Wed. Sep 28th, 2022
    2010-2018 ARCHIVED CONTENT
    You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online from 1 April, 2010 to August 24, 2018. Content in this archive site is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function. For current information, go to ComplexDiscovery.com.


    An eDiscovery Challenge: Pricing Consistency and Transparency

    eDiscovery continues to challenge law firms and legal departments with a lack of consistency and transparency in pricing. This lack of consistency1 and transparency appears to have many reasons with most originating from that fact that eDiscovery solutions (software and/or services) tend to be complex and require and understanding of need, volume, and duration before the configuration of a specific quote to assign a price to the value to be provided. However, with the advent of fourth generation2 eDiscovery solutions, it appears that some vendors are now comfortable enough with their understanding of the economics and capabilities of their solutions to publicly present pricing to current and potential customers. This public presentation of pricing or at least portions of pricing represents a shift in the “muscle memory” of eDiscovery providers schooled in the approach of extracting as much revenue from each individual customer with pricing that is hidden behind the veil of customization and obfuscated in quotes and on invoices. Two eDiscovery providers that represent this new approach to sharing pricing are CloudNine and Logikcull.

    Published Pricing: Two eDiscovery Examples*

    CloudNine and Logikcull are both eDiscovery providers with cloud-based, SaaS-delivered technology3. Recently both companies began publicly sharing the pricing of their technology solutions, providing an example of how consistent and transparent pricing can be highlighted leading eDiscovery vendors.

    CloudNine Pricing
    Logikcull Pricing

    In April of 2017, Logikcull published an article4 that both highlighted its published pricing and presented an example of the pricing through the lens of Craig Ball’s EDna Challenge.5  The EDna challenge provides parameters for vendors to offer solutions that must support key eDiscovery tasks and includes a review of up to 90 days and case duration of up to two years. The challenge is for vendors to be able to deliver such a solution for under $5,000. In using the comparative challenge parameters presented by the EDna Challenge and restated by Logikcull, provided below is an example of the benefit of consistent and transparent pricing by both organizations, that being the ability to compare offerings against hypothetical situations to begin to compare and contrast pricing in the evaluation of offerings.

    Comparative Challenge Parameters

    + Three Person Legal Team
    + Process, Search, Review, and Produce
    + 10 Custodians
    + 10-12 GB Total of Data
    + Up to 90 Day Review
    + Up to 21 Months Archiving

    CloudNine Solution6

    + Automated Data Processing and Hosting for 12 GB: $35/GB eDiscovery Cost for First Three Months ($35x12x3) = $1,260
    + $5/GB Nearline Archiving Fee For Twenty-One Months ($5x12x21) = $1,260
    + Unlimited Users = $0
    + Unlimited Exports/Productions (Self Service) = $0
    = Total Cost: ($1,260+$1,260) = $2,520

    Logikcull Solution7

    + Automated Data Processing and Hosting for 12 GB: $40/GB eDiscovery Cost for First Three Months ($40x12x3) = $1,440
    + Archiving For Twenty-One Month = $2,016
    + Unlimited Users = $0
    + Unlimited Exports/Productions = $0
    = Total Cost ($1,440 + $2,016) = $3,456

    While the cost differential is minimal, and both offerings meet the technology and business challenges posed by the EDna Challenge, the real value of this comparison is to present how the consistency and transparency of publicly published pricing allows for these types of comparisons without the need for specific challenges and with legal professionals being able to make initial comparisons without special or one-off quotes.

    Conclusion: Transparency Is Beneficial

    As law firms and legal departments strive to select the best solutions for their particular eDiscovery challenges, it is important for them to be able to compare and contrast the pros and cons of different offerings. While many vendors publicly present detailed offering attributes regarding capability, flexibility, delivery model, and security approaches, many do not share public information on pricing and pricing models. Given the fact that budgetary constraints8 are one of the leading elements impacting the conduct of discovery, by publicly publishing pricing vendors can help simplify the eDiscovery decision-making process by removing one of the most common concerns early in the evaluation process. That concern being “how much is this going to cost.”

    * These are only two examples of consistent and transparent pricing published publicly. They were selected given the availability of the comparison criteria (Logikcull EDna Parameters) and detailed public pricing presented by CloudNine and Logikcull. If you would like ComplexDiscovery to consider your public pricing, please email a link to the public pricing and an example of the pricing regarding the highlighted EDna Challenge parameters.

    Notes:

    1. Eichenholz, Sean. “Pricing Processing In E-Discovery: Keep The Invoice From Being A Surprise”. Pretrial, Practice and Discovery 19.2 (2011): n. pag. Print.

    2. Robinson, Rob. “Considering Fourth Generation eDiscovery Technology Offerings: Two Approaches“. ComplexDiscovery. N.p., 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.

    3. Zhang, Jie, and Garth Landers. Market Guide For E-Discovery Solutions. Gartner, 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.

    4. Hilson, Robert. “Ediscovery For Everyone? The Pipe Dream Is Now A Reality”. Logikcull. N.p., 2017. Web. 16 May 2017.

    5. Ball, Craig. “Edna: Still Cheap And Challenged“. Ball In Your Court. N.p., 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.

    6. “Simplified Pricing For Simplified Discovery“. CloudNine – The eDiscovery Automation Company. N.p., 2017. Web. 16 May 2017.

    7. “Predictable Pricing. No Surprises.“. Logikcull. N.p., 2017. Web. 16 May 2017.

    8. Robinson, Rob. “A Bump or Slump from Trump? eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey – Spring 2017 Results“. ComplexDiscovery. N.p., Web. 16 May 2017.

    About the Author

    Based in Austin, Texas, I [Rob Robinson] am a technology marketer who has held senior leadership positions with multiple top-tier data and legal technology providers and currently serves as the CMO of CloudNine. I write and post regularly on technology and marketing topics on the ComplexDiscovery(.com) blog, and publish a regular newsletter on data and legal discovery.

    ComplexDiscovery is a personal website/blog. The views and opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of the people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not have an affiliation with at this time. My views and opinions may change from time to time as I come to learn more and develop a deeper understanding of the areas and issues highlighted on this website/blog.  This website/blog also may include links to other sites/blogs operated by third parties.   These links are provided as a means of convenient access to the information/opinion contained therein, and I am in no way responsible for the content of any other sites or any products or services that may be offered through linked sites.

     

    Have a Request?

    If you have information or offering requests that you would like to ask us about, please let us know and we will make our response to you a priority.

    ComplexDiscovery is an online publication that highlights cyber, data, and legal discovery insight and intelligence ranging from original research to aggregated news for use by cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery professionals. The highly targeted publication seeks to increase the collective understanding of readers regarding cyber, data, and legal discovery information and issues and to provide an objective resource for considering trends, technologies, and services related to electronically stored information.

    ComplexDiscovery OÜ is a technology marketing firm providing strategic planning and tactical execution expertise in support of cyber, data, and legal discovery organizations. Focused primarily on supporting the ComplexDiscovery publication, the company is registered as a private limited company in the European Union country of Estonia, one of the most digitally advanced countries in the world. The company operates virtually worldwide to deliver marketing consulting and services.

    Data Corpus Minimization? IDC Recognizes DISCO as Early Case Assessment Software Leader

    “As innovation continues to impact and disrupt the legal world, we’ve...

    Building a Cybersecurity Workforce? The European Cybersecurity Skills Framework

    According to ENISA's Executive Director, Juhan Lepassaar, "The future security of...

    Leaning Forward? The CISA 2023-2025 Strategic Plan

    The purpose of the CISA Strategic Plan is to communicate the...

    Continuous Risk Improvement? Q3 Cyber Round-Up From Cowbell Cyber

    According to Manu Singh, director of risk engineering at Cowbell, "Every...

    Revealing Response? Nuix Responds to ASX Request for Information

    The following investor news update from Nuix shares a written response...

    Revealing Reports? Nuix Notes Press Speculation

    According to a September 9, 2022 market release from Nuix, the...

    Regards to Broadway? HaystackID® Acquires Business Intelligence Associates

    According to HaystackID CEO Hal Brooks, “BIA is a leader in...

    One Large Software and Cloud Business? OpenText to Acquire Micro Focus

    According to OpenText CEO & CTO Mark J. Barrenechea, “We are...

    On the Move? 2022 eDiscovery Market Kinetics: Five Areas of Interest

    Recently ComplexDiscovery was provided an opportunity to share with the eDiscovery...

    Trusting the Process? 2021 eDiscovery Processing Task, Spend, and Cost Data Points

    Based on the complexity of cybersecurity, information governance, and legal discovery,...

    The Year in Review? 2021 eDiscovery Review Task, Spend, and Cost Data Points

    Based on the complexity of cybersecurity, information governance, and legal discovery,...

    A 2021 Look at eDiscovery Collection: Task, Spend, and Cost Data Points

    Based on the complexity of cybersecurity, information governance, and legal discovery,...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for September 2022

    From privacy legislation and special masters to acquisitions and investigations, the...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for August 2022

    From AI and Big Data challenges to intriguing financial and investment...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for July 2022

    From lurking business undercurrents to captivating deepfake developments, the July 2022...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for June 2022

    From eDiscovery ecosystem players and pricing to data breach investigations and...

    Bubble Trouble? eDiscovery Operational Metrics in the Fall of 2022

    In the fall of 2022, 89 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey participants...

    Cooler Temperatures? Fall 2022 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey Results

    Since January 2016, 2,874 individual responses to twenty-eight quarterly eDiscovery Business...

    Inflection or Deflection? An Aggregate Overview of Eight Semi-Annual eDiscovery Pricing Surveys

    Initiated in the winter of 2019 and conducted eight times with...

    Changing Currents? Eighteen Observations on eDiscovery Business Confidence in the Summer of 2022

    In the summer of 2022, 54.8% of survey respondents felt that...

    Perception and Reality? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (September 22 – 26, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    Nuclear Options? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (September 17 – 21, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    Mass Graves and Torture Chambers? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (September 12 – 16, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    On The Run? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (September 7 – 11, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...