Marketing Memos

June 26, 2007

Assume the Position

If I had a nickel for every person who chatted me up at a cocktail party and
showed complete ignorance on the subject of positioning, this would be the last
blog of mine you would read, for I would be on a whisper jet headed toward an endless mai tai on a beach in Tahiti.

Confusion typically enters the discussion because of vague common usage of
the terms
"position" and "positioning"
. The former is conceptually simple enough, as a
product/corporate "position" is mere a set of coordinates on the map of a
market.  The pit into which technology companies fall is never knowing the correct
coordinate system for their market.  Clients hate it when I tell them there is no single rational
coordinate system.  Market coordinates are different for every market, despite what Gartner and the Magic
Quadrant gurus in residence there promote.

Different markets are … well … different.  Some of nascent and others
are mature.  Some involve complex technologies while others are made of
more simple stuff.  Certain markets require intricate webs of technology
partnerships while others allow for stand-alone solutions.  Thus, the first
job in positioning is to know your position on the map of your market,
and that requires first knowing your market.  Green technology CEOs
intoxicated with the desire to change the world and profit like a pirate ( or tax
collector ) are in too much of a hurry to take these rational and requisite steps.

The other vague term is "positioning."  The term is vague in part
because it encompasses three distinct elements:

  • Articulating your current position so that people inside your company
    know where you are today.
  • Articulating to people outside of your company where you want them to
    believe you are positioned.
  • Knowing the position you want to acquire in the future.

Internally articulating your position is important because if people within your company do not have a
realistic perspective on your competitive position, they cannot have realistic
expectations about their chances for promoting, selling, and servicing your
product.  Leadership is communications, and if you are not
communicating your product/corporate position to your staff then you are failing to lead.

The second aspect, articulating to the market the position you want them to
believe you hold, is tricky.  Typically such communications are sanitized
versions of your true position ( after all, stating you hold a position radically
different than what you actually hold will always be fatal ).  Often you need
to make your company or products appear to hold a slightly different position
than they do in order to bring parity-of-image with a close competitor.

Most importantly, positioning makes more obvious the progressions you should
take in growing the product or company.  A market map that plots you and
your competitors will often show where the market is under served.  You can
often see where the next two or three logical progression are in
product/corporate growth.  This insight helps to guide product development,
marketing and marcom efforts, and keep sales from overreaching their prospect
qualifications criteria. 

Most importantly, it will devastate your competitors because they are not
this disciplined.  You will in effect be two steps ahead of them two years
in advance and always acquiring market share that they are ignoring.  If
you are a start-up, this feeds your go-to-market planning which adds to your VC
pitches and gives them a greater understanding and level of assurance for
success.  Most importantly, it lays the foundation for total market
dominance.

June 12, 2007

Linux Desktop Market Crack

Back when SuSE was a struggling Linux distributor, I helped them define their go-to-market strategy.  Talking to a pack of German Open Source techies about how to sell to American enterprises was slightly less pleasant than being beaten with blunt objects.  This is not an insult to Germans, technologists or Open Source advocates, though the combination proved to be painful.

Part of the SuSE product line was their desktop disto.  Even in those primitive days, the SuSE desktop was a compelling argument.  It contained everything a nominal information worker would need to be productive, aside from indoctrinated addiction to Microsoft products.  Creating a compelling story for CIOs was tricky as adopting a Linux desktop outside of IT presented a number of risks and expenses, and this was before Microsoft starting catapulting intellectual property layers at Open Source vendor ramparts.

In the passing years I have been waiting to see a "market shift" event, one that would show the market itself was willing to actively explore a Linux desktop.  There have been many anecdotal tales of Linux desktop adoption, but nothing that indicated that demand was growing on a broad basis within enterprises.  One dramatic proxy would have been third parties becoming involved in Linux desktop deployments.  When a non-Linux vendor makes an effort to promote Linux, they do so because there has been some degree of demand expressed by the market.

Enter Capgemini.  Cap is one of the foremost technology consultancies, spanning 30 countries and chewing a couple of billion Euros in revenue each  quarter.  Much of Cap’s branding revolves around developing a tight partnership with their clients, performing due diligence on new technologies, and identifying how to leverage them for good business value.

Recently, Cap and Novell announced an alliance for pushing Novell solutions to Capgemini clients.  Such "non-noucements" are typically snore fests, with little real news that affects competition or markets.  However, this one prominently displayed the mutual goal of identifying quot;opportunities for Linux desktop deployments with the services firm also ramping up its SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop expertise."  I suspect Cap would not be interested in identifying Linux desktop opportunities unless their customers had not been inquiring to some degree.  Phrased differently, Capgemini is not going to risk their brand by force feeding customers technologies that will be rejected out of hand.

At the risk of reading too much into a single paragraph in an otherwise vague press release, we have to see this as a crack in market resistance.  While helping SuSE peddle their early desktop, many CIOs expressed interest in the concept of a Linux desktop though they were not ready to talk seriously about a test deployment.  Now that Linux is occupying a huge share of their server farm real estate, the thought of a Linux desktop is not out of the question.  If we see a joint "customer win" announcement between Novell and Cap for a significant Linux desktop deployment, then we will know the market is shifting.

And if we see Microsoft F.U.D. the announcement, then we will be sure.

June 5, 2007

Channeling HP

I like to pick on HP more than most people, so it is odd I now must praise
them.

Back when I was on the other side of the B2B technology exchange, I was
primarily an HP customer.  I ran shops with multiple minis of varying HP
operating system flavors (RTE, MPE, HPUX) and thus had a deep love/hate
relationship with the company.  To this day I keep a number of HP
executives in my virtual Rolodex and hound them when necessary or advantageous.

For a long time it appeared that HP’s PC business was going to go the way of
IBM’s, namely "out the door."  Sales were weak, and the fatter margins
promised by the Compaq merger were not evident.  HP went toe-to-toe with
Dell, attempting to clone their success without ever coming close.  Mass
customization was not something HP was going to be good at, and like all things
Carley inspired, was heading for the technology sewer.

Two things happened at about the same time that changed HP’s PC fortunes. 
First the market changed.  Dell was the PC king when mass customization was
demanded by the market.  Keep in mind that Dell grew during the period when
PCs were fragile, components were expensive, and building system to order
allowed consumers to get what they wanted without overspending.  Michael
Dell saw the weakness in the market (incompatible system, limited store
selection, and high prices) and made a business out of eliminating those
problems for the consumer.

But the market changed, to which HP responded and Dell did not.  First,
components became more standardized and the price of components fell through the
floor.  My bookkeeping system reports that I gave Dell $3,500 back in 1998
for well loaded desktop.  Today a server grade desktop with a quad
processor costs around $2,000 at CompUSA.  This is due primarily to
standardization, which kicked a key differentiator out from under Dell. 
Take away the need for mass customization, and you remove mass sales.

About the time this market shift occurred, HP installed Todd Bradley at the helm of their Personal Systems Group, that
included oversight of PCs.  Todd came from Palm, an outfit that had both
good direct sales and retail sales of consumer products.  Todd understood
that PCs were now over configured for the average user, meaning that most users
didn’t require customization or many feature tradeoffs.  Consumers needed
competitive prices and instant gratification, which can only be had at a retail
outlet.  Soon thereafter the shelves of every office supply and computer
store were filled with HP hardware.  The prices were low, the features
competitively rich, and you could take it home today.

IBM never saw this opportunity because IBM is IBM, and makes it’s money
selling expensive gear to enterprises.  Today HP is happily schizophrenic,
selling both enterprise and consumer technology goods.  It took time, and
it took getting consumer marketers like Bradley into the mix.  Recent news
shows Dell playing catch-up and elbowing their way onto retail shelves, sadly by
fishing on the bottom of the lake by peddling through Wal*Mart
("Hey, honey,
fetch me a 12-pack of BVDs, some shotgun shells, and a Dell Core Duo" ). 
Though not abandoning their direct sales model, they have a bit to learn about
resurrecting a brand that suits retail sales, as well as manufacturing to meet
the perpetual feature/price crush of the PC market.  I would bet they do
well, but HP now has the commanding lead and Dell has an uphill battle ahead.

The marketing take-away is this: markets change, and complacency kills. 
Recognizing a shift in your market, and acting on that shift is essential to
staying alive.  No market is static, and neither are your competitors.

 
Contact    Site Map    Search    Privacy    Copyright