Conference 7.286::digital

       
       
       	I think what you are starting to see is PROGRAM announcements.
       ie: the intention of providing a particular service. Not that I
       totally agree with it, but IBM has been doing it for years and
       we ARE losing ground, IMHO, on some forefronts. We DO need to tell
       our customers AT LEAST what our intentions are so that they can
       plan for the future. Take the VAX 9000 for example. It's not
       ship-able today. BUT, with a system of this size and the budgetary
       concerns of our customers, they NEED this information that was
       presented to them about the VAX 9000 so that they can make some
       educated decisions TODAY about whether they need this system
       within the next 8-12 months. From what I've gathered from talking
       to customers, the interest is VERY high and very exciting. And
       that's just our existing customer base..
       
       	I'm not totally comfortable with it. We have to be more careful
       not to offer another Jupiter and then say "Oops, nevermind.."
       
       						mike

    Just take the example of DECnet Phase V, which was "Program Announced"
    in 1986 by KO.
    
    It has yet to ship. Of course it will, one day.
    
    Is this kind of thing damaging? I'd say yes.
    
    Worse still are the PIDS for some of these programs that I've seen
    recently, which make promises (despite the pathetic disclaimer at the
    front) that we may never be able to keep, talking of the capabilities
    of products that we have no funding or resources to even plan to build
    'em with.
    
    Lets get careful out there. Who do we think we are? IBM?
    
    - Andy ��� Leslie
    
    
    

    
    REF: .0
    
    Marketplace history seems to suggest that customers accept, as industry
    standard, announcements of products and services that are a LOOONG way
    off, and this practice of pre-emptive maneuvering by our competition
    does not seem to have significantly damaged their prospects of
    customers, revenue and margin; and in fact, as some might argue, has
    helped them retain their customers, revenue and margin by assuring
    customer decision-makers that "customer wants" would "soon" be
    addressed.
    

    
    Re .1: "program" announcements
    
    No, what I'm seeing are "product" announcements, plans to announce
    version n.0 of one product or n.m of another product, while they are
    still very early in the phase cycle, possibly even before that point
    where the company has made a firm internal committment to produce
    that version (i.e. before phase 1 exit). As for the 9000, I thought
    that's what non-disclosure agreements were for.
    
    I was always told that there were strict rules on product announcement
    because Digital had built a reputation of announcing only what would
    positively be delivered, when it was promised, and that this
    predictability was very important to customers. Is that not true? Or do
    we now deem it better to jeopardize that all-important predictability
    and hype vaporware to keep up with all the other companies that are
    hyping vaporware? I'm trying to understand whether the rules have
    changed, and why.

3100 Model 30, 40, 38, 48...

6000 Model 410, 420, 430...

9000 Model 210, 410, 420...

3090 / 200, 400, 600...ooops wrong manufacturer

Bob

       RE: .4
       
       	What product announcements are you talking about? If it's been
       announced then it should be able to be mentioned here, right? If
       the moderators have a problem with that then please send mail. I'm
       curious.
       
       							mike

    Would the people in NODEMO::MARKETING and other related conferences
    be able to address this issue better?

Announcements  must be approved by PAC.   PAC,  the  Pricing  and  Announcement
Committee is a subcommittee of the Marketing/Sales Strategy  Committee  (MSSC).
They verify announcement readiness and approve pricing.  Each  proposal  to PAC
must  be  sponsored  by  "...either a Vice President or direct  report  of  the
Executive Committee."

Although there are numerous GUIDELINES to when it is  appropriate to announce a
product, part of the PAC proposal is a section called  "Announcement  Waivers".
Presumedly, this is where the Product Manager has an opportunity to make a case
for    a    waiver    based    on  sound  business  rationale.    PAC  has  the
authority/responsibility to  decide,  for the corporation, if it is appropriate
to announce a product "before  its  time".    

......no editorial comments intended.......

Dave

re. .0

More examples ?  I can give you one more.  For ALL-IN-1 Mail V1.0 was 
planned a delivery in early Q2 fy'90.  But the product showed hight 
level bugs ... and now it's slipping.  
Anyway it was announced last month AS IT WAS ON-TIME. 

My work is just on the presales for business communication; you 
can imagine how many advisory request we are receiving and many HOT 
questions (can do thisand that ?).
I want  to underline that I not delivering any secret.  

This new style in announcing products is pushing the field more then ever.
The work is getting more and more stressing and the quality will decline.

Shall we win the ride against IBM changing our way to face the customer ?
	I don't think so ...
				Giuseppe Russo 
				ACT for OA  - Rome

    Some thoughts...
    
    Re:  .7   This notes file is very appropriate to the topic.  If,
              in fact, a change is being made, it is a change in an
              area fundamental to the ethics upon which the way Digital
              does business is based.  Such a change would drastically
              alter the Digital way of Working.
    
    Re: .3  In essence you suggest that it is OK because everyone else
            does it.  I would suggest that kind of moral arguement is
            bad not only for the company, but also society as a whole.
    
            So, the 'industry' (read: "IS purchasing community") has
            learned to accept announcements like SAA, Disk drives delivered
            more than a year after they have been announced, super price/
            performance workstation we have yet to see and other IBM
            marvels.  IBM's success is seriously waning because of things
            like this.  Their announcements find fewer and fewer in
            rapture among the throngs and more and more cynics.  Sure,
            for now the 50+ year-old IS exec's will follow along.  They're
            afraid to change. But the heat is there.  If you think users
            accept lame garbage like "IBM says there is a delay, but
            it's coming and it will be wonderful." you ought to try
            running a shop.  I had people bitching because upgrades
            were taking place almost a week after the hardware had arrived.
            These people wanted the promised performance enhancements
            TODAY!
    
     In summary:  Don't let your mouth make promises your body can't
    keep or you won't get long term success.  I, for one, would like
    Digital to be around when pension time comes.

    
    Ref: 974.10
    
    >>< Re: .3  In essence you suggest that it is OK because everyone else
        does it.  I would suggest that kind of moral arguement is
        bad not only for the company, but also society as a whole.>
    
    I submit that it is not morally wrong to announce one's intentions,
    even if it is a long way off.  You will note that my comment was long
    way off.  I did not espouse the argument of making false announcements
    that we had no intention of delivering on, just blowing smoke -- THAT
    would be ethically wrong and bad for society and Digital.
    
    Thus, if we intend to deliver, why not announce it, reassuring
    customers accordingly who WANT TO KNOW that we are creating new
    products and services that will meet current, known wants.
    
    In addition, I do not justify this action just because someone else
    does it, but rather that customers seem to want this (being clued in on
    our intended REAL actions), if indeed we truly intend to deliver and
    are not pitching falsehoods "just to keep 'em in line, keeping
    competition out" like one of our competitors does engage in.
    
    Our customers should be our partners and you don't keep real buying
    partners in the dark.  That would be ethically wrong.
    

    I think releasing false future "intentions" to keep customers in line,
    or to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt," is an unethical business
    practice.  But then, I think the phrase "unethical business practice"
    is an oxymoron, because its root, "business ethics," is a contradiction
    in terms as well 8^(  Nevertheless, announcing products before they are
    available--on the shelf, ready for shipment--is not good practice.
    
    Sometimes a company develops a product with every good intention of
    bringing it to market, only to find that it simply cannot, for whatever
    reason.  I know of a company that planned to market a FORTRAN compiler,
    and took delivery from a subcontractor of a compiler.  When they tested
    it, they found that it compiled four (4) lines of code a minute.
    The company was never able to fix the compiler, and never released it.
    Imagine their chagrin if they had announced the product beforehand.
    I know of another company that announced a line of mainframes, using
    (I think) CML technology (I think I remember the acronym but not what
    it stood for).  The product, because of reliability, manufacturing, or
    performance problems, was never actually marketed.  Sometimes, too,
    projects that get pruned in lean times.  
    
    In the microcomputer marketplace, several software vendors have
    announced shipment dates for significant products, only to see the
    software trapped in beta test for, in one notorious case, an extra
    eighteen months.  Some vendors have taken peoples' money and delivered
    beta software, with the promise of free upgrades to the release
    software.  This practice has been roundly condemned in the trade
    magazines.
    
    What's the closest a Digital product has come to FCS before being
    canceled?  (You don't have to answer publically, folks, it's just a
    rhetorical question.  But if you have any REALLY good dirt, please send
    me mail 8^)

    I thought I could readily find a note in MARKETING that discusses this,
    after all, what are "announcements" but marketing events?  But I wasn't
    able to.  So here it goes, DIGITAL.
    
    The product announcement is paramount.  It consists of:
    
    (1) A description of the product, in such detail as the customer
    requires in order to determine if they want to buy it.
    
    (2) A definite price.
    
    (3) A definite customer availability date (although that date may be in
    the future).
    
    and (4) A statement that your sales rep will accept orders NOW for the
    product.
    
    Without all of the above, you don't have a product announcement, and
    nothing else is required in the announcement itself.
    
    I don't think there are any useful criteria for a program announcement.
    Program announcements are useful for driving stakes in the ground, and
    for signalling to the customers whom we think are important enough for
    proprietary information disclosures to get hurry up and get disclosed
    to.
    
    Program announcements when performed correctly serve a useful purpose
    in getting the word out.
                         

re: .12

Products have been cancelled after FCS so it's difficult to answer your
question.  If cancellation day (+/- FCS) was graphed against FCS date
(planned or real) it would probably show three humps:

	The first would be products cancelled when a design or
	cost analysis conlcuded they should not be built.

	The second would be shortly after FCS when market response
	failed to meet minimum acceptance.

	And the third, of course, would be normal end of life.

There would also probably be a reflection bump just before FCS that
reflects "anticipated market response based on final product testing".

A high resolution graph would show data-point spikes at random
places for reasons unrelated to FCS date; for example, because of
a stock price or general revenue problem, or a change in technology,
or a change in management, or a quantum fluctuation.

- greg