? The question is what is Snowflake’s net-churn rate.

I was thinking the same thing. It seems so absurd that I fear I probably do not know how to read these financial statements correctly.

How is this different from any enterprise sales growth company? Not a surprise

It feels very much like early MongoDB days, where they are attempting to capture mind/market share by aggressively marketing as opposed to competing on product quality and features.

All these breathless reviews can’t come cheap.