Conference 7.286::digital

    good point.
    
    I was watching a 'Small Business Show' on Sunday morning last, and it
    started with "This program brought to you by (maroon digital logo with
    'whatever it takes' underneath) Digital, whatever it takes... and
    (change logo to QANTAS logo) QANTAS, 'Flying Australia' [or something
    like that]" then the opening credits of the show.
    
    Ok, "Digital, whatever it takes". "Digital _what_!?" watches?
    
    Admittedly later in the program, there was a Digital ad (the
    'Amazon.com' one, I think), but at first glance, most people would ask
    'who?' and 'whatever what takes for what?'
    
    If we had the brand recognition in Australia that someone like IBM or
    Microsoft has (or even Intel now, with their 'MMX' coloured bunny suit
    ads), then yes, just the mere mention of the name 'Digital' should make
    people think 'computers' - but it doesn't :'(
    
    Perhaps in the US it's different, and everyone knows who Digital is -
    but in Australia, if someone knows who Digital 'were', the question is
    usually asked "are they still in business?" :'( :'( :'(
    
    One bright point, my eldest son said "look! Digital! You work for them
    daddy!" :') :')
    
    H

I have seen signage at Rugby Union games with "digital computers" (computers italicised).

At least that get's us away from the watch syndrome.

Stuart "proud of my digital analogue watch" Zorbas

        <<< Note 5268.2 by MUDGEE::16.167.64.62::Zorbas "NULL Junior" >>>


>At least that get's us away from the watch syndrome.

	The more things change.....the more they stay the same.

	Almost 20 years ago, the Salem plant passed out t-shirts that
	said "DIGITAL - No, we don't make clocks"

Jim

    
    Sounds like a good cartoon ad might work. Use the Roadrunner ( alpha ) 
    and the coyote ( Intel ). Talk to the toon writers I'm sure they'd
    have fun with the animation.
    
    Heck could you see it. The Roadrunner has an Alpha powered rocket, and
    the coyote has an Intel powered Rocket. Of course we all know who
    always beats the coyote. There's lots of Roadrunner/Coyote Cartoon
    strips to inject Alpha/Intel( or just say other, don't mention intel)
    
    

    Exactly! I believe our name is our downfall....it's not distinctive
    enough. Even the older IT bods know DEC and VAX, but who on earth are
    DIGITAL (or is it digital(?). It's a non-descript name.
    
    Why don't we buy-out the Alta-Vista Corporation or whoever they are, and
    use our strengths to sell our other products which are industry leaders
    but few know or are convinced of them.
                                                           

|    Exactly! I believe our name is our downfall....it's not distinctive
|    enough. Even the older IT bods know DEC and VAX, but who on earth are
|    DIGITAL (or is it digital(?). It's a non-descript name.
 
   I absolutely have to agree with this. Ever since we decided NOT to persue
   the end consumer market, brand name reconition needs to reach those who
   are making decisions in big companies (which is what we are targetting).
   Did they grow up on DIGITAL machines? Certainly not! If they know our
   stuff they know it by our real name: DEC.

   >Per

    >|    Exactly! I believe our name is our downfall....it's not distinctive
    >|    enough. Even the older IT bods know DEC and VAX, but who on earth are
    >|    DIGITAL (or is it digital(?). It's a non-descript name.
    >
    >   I absolutely have to agree with this
    
    Yeah... If we only had a name that was discriptive of what we do and
    distinctive.  That would fix all our problems.
    
    I disagree.  It might help a little, but our name is hardly our
    downfall.
    
    Look at Compaq.  They have a dreadful name.  It isn't catchy.  While
    (stupid spelling aside) it may have been a decent name for their
    original product (a compact, "portable" PC with a keyboard that folded
    up for travel), it hardly descibes their products today  (a Proliant 
    is certainly not particularly "compact").
    
    We have poor marketing and focus.  The whole "DEC" vs. "digital"
    vs. "DIGITAL" is merely one of a multitude of symptoms, hardly the
    disease.
    
    IMO.
    
    Jim

    Is Digital that bunch of chimps that make those watches? 

    I stick with  Digital� in communications although there are alot of 
    digital� networks and digital� this and thats out there that confuse.
    
      � - Digital, AKA DEC - the company we work for...
      � - digital - adjective as in digital watch, digital network, digital
          data, digital computer, etc... etc...
    
    Well the powers that be made there decision - I guess we have to back
    them - back to work - need to call international - ooops I mean IBM...

The branding folks want you to use DIGITAL to refer to the company and its
products. (But you still say "Digital Equipment Corporation".)

I have had outside my office, since 1984, a "Mr. Tweedy" cartoon.  It shows a
man, with a confused expression on his face, standing outside a series of
shops with signs reading "Digital Watches", "Digital Records", and a 
"COMING SOON... DIGITAL CHEESE".  The caption has a man inside the last store
saying "Where do you want me to put these other shelves, Mr. Digital?"

					Steve

    re: .7  Compaq  
    
    	    You think they have a 'nondescriptive' name?
    
            Their name is:  Compaq Computer Corporation .... I'd say that's
            MORE than slightly descriptive!
    
    	    And ... COMPAQ  has PC'S in about every store I've been in that
    sells PC'S. People "know" Compaq because the SEE Compaq PC's
    everywhere and hear about them on TV, etc.    But not a bunch a gibberish
    about client-serving the enterprise paradign shift.
    
    	    Their message: speedy computers, very familiar brand name, 
    readily available to look at and examine, goes from store to home in 
    an hour, a good price, and, "I can take it back to the store if I don't 
    like it or didn't understand what I was buying".
    
    What's NOT to like about this kind of deal?
    

    Article in latest Forbes (May 5) proposes that Compaq buy Digital,
    saying that Compaq could greatly "broaden its product lines, increase
    revenues by at least 50%, and swallow DEC without burping."
    
    M

Compaq started out as Columbia Data Systems, makers of a line of portable
(now we'd call them "luggable") computers under the Compaq brand name.

					Steve

    Re: .11
    >re: .7  Compaq
    >
    >            You think they have a 'nondescriptive' name?
    >
    >            Their name is:  Compaq Computer Corporation .... I'd say that's
    >            MORE than slightly descriptive!
             
    That *is* their formal name.  "Compaq" is what they go by.  Their URL 
    is www.compaq.com.  Their logo says "Compaq."  "Compaq Computer
    Corporation" does not appear on their home page, or even their company
    history page.  So yes, I believe they have a non-descriptive name.  Their
    name is a historical choice ("We make small computers that fold up,
    like a make-up compact") just as DIGITAL's is ("don't call it a
    computer company, because no one thinks you can make money with
    computers").
    
    As far as the rest of .11 is concerned... Yes, Compaq has good
    advertising, excellent market presence, etc.   
    
    My only point in .7 is that the success of Compaq is not because they
    have a wonderful name, but rather because they do an excellent job
    marketing a typically very good product.  
    

>    My only point in .7 is that the success of Compaq is not because they
>    have a wonderful name, but rather because they do an excellent job
>    marketing a typically very good product.  

Part of the problem is name recognition, regardless of "non-descriptive".

If the name is context-independent (which the names "Compaq", "IBM",
"HP", "Intel", "Microsoft", "Oracle", "Dell", all are in modern
communication), the name is easily recognized and isn't "diluted"
by other uses.  (Note that none of these names are particularly
"descriptive" with the exception of Microsoft, or if you happen
to know what IBM stands for.)  99%+ of the references to the above
company names are likely to immediately be recognized as having
a high probability of referring to the company.

"Digital" on the other had is NEVER going to be *close* to context-
independent (requiring the cumbersome "Digital Equipment [Corporation]".)
Even worse, common usage is ambiguous in both spoken, and in a number
of interesting cases (capitalized headlines) written communication,
and >>99% of the time it does NOT refer to the company (nor will it
*ever*.)  In this situation, we will *never* get "name recognition"
the way these companies have.

(Quick: What does the headline "DIGITAL NETWORK SOFTWARE BUG"? refer to?
What about "ULTRA-FAST DIGITAL SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS ANNOUNCED"?)

Personally, "Digital" seems to me to be about the worst possible name
one could pick from a name recognition perspective (I just tried to think
of an obviously worse one, and couldn't, though if some company named
something like "Chip Manufacturer's Inc." tried to go by "Chip", it
would probably be similar.)

DEC may have had "bad connotations" in some people's minds, but at least
it was clear what was being referred to the vast majority of the time.
(Remember the saying "the only thing worse than bad press is no press"...?)

|    Look at Compaq.  They have a dreadful name.  It isn't catchy.  While
|    (stupid spelling aside) it may have been a decent name for their
|    original product (a compact, "portable" PC with a keyboard that folded
|    up for travel), it hardly descibes their products today  (a Proliant 
|    is certainly not particularly "compact").

     But imagine if they changed their name to, for exmple, Electronic
     Computers Corp and then go off and lecture people like Gates about
     using the wrong name, wrong font, wrong colors, etc. Meanwhile,
     their branding campaign with the motto "We'll be there, trust us!"
     for the Gamma FZX Generation is not generating a whole lot of
     interest.. Electronic who did you say? Never even heard of them.
     
     Actually, I did not mean to say that the name was THE thing. But
     it has certainly helped to blow DEC off the radar and these frequent
     changes we're making to our identify certainly tell the rest of the world
     that we are still soul searching with whatever that implies.

     >Per

    
    
    I believe this "DIGITAL-watches" thing is pretty obvious to everybody
    in the company.
    
    Isn't that why we now associate better known brands to our company name
    as in :
    
    StrongARM - DIGITAL
    AltaVista - DIGITAL
    Gigaswitch - DIGITAL
    
    or to put it more clearly :
    
    Have you heard of Altavista - Strong ARM - Gigaswitch ?
    You have ?
    Well these products were all branded by DIGITAL.
    
    Did I put it more clearly ?
    
    Oh forget it....

It sort of seems to me that we as a company are under the impression
that we don't have to be descriptive in our ads ... basically laying
blame for non-recognition on potential customers, in a way implying
that it's their fault if they don't know what we do by now.

But I certainly wish we'd stop doing this very soon.

    
    keep in mind that companies who change their name do not fare as
    well as companies that don't. Waste Management is a prime example.
    They changed their name to WMX Technologies, and their sales and stock
    dropped. They are now changing it back to Waste Management to reflect
    what they do for a living; waste remover.

    re: .19
    
    I'm not sure you can generalize that.  Remember Cities Service
    gas stations?  Or Esso gas stations?  Or Flying A gas stations?  
    They all changed their names and all seem to be doing quite well 
    as Chevron, Exxon, and Getty.

From <<< Note 5268.19 by ACISS1::BATTIS "EDS bound" >>>

This is not directed at you, honest.  Good luck.


Regarding your new company, EDS, to which you're bound...

 Is this Electronic Data Systems Corporation?
 Or, maybe, better yet from a branding perspective?  ELECTRONIC?
 
 What does ELECTRONIC do these days?  I lost track of what they do.  Still in
 the ELECTRONIC business?  ELECTRONIC used to compete with EDS I think, 
 didn't they?

 Good luck at ELECTRONIC.  You'll just have to learn not to call them EDS 
 when you get there, because your customers will get confused.   Say EDS, 
 and they'll think you're referring to someone other than ELECTRONIC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two more cents coming your way...

 Seems like lots of companies are selling "digital things" these days using
 radio and TV advertising.  

 Digital printers from RICHO. Digital TVs from Sony.  Digital cameras from
 Honeywell.  Digital speakers from Bose.  Digital thermometers from
 whomever.  Digital clocks, watches, compasses, radios, cables.  Digital
 imaging, libraries, calculators, ...  Digital phone systems...  Seen one of
 those nifty digital pianos?  Need a digital scanner?  Have a digital
 camcorder?  I'm bombarded by the word, "digital."  Digital is a modern-day
 noise word.  As a consumer, I really don't want to hear it.  And, if I do
 hear it, I discard it.  I do, however, hear words like RICHO, Sony,
 Honeywell, Bose, and yes, COMPAQ.  Because there's uniqueness in each of
 these words, I can add them to my vocabulary and associate a level of
 quality and reliability with each as time goes on.  And I can choose to 
 buy one of their products based on my perception of their brand.  They have 
 brand recognition.  "Digital" does not.  "Digital" never will.

 The DIGITAL branding campaign does not enable or force me to add "digital"
 to my vocabulary.  Sorry.  I want to, but I can't. 

I can't believe I just read 15 or so notes arguing about the name of this 
blasted pile of crap we call a company.

Call it what you want, it don't mean squat until we fix a whole bunch of other 
problems.

The fact that some idiot insisted that we refer to ourselves as Digital
Equipment Corporation and DIGITAL but never DEC, is just one more example of
the fact that the people running the show don't have a stinking clue.

    Hmmm...But how do you REALLY feel?
    
    Actually, I have to agree that I can't believe I'm seeing yet another
    company name note. Yeah, let's change it to International Digital
    Machines (IDM) or, even better, Unisys! That'll turn things around for
    us in a hurry!
    
    But I do like the idea of us all working for Compaq. That would be good
    for Digital but I suspect bad for Compaq. I can't imagine why the
    company that raced past us in the computer industry by focusing on the
    Intel-based servers that WE SHOULD HAVE PURSUED AS A SIGNIFICANT PART
    OF OUR BUSINESS FROM DAY ONE would have much to gain by spending
    billions of dollars on us. But, hey, we can hope. 

Actually it does matter what we are called. I was watching a show on the
knowledge channel (KNOW) on cable in Kansas City last week. It was a 
special on UNIX. It was part 3 of a 5 parter and they were talking about
the major UNIX vendors and their specialties. 

They did a nice segment on a Digital Unix customer, and the customer talked
on how they liked Digital Unix, and Clusters and how Digital Unix systems
help them run their company etc.

Then they switched to an 'live' segment with an HP marketing Manager who
then talked about how Digital Switches work with HP Servers, and how
Digital networking is allowing more users on a HP servers, etc etc. He
Used the word digital as many times as HP. All in all a good way to 
undermine DIGITAL to mean HP. 

BTW the customer never once said 64-bits, VLM, Alpha, Tru-Cluster or
DEC or DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORP 

The moderater never said Digital Equip corp either he just said lets look
at how Digital Unix is helping run an enterprise.

I really shouldn't read notes until I've had at least two cups of coffee ;^)

.22> blasted pile of crap we call a company.

I guess thats a bit strong.  I actually love this company and really feel it
has a tremendous amount of good in it.  But it does have some serious problems
and thats all I meant by the statement.  

Fix the other problems, and then worry about name recognition.  With some of 
the horror stories I've been hearing, maybe a lack of name recognition is a good 
thing ;^) 

RE .6 - I've always thought that the easiest and natural logo for us to 
go by was DEC (or dec). Back when the push for brand name recognition started ..
supposedly corporate did a study and found DIGITAL to be the most
popular/recognized by our customer base? I wonder if this was the same type
of study that originally found that ARA (Advanced Risc Architecture) to be 
an appropriate name for our new RISC chips, that they also told us that lot's 
and lot's of money was spent researching this name (humm... then we ended up
with ALPHA). 
By the way, as by Corporate edict (and being a good Corporate citizen) I never
refer to us as DEC, but as DIGITAL, even tho my customers always slip... with
DEC coming out of their mouths. 

RC.

    Well, it may be futile, but some of us still hope that someone with
    enough guts and common sense will read one of these strings and decide
    that the "DIGITAL" only path is not the best choice.
    
    1) Too easy to confuse verbal communications (digital switches vs
    DIGITAL brand switches).
    2) Lot's of people know us as DEC.
    
    There is lot's of precedant for DEC; no one talks about International
    Business Machines do they?
    
    Trademark s DEC logo and use it. That's my vote. [I know, I know...this
    isn't a democracy]
    
    r
    

    Does anyone know why our Exchange (Internet) address is [email protected]
    instead of [email protected].  XXXX=Name.
    
    Regards,
    
    Moe

    Yep, this sure is taboo, and THAT'S part of the problem.
    
    I've decided that when this issue gets fixed (among others) then I'll know
    that the Corporation is back on track and the stock will be worth keeping.
    
    And the fix I'm waiting for, is the admittance that we royally screwed
    up by denouncing "DEC" and the start of an advirtising campaign that lasts
    more than a few weeks, uses no wildlife and has DEC and Altavista logos
    all over a whole damn TEAM of racecars.
    
    Until then, I remain pessimistic about our chances to survive as a
    separate entity.
    
    .mike.
                                    

    RE .20, errrr, seems to me I recall Cities Service as the forerunner to
    Citgo (not Chevron), and Flying A turned into Mobil vs. Getty.  So much
    for name recognition, but your basic premise is still sound; both of
    these companies are also doing fine post-name change...
    
    Now DEC, on the other hand, is exactly what we're still called on Wall
    St. via the ticker symbol.  Until we change our name (or have it done
    for us...) DEC is how we'll be known when being beaten up by the
    street...

    re: 30
    
    A nit, but Flying A did not simply change its name.  It was bought in a
    hostile takeover by J Paul Getty, becoming Getty Oil.
    
    And if you think Digital is a crummy name for a company, how about for
    a person?  What were Mr and Mrs Takawira thinking when they named their
    son Digital? (actually it's his nickname, his real given name is
    Vitalis. Digital is a forward for the Kansas City Wizards of MLS).

    here's the test.
    
    Go to AltaVista, and do a search on DEC and then digital.  See which
    one finds 
    us first!!!!!  I have not tried it.  
    
    chet

    Chevron used to be Calso.  But I think the official name is probably
    still Standard Oil (of some state).  The Citgo sign in Kenmore Square
    in Boston used to say Cities Service before the name change.  The old
    one was just as impressive as the current one - green lettering on a
    white background.
    
    Usually companies change their logo long before they change the
    official name, but not always.  K-Mart Corp was Kresge until they
    became better known for their K-Mart stores. 
    
    The main problem I have with DIGITAL is that you can't tell when we are
    getting good or bad press.  If any of those gas stations were called
    "Refined", there would be no name regcognition even when it is
    intended.  You read an article about some great new "digital" device,
    and sometimes it is one of ours, and sometimes not.  Unfortunately, the
    company has been so bad at picking names that I hate to even suggest
    any change at all.  We might end up as AXP Corp.  
    
    When I was a resident at Dupont - E.I. duPont de Nemours - they didn't
    even let us write the name unless it was the logo.  Perhaps we should
    insist on that.  
    
    Ben

    
    	Mobil -> Socony Mobil -> Socony Vacuum -> Vacuum Oil Company.
    
    One branch in reverse order of Mobil's family tree.
    
    					Bill

    Hmmm...
    
    interesting how this, yet again, degenerated into a topic on Digital vs
    DIGITAL vs DEC ;')
    
    Question for the US bods - is Digital/DIGITAL/DEC recognised by non-IT
    industry people (i.e. Joe Blow from the street) as a manufacturer of
    computer equipment?
    
    [ ] Yes
    [ ] No
    [ ] I don't know
    
    H

RE: .35

>    Question for the US bods - is Digital/DIGITAL/DEC recognised by non-IT
>    industry people (i.e. Joe Blow from the street) as a manufacturer of
>    computer equipment?
 
That is the key question, isn't it.  And I have several answers:

Non-technology people think that Digital and DIGITAL are simply odd ways
of saying "digital", which is the new marketing buzzword for all products 
to indicate that they are new and exciting (ie, digital cellular phones).
They have never heard of DEC, unless you count the woman I met last night
who is a money manager for an investment firm, who put $500K of her 
clients money into DEC stock when it was $56.  She is not happy with us...

Technology people don't see any distinction between Digital and DIGITAL,
recognizing the confusion with "digital" (see above), and are amused or 
irritated with us when we don't say DEC.  For example, I am in the middle
of helping to write a maintenance contract between our company and the 
customer, and the customer *insists* that our company be referred to as 
DEC in the formal legal contract.  The local field team has given up
trying to dissuade him from this (there are enough other issues which
are causing us problems, we don't need to irritate him by something as
minor as what he calls our company in the contract).

My feeling is that we should pick a name and stick with it, but we should
then take that name and put it in front of every single person in our
markets so often that when they think of anything having to do with
computers, that they instantly come to us and ignore all those other
upstarts and johnny-come-lately's in the computer industry, such as IBM
and HP and Compaq and Sun.

-- Ken Moreau
   who knows which name I would like to see chosen, but who also knows
   that if we advertise effectively then which name we choose is
   irrelevant, and if we don't advertise effectively then we will become
   irrelevant

    On another aspect we might think that 'digital' - versus 'analogic' - is
    the longer term trend.
    
    In 1987 (coincidence ?), the number of 'analogic' watches took over,
    (back and irreversibly this time), the 'digital' ones.
    
    Jean

    The point isn't WHAT we're called...it's WHAT we're associated with.
    
    We could be DEC, Digital, Diddly, etc....but WHAT is the company
    associated with.
    
    One little company that I know puts a line below their name:
         
    			      Bayer
    A company specializing in pharmaceuticals, imaging, health care and
    chemicals.
    
    Yep - they don't do just aspirin and if you didn't know that they did
    that, there's no doubt after you see their one liner.
    
    So who cares WHAT we're called!  When are we going to tell people what
    we do.
    
    (I know, whenever we decide it....aarugh)
    j
    
    

    
    A good example of a recent great branding campaign
    (complete with new logo):
    
    		Xerox - The Document Company
    
    								-mr. bill

Build quality faster cheaper products and they will come.  Customers
buying VAX's in the 80's didn't care whether we were called DEC or Digital.

    > Build quality faster cheaper products and they will come.
    
    My impression is we already do that, and they're not coming.  You need
    good products, but increasingly these days you need mindshare.  80's
    customers are a far different lot than those of the late 90's.  Also,
    the product landscape has gotten far more complicated, so even if you
    are a technical buyer, it's not that easy to see who's currently
    cheapest, fastest, best quality.
    
    	Steve

    
    Build what customers *want* and *need* and they will come.
    
    

	It's the applications, stupid.. (to paraphrase)

						mike

re several recent replies:

>    Build quality faster cheaper products and they will come.
>    we need mind share.
>    supply what they want and need.

they will come.  but they will not be able to find us,
since we change the phone numbers or don't answer, and keep 
the sales force busy with administrivia so they can't sell.
even if they find us, we will still drive them away with
lack of information, obnoxious business practices, short
shipments, back orders, and other mistakes.

seriously, we need to do all those things, and many more things.
to compete, we have to do almost everything adequately.
we aren't.
to be successful we have to do even more of them adequately
and many things very well.
to thrive, we need to do more of those tasks very well and
some of them superbly.

as a team, the world's best 4 basketball players, or 5 hockey
players, or 10 football (either kind) players, or 8 baseball players
would loose to many full teams.

we need a full and competent team so we can take advantage of the
few things we do very well.

re Note 5268.41 by SMURF::STRANGE:

>     > Build quality faster cheaper products and they will come.
>     
>     My impression is we already do that, and they're not coming.  

        I've come to the conclusion that people *are* coming to
        Digital for "quality faster cheaper products" -- and if we
        didn't have "quality faster cheaper products", we would have
        been out of business (or taken over) long ago.

        Bob

re. -1,

    I agree with the faster , cheaper part of your note, but quality has taken
a real hit lately (from my perspective in the world). We've received some new
systems that were DOA here and our customers have (unfortunately) also had the
same experience (dead systems and disks ---- I know... I know... we buy our
disks now ... but we're still responsible --- in the customers eyes). Humm, it
happens one time, maybe you can explain it away, but more than once, it get's
tougher each time (to take and explain). 

I often wonder what the warranty costs are that we're shelling out to replace
these systems, have them repaired, etc. Do we have a good handle on that and
(once again) it's impact on the customer's perception of us? If we have a way of
tracking warranty related costs, what were they? Has it gone down from
year-to-year, stayed the same or has it increased? If it has gone down, then
that's a good trend to be on but, is it higher than our competitors, how do we
compare with them? If it's high, how high is it? How easy are our systems to
repair, do MCS Service engineers get to speak their mind on how life could be
made easier (and more cost effective for Digital), when it comes to repairs. Is
there any interaction between them and engineering, manufacturing on shortening
the repair time required (the MCS folks could probably share a lot of horror
stories and good ideas on making our products better)? Or are our systems that
easy to fix, that the cost to repair is lower than everyone elses in the
industry? If it is (the lowest), then that's something that we're good/best at
and it means something to our customers. Let's start being the best at other
things (fundamentals) our customers really want/need. Being the fastest kid on
the block the last few years really hasn't helped us win too many races has it?
We can run a quick 100 yd dash, faster than anyone else, but I have a feeling
that the real race is like the "Boston Marathon" and we keep running out of
breath and dropping out of the race (never crossing the finish line of
significant increases in revenue and market share). Fundamentals, consistency
and stability, best in class, best in manufacturing, best in service, best in
quality, best in support, .....ease of doing business with, .... etc.

(Just in here on a Sunday .. catching up on some work and thinking out loud ...
again :),
 

Rick

    r.e .42 by Fred Kleinsorge
    
    > Build what customers *want* and *need* and they will come.
    
    I dont think anyone disagrees with this statement at all.
    Unfortunately, my experience tells me we are not doing this.
    
    Customers do not just want a fast box in top gun blue. 
    Some of the things my customers also require (in no particular order):
    
    1. That they receive timely information on new opportunities from
    Digital to improve their business. Not just a new box but what the new
    box has in terms of capability for their business. This minimises the
    cost of justification.
    
    2. They want minimal cost to their own business to acquire things from
    us. Every order they have to chase is a cost on top of the box purchase
    price.
    
    3. They want clear delineation of vendor product from general
    technological noise. They do not want to have to invest more money to
    discover what you have to offer them than what others have to offer.
    
    4. They want us to deliver to our committments on time.
    
    5. They want appropriate high quality. Period. In product, in service, in
    interactions, in everything, but at a reasonable price.
    
    6. They want to see real evidence of committment and enthusiasm to what 
    we provide over the longer term.
    
    7. They want to be assured that their concerns, at any level, will be 
    actively considered.
    
    Many of these wont be explicitly stated, they are given requirements 
    that we dont seem to be meeting.
    
    I wont pretend this is a complete list. Unfortunately, many of our
    actions and processes fail even these things. We often actively preach
    the mantra of leading performance in one area and fail on many of the
    fundamentals in another.
    
    

    So,
    
    one _real_ answer to my question ;') Thanks Ken in Canada :') I take it
    that no one esle disagrees though - We (DEC/Digital/DIGITAL) don't have
    the brand name recognition. So why the hell are we advertising as if we
    _do_ ???
    
    re: quality of our equipment - I work closely with the Logistics group
    here (software support), and I get to see the 'consumption' figures for
    many of the parts during the year - and some of the crap we buy and put
    in front of our customers just so certain Business Units can save a few
    bucks per item, it disgusts me! (and the repair centre guys too)
    
    Other parts of DEC/Digital/DIGITAL have to carry the costs of of these
    short sighted decisions - the parts break down far too frequently, and
    even though they are not made by DEC/Digital/DIGITAL, they have that
    little red, sorry, maroon logo "digital" on the front, and the
    customers say "this Digital stuff is crap". I was told, that
    specifically for some monitors, if we had spent an extra $US3-$US5 on
    the monitors, the MTBF would have been increased by an order of
    magnitude. Ok, so we add $US10 to the customer cost, but we save them
    so much hassle of returning dead parts, and *us* (the company as a
    whole) lots of time and effort.
    
    Perhaps I shouldn't have followed down this tangent - now I just wanna
    kick some one ;'}
    
    H

    
.36> Non-technology people think that Digital and DIGITAL are simply odd ways
.36> of saying "digital", which is the new marketing buzzword for all products 
    
    Yes, they do seem to put digital in front of just about anything 
    these days except computers (and 'high end' watches and audio).
    While i've actually used an analogue computer during studies 20+
    years ago, I don't think _anyone_ that matters out that believes
    that a computer can be anything but digital and thus leaves the
    digital off, unless it is a DIGITAL computer. When times were 
    better we even dared poking fun at this. 
    Remember the ad "Isn't every computer a DIGITAL computer?"
    
    Way back in time when I started to work for Digital in Holland, a
    I seem to recall we youngsters only every called the company Digital,
    never DEC. but memory may be distorted there.
    
    My main customer now, always calls our box the 'DEC ALPHA', and 
    our company DEC. They are not alone.
    
    As much as I personally prefer the name Digital, DEC seems to win out.
    The succesful IBM precedent is a very strong hint in that direction.
    
    re The Xerox and Bayer examples, I like the ideas of a line to go 
    with a logo. DIGITAL - we do computers  (or whatever it takes).
    I'd be nice to throw other stuff in there (networks, storage,
    internet, software, service,...) but that'd just be tempting fate.
    
    cheers,
    	Hein.                   
    
    

    The 1st commercial I'd like to see is quite simple...
    
    Background Images:Computers speeding by...
    
    Voice Over: DIGITAL...
    		We don't make watches...
    		We don't make (insert your favorite here)
    
    		We are Digital Equipment Corporation!
    		We make the FASTEST computer systems in the world
    		to solve your business problems.
    
    		Contact us today!		
    
    		Show logo/website /phone nu
    
    	Fade to black
    
    
    Then show it over and over and over again!  After this campaign...go to
    product specific campaigns...PC's alpha, Storage, etc.
    
    In fact I'd love to see the Hinote ultra commercial refreshed and used
    (it never was).
    
    Jeff
    
    (who worked in the "Digital Computer Stores" and answered the watch
    question daily!)

re: quality issues

There is a particular reliability issue that has caused
quite a bit of concern in the field - a certain part is
failing much more rapidly than planned.  The "fix" has
been to specify that these parts be replaced periodically
before they fail.  The problem is that a field service
manager told me he'd have to hire 12 more engineers in
his territory who would do nothing else but replace these
parts.  I hope we saved a lot on the initial cost of the
product.

BC

    re:
    
    Quality issues ... The issue of BU's buying poor quality parts up front
    will not likely be resolved until such time as the process is in place 
    which directly charges the BU for all time/labour to fix issues on
    their products.
    
    Regards,
    
    / Kerry

RE .-1,

BC, Can you give more detail on what that is?

Rick

Re: -1 (desire for more info)

- Handled offline.

BC

    re .48 & .52
    
    I agree completely. We should recognise that we are NOT going to be a
    truly commodity player in any market nor should we. We should be
    playing the quality angle - you get what you pay for?!? Tell our
    customers that we're not the cheapest, but our products are better in
    ways that can't be compared. Unfortunately you have to at least try to
    consider quality as having an advantage over price when making the
    purchasing decisions.
    
    Maybe that's why the "if you build it they will buy" philosophy isn't
    working. Sure we've got these fast boxes, but aside from the CPU, the
    market percieves us as flogging off the same low end parts as everybody
    else.
    
    r
    
    [You can be sure that there have been decisions made that cost far far
    more than they saved - both in $$$ and in customers perception.]

From the sounds of it, the people responsible for delivering/designing shabby
goods currently may not be held responsible for their decisions and its impact
on current and future business opportunities? How can we function like this? I
work with an automotive company, I remember one instance where one of the engine
plants here in Detroit discovered a mistake made during an assembly process that
they tracked down to impacting around 200 engines (not enough torque applied to
certain bolts ---- that would eventually show up as an oil leak). Well these
engines had already been delivered and assembled in vehicles sitting, waiting to
be shipped to dealerships. The Assembly plant put a hold on delivery of the cars
and the engine plant dispatched 20-25 of its own people to travel to the city
where the assembly plant was located and they meticously checked every single
car that had one of the suspect engines, when they found one, they applied the
appropriate fix. This was all at the ENGINE PLANTS EXPENSE, guess what, they
then put in a procedure that would "protect" against this type of thing
happening again. Bottom line, they were responsible, they corrected the problem
and it was at their own expense (out of the plants budget).

RC.

    Wow, this is from a plat in Detroit?  Where 1QT/500miles is considered
    "normal"?
    
    - Vikas

Yes and I think I know which engine that your talking about (1qt every 500
miles). It's Ironic that the plant where that engine is currently being built,
the plant management doesn't believe in using technology in helping him solve
problems. The plant that I described problem resolution above, all levels of
management where required to use the systems/applications that were in place to
resolve/prevent problems. They had an attitude of being very "PRO-ACTIVE" in
preventing quality problems.

"OLD STYLE" vs. "NEW STYLE" management.

RC

    re .56 - who pays
    
    If, for example, a design problem  is found on a product then an ECO/A
    is issued to amend the manufacturing process. If this results in scrap
    material, additional tooling costs etc. these costs are (to my
    knowledge) NOT charged back to design, but or taken on by
    manufacturing. Sure, it eventually goes back to the business unit in
    increased cost to manufacture; but it makes the plant look bad.
    Big deal, right?
    
    Lets say the plant is making PC's and someone out there is looking at
    that plants cost to manufacture and says "Gee, it costs KAO $40 to
    build a PC and this contractor will do it for $32." Sounds great but,
    the first time you go to that contractor with an ECO he says "Sure,
    I'll figure out what it'll cost you and as soon as you pay up we'll get
    right on it!"
    
    Before long your $8 savings doesn't look so good.
            
    
    IMHO 8^)
    

    re .59: the plant pays for ECOs..
    
    If that's true, it's no wonder we have problems. (I sure hope it isn't
    true)
    
    If you (the plant) don't charge me (the design group) for the work you
    do that is a result of something that the design group did, then I'm 
    not going to worry too much about yanking you around. You
    will be completely out of control on your overhead rate. If I have a
    mature design, I'd be foolish to not have someone else build it - why
    should I burden my product with someone else's labor?
    
    t'ain't no way to run a railroad..
    
    ...tom
    

    Wow, this is from a plat in Detroit?  Where 1QT/500miles is considered
    "normal"?
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Wow, that means I must have a 318 CuIn V-8 in my 5th Avenue that was
    built in Japan.  I drive 3k Miles between changes, and the oil is never
    low.  Tell me Vikas, when did Chrysler move the engine plant to Japan?
    
    Dave

    I think what Vikas was alluding to is the fact that, if you have a new
    car with maybe 5K miles on it, and it is consuming a quart every 623
    miles, the manufacturer will say "That's normal!" .. 
    
    Most of 'em come out not burning any noticeable amount of oil, but
    that's not how "normal" is determined..
    
    
    ...tom

    
    RE: brand name.
    
    The following CNN article is symptomatic of our branding problem.
    Its title is "Microsoft summit to assess digital future" !
    At the end of the article, related stories show: "Our Digital Future".
    
    In case some people aren't yet convinced that this is an issue ...
    
    http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/08/microsoft.summit.reut/index.html

    
    re: brand name
    
    At http://cnn.com/TECH/9702/03/digital.future/index.html
    
    right hand col,
                                                                             
    					Gates and Grove discuss
                                        new digital tools 
    

One of the first thing which today's DVN had much more on the branding.  I
was surprised that the Q&A was so timid.  At one time, the silence was
defeaning.

Nobody had the guts to ask if it was a time for the font/color change yet.

- Vikas

    
    Free country - why didn't you ask?
    
    The Brand is least about color and font - most about what you want your
    company to be know for, consistently over time.
      
    I have been personally pleasantly surprised
    about how much of the lawsuit coverage talked about DIGITAL, not DEC
     - it will never be 100% IMHO - but when I see the Globe using "DIGITAL
    inside" as part of the story - we are making some progress.
    
    BT
    BT

Today's Dilbert makes great reading relating to branding...

I'm puzzled as to why the Monkey ads continue to run with black and not
burgundy borders.

				Steve

>     <<< Note 5268.67 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>
>
>I'm puzzled as to why the Monkey ads continue to run with black and not
>burgundy borders.

Probably so as not to have them confused with the current NEC ads
with the full-bleed maroon borders.

- tom]