Conference 7.286::digital

    see note 3816
    
    Ken

    
    
    Thanks!  Got my weekly brownie points...
    
    bj

bj:

  Make sure you contribute 2% of those brownie points into the
  Corporate Brownie Point Pool (CBPP) for allocation to the folks
  who actually replied to that note. :-)

                                   Atlant

    Plus 20% for the Area VP of Brownie Point Allocation and 15% for the
    Corporate ditto.

    Actually, you don't get any of those brownie points - they're credited
    to a group that can't even spell HP.
    
    					Steve

    I thought we paid for info from this conference using vacation time?
    
    <insert smilie here>
    
    Bill

    You will find counter-FUD in 3830.
    

>    You will find counter-FUD in 3830.

	PLEASE!

	Do not use topic 3830 as counter-FUD! Rather we should try to be 
	constructive and explain our customers why these kind of things
	can happen ... next week it could be us !!!

	Also I feel that it is unethical to enjoy competitors problems 
	and human mistakes. Let's show that we can be superior to our
	competitors and NOT to belong to the mob kicking persons who
	have already been hit hard and are suffering the damage. The word
	spreads widely enough without our help, and we'll soon receive 
	questions how Digital is going to avoid similar problems.

	Best regards,

		-jari
    

    re. 8
    
    "And I feel it is unethical to enjoy a competitor's problems and human
    mistakes."
    
    Give me a break.  I guess you only want to enjoy the competitor's
    successes.  I guess you sit around and smile every time the HP earnings
    reports come out.  You must enjoy it every time they win a sale and we
    lose.  
    
    This is the marketplace.  It would be "unethical" if the management and
    workers of this company did not exploit every product weakness and
    marketing screwup of out competitors.  They will squash us like a bug
    if they get half a chance.  It is the survival of the fittest.

    
    	Let's not start THAT whole arguement again....
    
    	However, I would like H-P earnings and stock price - a lot!!!!
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Strangely enough, the very best companies - and people - tend not
    to attempt to exploit and focus on the weaknesses of their 
    competition/colleagues but are more inclined to focus on and
    exploit their own strong points.  This naturally results in a more
    proactive than reactive mind and deed set.
    
    There appears to be a deep and wonderful relationship between ethics and
    productive behaviour. Behaviour that is deemed unethical almost always
    appears to be long term counterproductive even if it might give short
    term gains. 
    
    re roelof

    re: .11
    Thank you.  It also promotes teamwork because when people are busy
    promoting their own strong points rather than focusing on others
    weaknesses our backs are safer.  So since we have to spend less time
    watching them, we can spend more time being productive.
    
    Back stabbing, wether it's individual to individual or company to
    company is soon seen for what it is and it fails to produce the desired
    response.  And those who sling mud get dirty.
    
    Suzanne
    
    

    re: last couple I agree. How many of you were impressed during the last
    round of elections by who threw the most/best mud? I don't recall
    thinking any more of the thrower than the catcher of it. Just my .02.

    There's mud slinging and there's fighting for business. There's a
    difference. Our competitors are spreading all sorts of rubbish about
    Alpha and 64 bits, we need to make sure people understand, and make
    sure they see the benefits.
    
    We need to be aggressive to get sales and win new business.
    
    Greg

>    This is the marketplace.  It would be "unethical" if the management and
>    workers of this company did not exploit every product weakness and
>    marketing screwup of out competitors.  They will squash us like a bug
>    if they get half a chance.  It is the survival of the fittest.

IMHO:

	I couldn't disagree more, but there _may_ be different culture at
	this side of "big water". Cultural differences have caused confusion
	many times during my 8 Digital years. But now I feel great because
	of our latest successes and I don't want to focus on "negative
	vibes" rather I'm here to tell customers how gooood I feel, because
	it gets customers with...

	.11 and rest of the answers explain very clearly why I do feel that
	we must focus on our strenghts instead of throwing mud. 

Re: ...we should be aggressive

	I fully agree, and I feel that we can be aggressive by telling 
	customers that:
		- we're stronger than ever, and that makes competition
		  NERVOUS
		- nervous people spread FUD & MUD : they're afraid
		- we have strenghts that NO OTHER competitor yet has, and we
		  will improve all the time

	11th Apr announcement was excellent example how Larry Ellison 
	exploited OUR strenghts and made competition very very nervous.

	Well, we all have right to have own opinions, and this is mine.

	Best regards,

			-jari

    Pointing out the flaws or shortcomings of the competitiors products is
    not mudslinging.  
    
    If you are in a selling situation, it is not unethical to point out
    that a certain third party package that your customer wants does not
    run on the competitors system.  Yes, it is certainly nice to talk about
    the fact that it runs on your system, but you would be stupid not to
    point out that it does not run on the competitors.
    
    The fact that it does not run on the competitors system may be due to a
    decision by their management to not see the need for the product,
    willingness to provide porting help, willingness to provide
    co-marketing, willing to pay the third party for the port, ability to
    understand the products position in the marketplace, were simply too
    busy.  These might all be mistakes.  Yes, management made a mistake. 
    This, however, does not constitute a "human flaw".  
    
    I agree that to portray your product in a positive light is essential,
    important, and necessary.  However, you cannot to product comparisons
    without comparing.  
    
    If the customer asked you to compare your product against the
    competitors, which approach would you take?
    
    1. Point out the differences (strenghts/weaknesses/"flaws"), or
    
    2. Declare to the customer that because of ethical reasons, you feel it
    would be inappropriate to compare your product to the competitors.  In
    essence, you would be telling the customer that you cannot believe that
    they would asked such a question.
    
    It would seem to me that the above question would pose an ethical
    dilemma for some of the previous respondents.  I am curious as to how
    they would respond.
    

>    Pointing out the flaws or shortcomings of the competitiors products is
>    not mudslinging.  
    
    Exactly.  I was up against one of our competitors for a software sale. 
    The customer wanted a new software product because the one they had
    only connected to a single VAN (value-added network).  Our competitor
    went in with "Oh, ours will connect to all VANs!".  What they forgot to
    add was "...at some undetermined point in the future".
    
    I first pointed out the lies, half-truths and limitations of our
    competitor's pitch (they almost had the PO, by the way), then went over
    how our product compared against their shortcomings, *then* went over
    items that were of use to the client I *knew* our competitor couldn't
    provide, *then* went over what other options were available should they
    want them, knowing full-well our competitor would *never* provide them.
    
    Our competitor got buried, toes up, six feet down. Our client got the
    absolute best solution for their business and their money.  We got the
    revenue.  Someone loses in every gunfight, pardner, and it might as well be
    the competitor instead of Digital and/or the client!
    
    		    (whoops!  forgot to send flowers! :^] )

   We show up competitions' shortcomings all the time.  We do it on
   officially printed Digital publications.  What do you think a
   price/performance chart is?  
   
   The problem is that if you are going into a customer with a "we are
   the best in <pick-your-category>" then you are going to have to
   compare your product against someone else.  "Best" is a superlative
   which implies that one thing has been compared against everything
   else.  So you better be ready to back it up.  If it's best because
   yours does something that the other guy's doesn't, then you will have
   to say so. The same argument goes for saying you're better than
   someone else.  
   
   "Hi.  We're the best in <pick-your-category>.  Why?  Because!"
   doesn't cut it.

	set +o rathole 

>Title: Is it ethical not to do your best for Digital and the Client?

	Best for CLIENT AND Digital is always what we must do!

	But what I don't like is actively spreading stories and FUD and 
	throwing mud when it in real life has nothing to do with customer 
	needs! And pointing out competitor's problems in the area where we
	ourselves aren't clean...well, that kind of action is not for me,
	and if you come here and start doing it yoy must be prepared to be
	out of business soon as our customers don't accept such behaviour 
	either. Maybe US customers enjoy seeing Digital kicking a guy who's
	already breathless after press has punched him?

	Our customers know about HP's problems and how serious those problems
	are without our help, and if we start bringing it doesn't help us
	whenever we face similar problems. Press has taken care telling 
	customers what kind of problems HP has, let us focus on our strenghts,
	on things WHY we are BETTER than HP... 

	set -o rathole

	regards,
			-jari

1989-1990
Internal Guide to Digital Organizations
...
ABSTRACT: This guide presents general information about Digital and specific
information about individual groups, programs and committees.  ...  This book
was formerly titled the _Engineering Guide_, but was renamed because of its
broadened scope.
...
1.2.2 Digital Philosophy

The Strategy Committee feels that the following statement of PHILOSOPHY may be
helpful for guidance in communicating the kind of company we would like to be to
employees and people outside of Digital.
...
Honesty

We want to be not only technically honest, but also to make sure that the
implication of what we say and the impressions we leave are correct.  When we
make a commitment to customer or to employees, we feel the obligation to see
that it happens.
...
Competitors

We never criticize the competition publicly.  We sell by presenting the positive
features of our own products.  We want to be respectful of all competition, and
collect and analyze all public information about competitors.  When we hire
people from competitors, we should neither ask them for confidential,
competitive information, nor should we use confidential literature they may have
taken with them.

OK, here's the litmus test.  When you hear computer sales/marketing
types use the term "road warriors" do you

	(a) snigger
	(b) agree with the term

?

re: .20 Philosophy

I would say that this should still be our philosophy.  Publicly, we should not
bad mouth our competition.

However, after working in competitive sales for a time, I know that we must
highlight the FUD and make our sales people aware of it.  This is essential.
This way they are best equipped to deal with certain issues and strategies
as they arise.  It also allows them to do some research and potentially find
the original source or trade rag that has the information to dispell the FUD,
and in converstation point the customer to it and ask them to formulate their
own opinion.

Lastly, having worked in the direct migration business, it is perfectly
ethical to point out that the competition's solution can not do this or
that and our's can.  But you have to be able to back it up.  You also have
to be prepared to receive criticism that is the same.  However, this is not
an area in which you should dwell, because it will backfire.  The competition
now has you on the defensive.  It's OK for a one-time technical side-by-side
demo and can be effective if used only once.

    Product comparision is definitely not an issue and I don't think
    anybody suggested that. The issue was about trying to exploit HP's
    problems with its CPU as to whether this was (un)ethical.
    
    re roelof

roelef:

> The issue was about trying to exploit HP's problems with its
> CPU as to whether this was (un)ethical.
    
  In my case, I wasn't even arguing that it was unethical.  I was
  merely reminding people that "what goes around comes around" and
  there're plenty of potential skeletons in *EVERYONE'S* closet,
  or at least things that can be made to look like skeletons when
  viewed from the right angle.

                                   Atlant