Conference 7.286::digital

    Operating Systems = Religion.
    They are a hard sell, particularly given the propensity of people to
    like what they first started with or had the most early success with.
    Hence the reluctance to move on from 70's environments or the need to
    stick Windows GUIs on reengineered 70s environments.
    
    
    From where I sit, the Southern Antipodes, IBM does a perfectly fine job
    of marketing. At least they know that to make software a success you
    have to have very focused PRODUCT ADVERTISING. 
    
    When a new product is released, there is:
    1. Colour advertising ON THE PRODUCT in major trade rags
    2. Lots of experts on tour
    3. Heaps of focused articles appearing written by IBM technical people
    4. Venues lined up for those experts to talk about what they wrote in 3
    	about THE PRODUCTS
    5. Discounts and giveaways for early adopters of THE PRODUCT
    
    This is called "trying". Its a very technical concept. They know that a
    subset of products will most likely fail. But its not for want of
    application that they will and they know that without the INVESTMENT
    (this is also a technical term, often confused with the term COST by Digital
    management) in letting the relevant parts of the software consuming
    public know about THE PRODUCT will they succeed.
    
    I can juxtaposition if you like:
    Case 1: Forte vs. Visual Age
    
    Visual Age is a smalltalk based development environment that ostensibly
    targets the same space as Forte.
    My local experience with IBM:
    1. Initial announcements in 
    	a. Software Magazine 
    		- offering 15% discount on the product if you fax the coupon 
    			for a demo disk
    		- $99 Developer's CD-ROM offer
    		- full colour 4 half pages describing the product
    	b. Trip via engineers to talk at Object World in Sydney
    	c. Articles in magazines, lots of announcement coverage
    	d. The advertising is ongoing, its still happening post
    		announcement
    	e. There is a loan library, with 10 copies of the product on
    		permanent rotation to anyone who they will get to listen.
    		
    Forte:
    	a. Well, we announced it, to two kids and a dog along with 400
    		other things on a rainy day in the North East of the USA
    	b. Had some guys show up the other day from the USA with 3 or 4
    		days notice to talk to anyone who would listen. We got 1 person.
    	c. Loan copies, you have to be kidding. We cant even keep demo
    		equipment around long enough to get the software installed.
    
    
    
    Case 2: LinkWorks vs. FlowMark & VisualInfo
    
    Our experience with IBM:
    	Much the same as in Case 1 above. Seems like they have some focus
    	and a strategy. The ads start out "Object Oriented Workflow
    Management has arrived!"
    
    Our experience with LinkWorks:
    	a. We announced it, again in the USA.
    	b. we announce to Digital that Linkworks will be a product that
    will receive corporate maerket focus in the upcoming year.
    	c. To date, there has been absolutely NO PRODUCT FOCUSED
    ADVERTISING FOR THIS PRODUCT in my part of the world that I have found.
    	d. Some good stuff in Byte in August but we have totally failed to:
    		i. target understanding outside the installed base, where
    		this product has the most potential
    		ii. provide technical information backup
    	e. we have had positive roadshow support with excellent
    presentations BUT, this wont get people in.
    	f. No active VAR recruitment that I can visibly see.
    	
    1 sentence about the "leading edge Linkworks product" in the Dont-worry
    we are coming back ad does not count as product advertising.
    
    I am seeing sensible pointed advertsing for routers, Gigaswitch and
    PCs. Perhaps the only difference between the success of the divisions
    is the willingness to get in the face of people until they listen to
    what you have.
    
    Let's look at our mate Enrico for a minute. He produces a commodity,
    PCs. Digital is a good producer of PCs. Go back some time in this and
    the marketing notesfile and look at the notes that said "Digital cant
    sell PCs". 
    
    Then we started to get in people's faces. We yelled at them, we had
    saturation ad coverage. Lots of big-thinking roadshows that targeted
    everyone (i.e they were announced boldly in newspapers prior to arrival
    in the town, not just sending invitations to the installed base etc.)
    
    We had the ads for:
    	. we shake and bake first, does your manufacturer?
    	. we argued the need for S3 graphics
    	. we poited out how good the servers were (even when they were
    		not)
    The perception has become a reality, winning the reliability survey
    here against all other vendors.
    
    
    Now look at the software business:
    I have not seen a PRODUCT focused advertisement for any of our software
    in my country in the last year. That's nothing, nada, zilch....
    
    As an example, there is an object oriented workflow product from a
    local software house called WorkXpress which is a Linkworks rip-off in
    concept and execution, without the completeness, depth of coverage,
    addaptability... It has vitually NO installed base yet. Yet, they
    can at least afford to take a half page in the local paper's computer
    section AND I am getting people locally juxtapositioning against it (with it
    being the frame of reference!). There interest is sparked by the
    quality of the ads, which cost them very little to run.
    
    I cant help believe that there is a model with which we can become a
    software company again. I am loath to allow us to throw away the last
    potential vestige of margin we can hope to achieve. I just wish product
    exposure was seen as a needed investment, as both large companies such
    as IBM and small companies such as WorkXpress see the value in, instead
    of a cost.
    
    
    I have serious doubts about the DDB-Needham advertising approach. I
    would have thought that the Imagine ads were hardly "technical". We
    have had a whole swag of warm-fuzzies advertising and promotion. We
    need some of this. BUT ALSO NEED AN INTELLIGENTLY THOUGHT THROUGH 
    INCREASED INVESTMENT IN FOCUSED PRODUCT PROMOTION IN PARALLEL TO THE 
    CORPORATE IMAGE BUILDING ADS.
    
    
    - John
    Canberra Australia
    
    

    ans. /3443.1
    
    It keeps people thinking when we claim about turning our company around
    with channel focus and marketing driven we need to make sure people put
    into these roles have either the track record (experiences/expertise)
    or at least the right attitude and approach.  Sometimes it's a wrong
    message to the rest of us who hold on with the transforming company
    that the old game of musical chairs where senior managers got the new
    leadership job but hardly thinkable of making new changes is still the
    rule of the game.  These people do bring some changes are not showing 
    the needed fundamental changes of marketing approach as John had 
    observed but are just adjusting the old tunes to new wave ... and to 
    keep their jobs.  We need to get more open recruitment rather than 
    nominations.
    
    Second, I'm not sure we have a sound or clearly thoughtout strategy to
    make us a global company.  Getting Needham our WW advertising agent may
    not work best for all territories.  I heard about Needham is not giving
    us the same terms as in the U.S. nor the quality nor the service level. 
    We become a very generous fat order for local Needham offices where we
    cannot observe "better than others" in terms of talent or performance. 
    It therefore again reflects and exposes our weaknesses as operating or
    managing ourselves as a global company.
    
    Having said the above, one can appreciate there are so much to 'fix'
    but it would be a deadly sin to take this as an excuse to be a bystander
    and do nothing.  But I agree that we need to have actions from the
    management of every level - first to recognise what doesn't work
    locally and second to make exceptions to the unsaid rule and act and
    fix.
    
    I just can't imagine why a company so committed to turn itself around,
    did so much at the top, and keep on 'failing' while at the same time,
    have the luxury of getting direct field inputs and feedbacks such as we
    have and many other notes conference here!
    
    And we have unthinkable discretionary cuts.  Sadly, the cuts are not
    determined with a marketing perspective.  Short-term results do conflict
     with long-term vision!
    
    

re: .1

John, you are making a major mistake about software.  Digital is NOT a software
company and never will be.  We will only develop and sell software to the
extent necessary to help sell our hardware.

re: Warp - the name

I can see some interesting negative uses of the word...Only someone with a
WARPed mind would choose Warp over Windows, etc...

Bob

    
    	True, we are not a marketing company per se. Also true we don't do
    software ouside of VMS and OSF. Yet we have failed measurably to
    promote either of these as true "world-class" operating systems for the
    multi-user marketplace.
    	We can complain every day, every waking hour about it. Not much
    will change. The next three months will be the tale of the tape. Our
    gross margins are continuing to drop, revenue is flat to modestly
    negative, and SGA continues to rise, we are just minutes from the
    end as far as bloated management structure and administrative/marketing
    cost occurance is involved (ie. the MCS San Diego boondoggle). The
    proverbial S**T is about to hit the fan, folks.
    	Enrico's CSD must cut deep, fast, and hard at non-revenue producing
    organizations and fiefdoms. MCS has too many sales fiefdoms, and its
    attendent superstructure. Personnel, Finance, IM&T, and Corporate Staff
    are far too large for a company with our size in margin revenue. And
    people at the very top know this, they are aware (finally!!!), and
    their reputations are now on the line. Watch, wait, and be ready.
    
    			the Greyhawk
    

Re:  the last two:

We are, in fact, a software company.  We have a few extremely good 
software products, such as Linkworks, our mail products, ACCESSWORKS/DBI, 
the EOS products.  Much money has been spend building them, and Digital 
calls them "breakthrough" products.  To say we're not in the software 
business is flat out wrong.  My suggestion is to correct your ignorance.

Now, are we marketing as though we were?  Well, sitting 5 miles from 
Microsoft, I'd say that they do a slightly better job marketing their 
software than we do ours.  They out-market anyone in the business, 
including IBM.  Why not benchmark ourselves against the best?  It costs 
money - Microsoft has a $100 million marketing budget for this year - but 
that's how life works.


Don Randall
Seattle, WA

Re .-1

Everyone (almost) interprets "software company" as one that sells
software REGARDLESS of hardware platform.  Digital is NOT one of
them!!!!

We sell software, still, to make it easier to sell our hardware.
It's a question of metrics, mindset, priorities, etc.

If we were in software business we would have kept Rdb, we would
have ported it years ago, we would really throw resources on DBI, 
ACMSxp. etc., etc.

I guess "ignorence" is all relative ....or in the eye of the beholder.

- Lars

RE: .5

	We're a hardware company. The fact that we do make some software
	does not make us a "Software Company". It makes us a hardware
	company writing some software that might sell more hardware.

						mike
					

    re: .4
>Personnel, Finance, IM&T, and Corporate Staff
>are far too large for a company with our size in margin revenue.
    
    	When I was relocated here 13 years ago, the relocation agreement
    included a guarantee on pension rights being transferred from the
    original country or matched. For most of the intervening time nobody
    cared too much about the details - after all, we had another 25 years
    of working for the company so there was no urgency.
    
    	Around 2 years ago, someone who had been TFSO'd raised the question
    "Well, what are my pension rights, and how do I claim them?"
    
    	Last December DEC brought in outside consultants to try to resolve
    this question for relocatees, and I had an interview with one. I have 
    since asked a couple of times what the results were, and the answer was 
    that DEC personnel departments were currently too busy TFSO'ing people to
    provide an answer.
    
    	DEC personnel departments were never designed to handle a massive
    downsizing operation, and they just don't have the staff to handle it.
    If anything, they need to be taking on temporary staff to handle the
    peak load rather than getting rid of those who know the business and
    history.

    r.e "The we arnt a software company" notes
    - who cares, we DO have some enterprise occuring that happens to be
    software. Lets give them the where-with-all to be as successful as our
    other endeavours.
    - 4 years ago we were not a PC manufacturer (in the marketplace's eyes).
    
    There is a certain about of ignorance here about the dynamics of
    corporations and their ability to adapt or want to adapt to changing
    circumstances.
    
    If 3M were "not a stationery company" do you think they would have
    brought out the "post-it note"? 3M stands for Minessota Mining and
    Manufacturing.
    
    If Boeing were not a "systems integration company" do you think they
    would be doing it today. Oh yes, they also happen to make aircraft.
    
    We have a company here in Australia called BHP, they started out as a
    mining company in the outback. They have steel works in China, the USA,
    the former Eastern Bloc. They also have an IT consulting arm that eats 
    our lunch in this town. Oh yes, and they'll also sell you come software.
    
    You can pull back to your "core competencies" or you can learn how to
    do business in the marketplace that you choose to do business in.
    We are a software company because we sell software. 
     
    The real question is, "What strategy do we employ in the marketplace
    that we have chosen to be in?"
    In the software marketplace, we have a few choices:
    
    1. We can go for it.
    
    Probably more by Luck than Judgement, some intelligent and diligent
    human beings have ignored the dictum that all our software should be
    directed to gouging hardware sales out of our ever shrinking installed
    base and produced pieces of software that are forever beautiful and
    exquisite examples of the art and science.
    They are sorry, they probably wont do it again, but we have this stuff 
    that obviously ignorant people that happen to fall over this stuff in dark 
    alleys seem to like.
    
    We could probably do something stupid and give them the resources they
    need to make a profit with it. Of course, this would be against "THE
    STRATEGY".
    
    2. We can continue to do what we are doing.
    
    These anomolies, "software that is good", are a passing phase. We'll
    get over it soon enough. Just ignore it and it will go away.
    
    I'm sorry, I dont buy the latter. And I dont buy the concept that
    software is merely there to leverage hardware sales. Yes, I guess my
    time in this place is becoming less viable.
    
    For starters, building a software business is not hard:
    Lotus Corporation did it with 1 product, and had 3 or 4 failures
    following. The difference is committment to what is needed.
    
    The problem we have is not the product. We have produced some excellent
    product. I believe the "we are not this...and we are not that..."
    people have missed  the ball.
    To be successful in hardware, you have to have some level of certain
    other things to be credible. One is a flow of ideas that demonstrate
    the capability of your technology over other. Operating Systems on the
    whole are not good examples of this.
    But, it is possible to build a SUCCESSFUL software business. The fact 
    that I have seen the same faces doing it for a long time unsuccessfully 
    is not a surprise. The fact that those same faces are still there despite 
    the changes we supposedly have made is certainly a surprise.
    
    I would conjecture that until we actually TRY to do software
    distribution and marketing properly, then we will never have failed at
    it. We are in the software business today. The problem is we are not
    doing anything to be SUCCESSFUL at it.
    
    This manifestation of "WE ARE NOT THIS or THAT" is a manifestation of
    the "I AM MY POSITION" thinking. If Digital pulls back to the "we only
    do chips and boxes" thinking then we will forever cripple our ability
    to see opportunity for success in changing times. Stability comes from
    a portfolio of intelligently considered diversified endeavours. I
    believe our problems stem from half participation in businesses we have
    decided to be in rather that from the actual participation, per say.
    We have looked at opportunity and then entered the fray without any
    arrows in the quiver. No wonder we end up running away from the prey.
    
    The pull-back we are seeing today should NOT be seen as bounding the
    scope of the company in the future. When investment decisions are based
    on corporate folklore ("we cant do software") rather than sensibke
    market analysis, the usefulness of this Corporation to anybody,
    including its shareholders, will have come to an end. If this pull-back
    allows us to get our act together before re-entering the fray of
    Diversified corporate business, then this is different.
    
    
    - John
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

re: .11

I wish we were in the Software business, but everything I have seen and heard
from upper management, including BP, have indicated that we will not develop
any software, with a few exceptions, that doesn't support selling our hardware.

Bob

    continuing the mousehole:
    
    Black & Decker worried about what marketing the Workmate
    would do to its image as a power tool company.  Now,
    20 million units later, they aren't worrying so much.
    
    ed

    
    	Wish it were all so easy. The major problem Digital is facing today
    is its *real* position in the computer industry versus its *perceived*
    posture internally. In short, we are raising self-deception to an art
    form (which is typical Digital, BTW).
    	The secret will be to focus on the marketplace, ala the PC crowd,
    with a total approach. Hardware, software, network, and services. My
    contention is that will never translate until we have ONE sales force
    selling a TOTAL solution including all the above (and that means PCs
    also, Enrico).
    	Seperate sales forces, seperate HW and SW groups, etc., look good
    on paper, but do not translate well in marketplace success. Quite
    frankly, I am growing weary of this continual thrashing around, when
    the solution is quite simple and relatively easy to implement. The
    problem is middle management having to adopt different mindsets and
    behaviors. Until this gets fixed we will flounder and fail. All else
    is just cr*p for the troops.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    I believe HP to currently be a successful company.  I do not believe
    that HP is a software company.  I do not believe that HP (alone) offers
    a total solution.  I believe that HP and its' partners offer a total
    solution.
    
    Digital needs software and selling partners to complement its' superior
    hardware offering.  When enough third party software packages are
    ported to Alpha and the channels strategy and partners are in place,
    this company is going to ROAR.  
    
    You cannot deny, though many of you will make an all out effort, that
    this company is years ahead of the competition in semi-conductor
    technology (speed, 64-bit, compiler work completed, applications
    ported, SINGLE hardware line for all operating systems, price).  It
    will soon be reflected in the marketplace.  It is a matter of timimg
    and Digital's time is coming.
    

    
    	I would prefer to see a better focus on our total solution piece
    than what is occurring at present. I'm not real big on prayers.
    	We do have superior technology, but we are the worst company to do
    business with in the entire industry. That, in my book, negates all
    advantages.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    r.e .17
    
    All the weight behind one arrow aiming at one foot...
    We are back to the VAX/VMS is god problem again if we lead with "ALPHA
    is it, wholly and solely".
    
    I believe we need to get some focus down on what we are good at. We are
    good at more things than just Semiconductors and hardware. Some of that
    which we are good at is called software.
    
    Most large, vibrant companies in this world make intelligent decisions
    to diversify, to protect themselves of downturns in one industry, to
    protect themselves when, for instance, that great AXP-mousetrap doesnt sell.
    
    Greyhawk, in .18, points to the broken-ness of doing business with us.
    With the reorgs. we seem to be harder to deal with, not easier (for my
    geography, at least). 
    We have several software products we can make money with.
    We need to fix:
    a. understand the market requirements
    b. the way they are promoted
    c. the way they are priced
    d. the way they are distributed
    
    There is no point building a better mousetrap and then not telling
    anyone about it or pricing it so high that noone perceives the value
    nor delivering so late the mouse has passed away due to natural causes.
    
    The fundamental issue is that if we dont fix these problems, 6 months
    from now we will be deciding that Networks are not a key competency,
    then 6 months from then we'll decide Hardware is not key, that we are
    just a semiconductor company.....
    
    We need to FIX THE PROBLEMS THAT STOP US FROM BEING SUCCESSFUL, not
    kill potentially viable businesses for the wrong reasons. If a company
    like Lotus or Borland can set out with nothing and make a hit with a 
    product lets take a product, DO IT DIFFERENTLY, and shoot for the same 
    goal.
    
    At the present time, the lack of skills in the above areas show up more
    easily against best-in-class competitors in the software space first.
    The problems exist in the hardware and semiconductor spaces as well,
    they just take longer for the customer to turn around and react.
    
    You can bail out the boat for just so long, or you can fix the leaks.
    Lets fix the leaks and let all businesses we decide to partake in
    succeed!
    
    - John
    
    
    
     
    
    
    
    
    

    r.e HP
    
    HP may not be a software company, but they sell software. They probably
    dont care much that people dont call them a "software company".
    As to partners, that's great, we should do the same, I agree. But when
    we do it best (and sometimes we do), we should use it and PROMOTE IT!
    
    
    p.s I've even seen the occasional advertisement for HP software.

    re -.21
    
    I lost the cut from the other window when I was trying to reply to
    this, but you mentioned that every computer maker would be willing to
    share its technology for long term benefit.
    
    I wonder if you are really from this planet (smiley face here)!
    
    Don't you remember the battles DEC did for the sake of the BI?  The CI?
    (the list goes on)...  it's called Proprietary... and we haven't gotten
    rid of it (and frankly, I'm not quite yet convinced we should).
    
    >The Fundamental Reason is that Nobody will be Willing to Tolerate Poor
    >or Slow User Interfaces -- and Nobody will be Willing to Tolerate Loss
    
    Try using the new Character Oriented Window (not-so-affectionately aka
    COW) interface for VMS users on a Pathworks V5 server!  Talk about Poor
    or Slow User Interfaces!
    
    (I  only hope Pathworks engineering is REALLY working on this... and
    not just on Manageworks (which is a GREAT tool, and hopefully will
    become even more so)).  

in re: .23:

    Why does this sound like a TV ad for miracle carpet cleaning?

>Per

    I think Mr. Newton is "\nasserizing" us :-)
    
    

I suppose it would be a bit more believable if you weren't Capitalising Every
Word In Your Sentences.  This practice is associated with amazingly bad
advertising efforts, completely out-of-touch one-in-being-with-the-cosmos
philosophies (often from California), and is an Instant Turn-Off to many.



re: the PATHWORKS server character-cell UI  -- yes we know that it's bad and
needs improvement. For the longest time, this was the product's stepchild, as
the original vision did not include _any_ new server based management -- it was
all supposed to be done from the PCs.  This idea wasn't bought, so the character
cell UI was cobbled together.  There's major work being done to address it, but
it's not gonna happen instantly.


John

>   The reason I see further right now is because Architecture / UI /
>    Communications / Customer Needs / Product Design is my Specialty,
>    and because the process has been working on me a couple of weeks
>    and/or days longer than it has been working on you.  You will see
>    it too in less time than you or I imagined possible.


haS anyonE seeN mR. newtoN's medicatioN?

>>   The reason I see further right now is because Architecture / UI /
>>    Communications / Customer Needs / Product Design is my Specialty,
>>    and because the process has been working on me a couple of weeks
>>    and/or days longer than it has been working on you.  You will see
>>    it too in less time than you or I imagined possible.


>haS anyonE seeN mR. newtoN's medicatioN?

Lets not be harsh, now.  Put Mr. Newton in baggy clothes in front of
a camera and what do you have?

..... A Nike commercial with Dennis Hopper.
;*)

Tom,

Glad to see you're back.

Bruce

    ...I think we all quite enjoyed your notes. They were..well..different
    :-)
    
    Anytime you feel the need to destress again, go grab your keyboard.
    Doesn't hurt us, might help you.
       
    re roelof