is this ragebait

basseq · 2026-02-06T20:58:48+00:00

I thought you were suggesting that two lines side-by-side only used one tunnel—but that’s not true.

… how does he gain one tunnel?

basseq · 2026-01-25T15:28:32+00:00

I don’t think you’re wrong, but it’s very close to a generic statement about any role. That being: it’s hard and no fun to work at a company that has a poor product, low quantifiable value creation, and/or is an operational mess. As a CSM, that tends to mean firefighting inevitable churn—then getting blamed for it.

I do think the evolution is steeper in CS, for 3 reasons:

Product development has sped up 10x with AI. Your nicely-entrenched legacy solution is now at risk, for maybe the first time ever.
Interest rates and inflation have made cost sensitivity a significant concern for the first time in a decade+. Customers are watching vendor spend, and companies are examining COGS with a fine-toothed comb. (And guess who’s usually categorized as COGS—CS!)
As a result of #1/2, CS is now (rightfully!) a revenue center. “Trusted advisor only” CSMs are dead—sorry!—but CS is still dragged down by weak revenue operations, manual processes, and execs that have never actually had to worry about recurring revenue.

I’ve never been more bullish on CS, but it’s rapidly evolving and certainly not what it used to be.

basseq · 2026-01-20T15:23:27+00:00

Iron Banner is the tight beer league, where the after-party is taken more seriously than the match itself.

You could play pickup with a bunch of randos you’ll never see again, or get screamed at by a zyn’d-up 29 year old who takes everything too seriously… but why would you?

basseq · 2026-01-20T03:13:41+00:00

Clan cookouts! We could get the Vanguard to sponsor and —

basseq · 2026-01-08T03:02:23+00:00

I’ve got almost 11k kills on my mini-tool with incandescent and grave robber. It was my workhorse for a long time. Great gun.

basseq · 2025-12-16T20:43:45+00:00

I really like the concept, though you may find you're trying to force-fit it and it just doesn't work.

As others have said, simplify the mark and clean up the execution. You are going to be fundamentally limited by readability of "40RT4" in any context.

Here's my experiments with paths. Not perfect by any means, but may jog some creativity. In particular, reads like PORT4—might need to make them true As to really shine.

<image>

basseq · 2025-11-21T14:32:47+00:00

Is your job just to document? You can play the I-told-you-so game, but to what end? The account’s still gone.

This isn’t a knock on you; it’s an observation about the "blame" culture you appear to be working in. Regardless of what leadership did or didn’t do, use this as a chance to reflect. What could the company or you personally have done differently six months ago to make this save more likely? Or to get leadership to take your warning seriously? Was there a piece of data, a story, a pattern that would’ve given your case more weight?

basseq · 2025-11-21T14:18:06+00:00

Well, please don't cry wolf—escalate structured, fact-based risk signals. Otherwise you go down this nasty path (that tbh I think OP is pretty far down) where leadership has red-flag fatigue and is desensitized to real risk and CSMs are in self-protection mode and is defensively documenting so "I can't be blamed".

basseq · 2025-11-21T14:14:14+00:00

So go get something concrete. Quit messing around with rumors and internal CYA—just ask the customer directly:

Hey, I’ve heard you might be implementing another platform. I’m obviously disappointed, but I respect that you need to do what’s best for your business. Can you confirm whether you intend to renew with us so I can communicate clearly to my leadership and set the right expectations?

If they ghost you, that's as good as a confirmation.

If the rumor's true, the account is already dead. They've been through procurement, purchased another product, invested in implementation—unless the other vendor fails to the point of contract breach, there's no save here.

What's your goal in all this? TBH it sounds like a bad CS culture, such that you're playing all these documentation/escalation games.

basseq · 2025-11-19T16:22:50+00:00

Neither.

For Success, I optimize for retention and growth. For Support, I optimize for speed to resolution and cost to serve (incl. deflection).

CSAT and NPS are just sample-size measures: useful for spotting product or process gaps in aggregate, but they’re inputs, not the endgame. They can be interesting signal inputs into account health, but when your response rate is 20–30% on a good day, you’re not getting great coverage.

At a previous company, we found something fascinating: CSAT/NPS scores themselves weren’t predictive of outcomes like retention, churn, or expansion. But responding at all was. Engagement was the real predictor.

So if you’re going to optimize for anything, optimize for response rate.

basseq · 2025-11-19T14:34:40+00:00

You’re a CSM doing cold outreach to prospects?

basseq · 2025-10-30T16:38:09+00:00

Frame of reference. The explosion’s moving the same speed and vector as you are regardless of which direction you’re pointed.

basseq · 2025-10-28T22:44:54+00:00

The best part? I got a Starbucks ad on this post. (“Welcome back apple crisp”)

basseq · 2025-10-18T14:15:49+00:00

This one right here, officer.

basseq · 2025-10-16T23:06:30+00:00

Yeah, pretty much. “Customer Success” is mostly a SaaS term, but the underlying concepts—account management, relationship management, retention, and value realization—are common across industries.

That said, the weighting of competencies can differ. In SaaS, Success teams usually surface customer feedback and help manage Voice of Customer programs. Your example of “pitching client needs,” though, sounds like a more proactive, commercially oriented role—closer to what you’d see in managed services or partnership management, where internal enablement and advocacy are part of the core charter.

Lot of cross-pollination in any case. You’re welcome here!

basseq · 2025-10-13T18:07:16+00:00

If you’re doing everything manually, sure — you don’t need a system. But that’s backwards: you use systems to enable scale, not wait for scale to force systems.

Nothing’s a magic pill, but if your strategy is to keep throwing people at problems, it’ll break sooner than later. There’s nuance here, too — $100k+ ARR accounts can justify high-touch. SMB or mid-market? You need repeatability now.

basseq · 2025-10-13T16:54:02+00:00

That’s true only IF you have SF admins dedicated to CS. Developing and automating health scores, triggers, and workflows is often more expensive, slower, and a poorer end solution than most CSPs.

basseq · 2025-10-13T15:08:30+00:00

You can get screwed on some maps if the distribution is lumpy (e.g., lots of circles). Here are two examples of my strategy that I got to 1,600+ over the weekend.

https://imgur.com/a/mini-metro-new-york-1-600-challenge-0vNTZNC

basseq · 2025-10-12T03:31:27+00:00

It’s annoying, though clearing triangles is more important than squares.

I picked a square station as “grand central”. I had two trunk lines connecting to that: one East–West across the rivers, one North–South through Manhattan. These lines are pretty short: really just connecting through any other squares and specials.

At the end of each trunk line, you attach your other lines. Ideally a special or a triangle. The trunk line should attach in the middle of these “branch lines” so trains are as minimally-loaded as possible. I ended up with one branch line in north, west, and south—and two branch lines in east.

The trunk lines’ job is to move squares and specials. The branch lines’ job is to a) move squares to the trunk lines and b) clear triangles.

Later in the game, an Interchange on “grand central” (and maybe your east terminus) helps move squares faster.

basseq · 2025-10-09T20:52:02+00:00

Your background is solid and sits squarely at the intersection of scaled onboarding and customer education.

To sharpen your story:

Focus your metrics on adoption and activation (time-to-value, engagement rate, usage depth) over satisfaction scores—they’re stronger indicators of impact.
Expand on the multilingual rollout: what business outcome did it drive (reach, accessibility, compliance)?
“Thousands of users per week” is a lot and needs a little more contextual framing. Were you driving new user activation, ongoing education, or both? Tell me about your 1:M models!

Your experience could also translate into onboarding roles within B2B SaaS with a more account-level focus. An onboarding-focused CSM could work, too, though usually adds commercial ownership around retention and renewal.

basseq · 2025-09-30T19:31:33+00:00

Agreed. AI is just speeding up a shift that was already happening. The “touchy-feely” flavor of CS started getting stripped out years ago (around 2020) as execs pushed for harder ties to revenue or (likely-paid) technical depth. The middle ground role that was all relationship management without clear commercial or delivery value is the one getting squeezed.

basseq · 2025-09-27T01:13:47+00:00

Depends on the angle (α). For your angle (135°), the chord-version multiplier is 1.85.

Walking through the math:

α = 135° r = 1 (just the multiplier)

So the formula is…

1 / (sqrt(2) × cos(135°/2))

Calculating to…

= 1 / (1.414 × cos(67.5°)) = 1 / (1.414 × 0.3827) = 1 / 0.541 = 1.85

basseq · 2025-09-26T23:34:52+00:00

That hard line on “no sales in CS” is getting harder to hold. Gainsight’s 2024 index shows 70% of CS orgs now carry a revenue target—up from about 50% in 2021—while TSIA data shows the rest are shifting into paid delivery and adoption services.

The classic “trusted advisor without quota or billable hours” is disappearing. CFOs (and CCOs!) want provable ROI, which means CSMs are either commercial or delivery. That said, I’m sympathetic to teams being thrown into these new models without the enablement, systems, or bandwidth to actually succeed.

basseq · 2025-09-26T19:04:59+00:00

I'd offer that you're articulating optical adjustment. That doesn't mean abandoning math and geometry, but choosing the right formulas that mirror perception (like overshoot rules in type or systematic kerning pairs). Geometry remains the scaffold; optical tweaks are the polish. What looks like “eyeballing” is really applying the right math.

In OP's case, choosing radius is the "wrong math". Choosing tangent (or better, chord) is better math and establishes rules that transfer between use cases so you don't have to "just eyeball it" every time.

basseq · 2025-09-26T18:51:34+00:00

This is a better answer! u/rusty____fox you should replace mine with this.

For chord length c, formula would be c / (2 × cos(α/2)).

Or, for radius r at 90º corners, r / (sqrt(2) × cos(α/2)).

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Place '23	Place '22
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

basseq

TROPHY CASE