Re: iSeries (non-) Marketing - part 24,566

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan Harris wrote:
> Hans
>
> the problem with IBM's approach is that no-one knows what they stand 
> for. Everyone knows what Microsoft (or Sun or Oracle) stands for. They 
> stand for their flagship product. When they are talking to a customer 
> they recommend their product as the solution and tell the customer why 
> they should buy it.
>
> IBM tries to be all things to all people and thus advises the customer 
> that whatever solution they choose IBM can help. This kind of advice is 
> actually no help to the customer (of for that matter the BP). IBM ends 
> up looking unassertive and indecisive. This does not win sales it just 
> makes IBM sounds like a "me too !" beggar.
>
> In this case I think the logic is based on a false assumption because 
> the IBM brand is not associated with a specific product. Think 
> Microsoft, think "Windows", Think Oracle, think Oracle, Think Sun, think 
> Sun etc etc
>
> IBM needs to create brand awareness for its four branded products.

First, note that I'm just some programmer lackey buried somewhere 
deep in this organization who has absolutely no input into the 
company's ad strategy. But I have some idea of what business this 
company wants to be in, and as far as I can tell, the current ads we 
see are consistent with that strategy. (And I actally like some of 
those ads!)

Second, it's not really appropriate to compare IBM's strategy with 
that of other companies. MS (and others) are pushing specific 
products. But things happen so fast in this industry that it's very 
easy to get caught out. And so basically IBM's "product" is 
services. (That may well be an over-simplification.) That is, 
whereas MS's business model depends on extracting as many licenses 
as possible for a single piece of software on a single machine, 
IBM's business model is less sensitive to changing technology since 
we seem to be embracing many different technologies. Also, MS has 
this nasty habit of getting into competition with it's business 
partners, which is also a game we don't want to play.

My point here is that comparisons with other companies, especially 
MS, are meaningless.

Thirdly, personally, I don't disagree with the need for more iSeries 
exposure, provided it's in the right place. But the right place, in 
my opinion, is the trade publications, not the general media.

Finally, I wonder if there are zSeries or xSeries fans who are 
complaining about lack of ad exposure in their particular arenas! ;-)

Cheers! Hans