lustratus REPAMA

Archive for the ‘competitive’ Category

We’ve just posted a new report up at www.lustratus.com that looks at a number of vendors offering devices that promise to lessen the burden of managing, accelerating and securing a service oriented architecture.

Authored by my colleague Steve Craggs, the report looks at “appliances” including IBM’s DataPower range, Layer 7′s SecureSpan XML Appliance and Intel’s SOA Expressway.  I say “appliances” in inverted commas because Intel’s product is wonderfully described as a software “appliance”. Surely the award for the most spin in a product category goes to Intel.

The document can be found here. Steve tells me that he’s planning to look at devices from the likes of Solace Systems and TIBCO in future reports.

Danny Goodall

I was having a drink the other day with an old friend and potential future client.

We were discussing the competitive situation in the market in which his company competes. He knows that I’ve carried out some marketing positioning work for some of his competitors and so we got on to the subject of an industry event that he attended recently.

He told me that both he and one of his competitors (who I’ve carried out some positioning work for) gave a presentation at the event. Whilst he didn’t find his competitor’s presentation very credible (no surprise there), he did say that he was frustrated that in speaking to a couple of potential customers in the audience after the event, his competitor’s key differentiation message was clearly remembered.

I laughed and told him that I was responsible for the message. Whilst I often hear from our clients that a specific positioning strategy that we helped to create is resonating with the market, I don’t very often get such direct evidence from one of their competitors. Modesty, not to mention a non-disclosure agreement, prevents me from disclosing the message or the client but suffice to say that it contains four of the most powerful words that this particularly technology vendor can deliver to their prospective clients to differentiate themselves from most of their competition. These words make sense to prospective clients, convey a complex technical differentiator and lay a trap for competitors and, like the conservative party has done to the Labour party, they will make life difficult for my friend and future client.

Even after all these years, the thought that four words can do all that makes me smile.

Danny Goodall

I watched the 2nd televised leaders’ debate the other evening and was struck by the maturity of some of the competitive marketing campaigns conducted by the UK’s political parties.

(Please get through this rather turgid and wordy description of the state of current political debate in the UK – there is a marketing-related point to this.)

Here’s the long-hand description of the most significant ideological and tactical difference between the two main parties contesting the UK general election.

To those readers who are not familiar with the subtleties of UK politics we have an incumbent government formed by the Labour party. The majority opposition is formed by the Conservative party with the minority opposition coming from the Liberal Democrats. There are also a number of fringe political parties representing varying degrees of extreme views and specific geographic areas.

A significant difference in ideology between the Labour and Conservative positions is found in their approach to the method and timing for addressing the massive budget deficit that the UK has since borrowing to prop the economy up. The Labour government proposes to increase individual and corporation National Insurance (NI) tax payments which is a secondary taxation levied on earnings in addition to our Pay as you Earn (PAYE) income tax. The Labour government argues that this taxation is needed in order that the country can start to pay off borrowing. The Conservative opposition agrees that there is an urgent requirement to bring down the deficit BUT they believe that this money can be found by cutting fat from what they see as a bloated government.

These productivity savings, they argue, will more than equate to the money that would have been raised from the increase in NI. The labour goverment disputes that this level of saving can be achieved through productivity savings and say that services will suffer as a result. The Conservative opposition refutes this. And so we have some real differentiation between the parties’ policies..

The problem that both parties have, as I hope I’ve proved with this rather dry analysis of UK political prattling, is that the electorate at large finds this sort of debate boring, complex, difficult to break down and of little tangible importance to them. It’s just an inscrutable academic discussion between people that they’re not really sure they trust.

What has this got to do with a technology marketing blog?

Jobs Tax

The Conservative opposition has encapsulated this entire argument into a single, easy to use, easy to remember, difficult to refute and highly damaging phrase – “Jobs Tax”. The term has become the banner under which the Conservative opposition has united behind and which they use to succinctly describe the key difference between themselves and labour and the main benefit one would enjoy if one were to vote for them. All senior members of the Conservative party election team have obviously been drilled to repeat these two words ad nauseum,

They claim that Labour’s “tax on jobs” will result in companies hiring less people, laying off  more people and ultimately slowing down economic recovery. As proof they have enlisted a large number of business leaders who are willing to say that if the Labour government is re-elected then jobs will be lost through this “jobs tax”.

Without betraying any political leanings whatsoever, I have to say that this is a well executed positioning campaign and a wonderful example of competitive depositioning. It takes the power of a “competitor’s” feature, uses the energy with which they promote this in the market and turns it against the competitor and to their own advantage. Every time that the Labour government “advertise” their NI policy, large swathes of the electorate deposition this in their minds as a “jobs tax” which they associate as being a bad thing.

What effect this will have on the result I do not know but I have to applaud the spin doctors (not something I am given to doing lightly)  behind such a nifty piece of competitive marketing.

Danny Goodall

As mentioned earlier in these pages I’m documenting my quest to arrive at a market segmentation model of the cloud computing market. This will allow me to perform a series of REPAMA competitive marketing studies into various vendors in the cloud computing space. I’m uncovering more and more interesting research as I go and one such piece is described below.

The smart people at NIST (The US Governmental agency responsible for something or other – standards I think) have released some interesting work on cloud computing. Aimed at reaching a common set of definitions around cloud computing and its use cases, but recognising that these will change over time, their work can be found here.

I’ve reproduced some sections below because I think they add something to my quest to segment the cloud computing market. That said, I think they’ve omitted, perhaps consciously, an important characteristic and that is the commercial arrangements around cloud computing – namely its pay per use nature.

Anyway here goes:

A Definition of Cloud Computing:

Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model promotes availability and is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.

Essential Characteristics of Cloud Computing

On-demand self-service. A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service’s provider.

Broad network access. Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, laptops, and PDAs).

Resource pooling. The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, network bandwidth, and virtual machines.

Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out and rapidly released to quickly scale in. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be purchased in any quantity at any time.

Measured Service. Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service.

Service Models:

Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure. The applications are accessible from various client devices through a thin client interface such as a web browser (e.g., web-based email). The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, storage, or even individual application capabilities, with the possible exception of limited user-specific application configuration settings.

Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications created using programming languages and tools supported by the provider. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, or storage, but has control over the deployed applications and possibly application hosting environment configurations.

Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to provision processing, storage, networks, and other fundamental computing resources where the consumer is able to deploy and run arbitrary software, which can include operating systems and applications. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure but has control over operating systems, storage, deployed applications, and possibly limited control of select networking components (e.g., host firewalls).

Deployment Models:

Private cloud. The cloud infrastructure is operated solely for an organization. It may be managed by the organization or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.

Community cloud. The cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations). It may be managed by the organizations or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.

Public cloud. The cloud infrastructure is made available to the general public or a large industry group and is owned by an organization selling cloud services.

Hybrid cloud. The cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more clouds (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities but are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting for load-balancing between clouds).

I think this is a really nice and compact definition of cloud computing it characteristics and use cases. I particularly like the notes on deployment models which I certainly want to incorporate into my cloud computing market segmentation.

Kudos to Peter Mell and Tim Grance of NIST!

Danny Goodall

Just a quick note to say that I’ve updated the Lustratus REPAMA Guide to version 1.1. I’ve added three more studies that have been part of our analysis for some time but hadn’t quite found their way into the guide.

These are:

• Depositioning focus
• Differentiation strategy
• Perceived threat

All of these studies are concerned with interpreting how the vendors under scrutiny approach competitive differentiation in one way or another and are now explained in the guide.

The Lustratus REPAMA guide is available for download, and for the first time in HTML format. Click here for more information.

In putting together our REPAMA analysis into the go-to-market strategies of the vendors in the cloud computing space, we first must arrive at an agreed segmentation of the market. This blog documents that process.

OK so as I mentioned here, I am going to carry out a series of REPAMA Segment Analysis Studies into the cloud computing market. The desired end product is a series of reverse-engineered go-to-market strategies for a set of vendors in each of the categories within the cloud computing market. But first I need to decide on the segmentation of the various technical offers in the cloud computing space.  After that I need to decide which vendors fit into each of the different proposition segments. This series of blogs will capture my journey through this analysis.

Where to start? Well I thought that my colleagues Steve Craggs and Ronan Bradley at Lustratus Research (the market analyst part of Lustratus) would be able to give me a definitive answer on the segmentation of the cloud computing market but as Steve told me, right now there isn’t a universally agreed way of describing the various categories of propositions under the cloud computing banner. Whilst he feels their are some obvious high-level classifications, under there things are a bit grey.

The problem is two-fold. Firstly, it appears that as the cloud computing market is currently at an early stage (albeit using what now are some pretty mature technologies); the propositions have grown, merged, change direction and are only now starting to find live customers amongst enterprises; so categorisation has proved difficult.  Secondly, the analysts involved in this space each has a vested interest in classifying the market on their terms and importantly in a different way to their analyst competitors – a game they will play until the market matures.

So I decided that I would capture the opinion of the great and the good of analysts and vendors alike and come up with our own classification. And in doing this a number of existing works stood out.

1. Peter Lairds – On-Demand Blog Classification

Peter Laird’s “Laird On-Demand blog“, and in particular this post, documents his efforts to arrive at a market taxonomy for Cloud Computing together with a nascent list of the vendors that fit into each category. As you can see from the diagram on the right, Peter is a fellow fan of mind mapping (it’s how Lustratus collects, collates and generally makes sense of the raw data behind the REPAMA studies), his classification has a simplistic appeal that I like.

At the highest level Peter divides the cloud market into

• Infrastructure
• Platform
• Services
• Applications

I feel that this a good way of looking at the cloud market and one that works well for my purposes. I also like the way Peter has classified private and public cloud seperately.  From the perspective of the REPAMA analysis I will be conducting, this is an important distinction between the various vendors’ propositions. (This despite the fact that the same software and vendors may appear in both categories).

2. OpenCrowd Taxonomy

Another interesting approach is provided by OpenCrowd.  I don’t know OpenCrowd but they appear to be a RIA vendor but also deep thinkers who really understand the major trends in the markets in which they compete. They’ve looked at cloud computing and have come up with a very thorough classification as shown in the diagram on the right.

They see the market also categorised into 4 high-level categories:

• Infrastructure Services
• Cloud Software
• Platform Services
• Software Services

OpenCrowd has also gone to considerable effort to sub-categorise these high-level categories and also to identify specific vendors associated with those sub-categories. Again I like this approach for its thoroughness although having looked at some of the vendors in each of the categories, its clear that they have been placed there/asked to be placed there simply because they want to bask in the reflected glory of the cloud computing market, as opposed to having a dedicated or specific cloud focus.

3. Christofer Hoff’s Cloud Model

Finally, a more technical classification comes from Christofer Hoff in his highly entertaining and incredibly well thought out security-focused blog – Rational Survivability. In this entry Hoff publishes his architectural model which appears to be largely aimed at understanding the interaction, dependencies and relationships between the architectural components in a cloud architecture from a security perspective.

It’s useful to have an architectural model to work with as this helps to validate that the vendor-led offers into the cloud market as described above, have some basis in fact. Whilst it won’t figure in my market-led classifications I have added it here for completeness.

So I’m still in the process of collecting my ideas and I’d like to take bit of 1. and 2. above and merge them into something that better reflects the vendors’ perspectives of how they take their products to market. I also need to first ensure that both Peter and OpenCrowd are comfortable with me doing that. The model I arrive at will necessarily be far simplified too as for the purposes of my vendor to vendor comparisons, I need to ensure that I group vendors together that compete even if they don’t intellectually appear to fit into the same market categorisation.  Watch this space.

Danny Goodall.

• Infrastructure
  Public
  Private
  Infrastructure
  Platform
  Biz Users Platforms
  Dev Platforms
  Services
  Storage
  Integrate
  Enablers
  Applications

I hope you like the alliterative heading for the blog which was born from some work I’ve been doing recently for a client.  I’m not sure that diffident is exactly the right word but there was no way that I was going to ditch it when it looks so beautiful set against all those “diff” words.

Anyway, I was struck recently by the reluctance of some people to fully embrace the concept and importance of aggressive differentiation.  Whilst I’ve long understood that different types of people reach decisions about products (and lots of other things too) in different ways based on our bias towards one of the following psychological functions (Intuition, thinking, feeling and sensing), I’ve seldom before encountered this on the vendor side of the marketing battle.

I’m certainly not sitting in judgement on this.  On the contrary it has made me look carefully at the way I work with my clients moving forward.  My client has a very strong business and is growing at an incredible rate but they are starting to encounter stiff competition hence my involvement.  I’ve been working on strategies to help to grab a position in the market for them that will undermine their competitors and am pretty pleased with the results.  It’s been a great project and I’ve really enjoyed working with them, they are top people and have great products.  The problem lies in their reluctance to stick out their chest, beat the drum and proclaim their greatness.  They are, I guess you would say, corporately shy.

It made me dust off my copy of Differentiate or Die by Jack Trout to review the psychology of differentiation but this time from the perspective of the vendor.  It set me thinking there is no “one” way to build differentiation strategy.  Whilst it’s important to be able understand the behaviour of your target audience, it’s also important to ensure that you are happy with the chosen strategy and that it sits well with the philosophy and perhaps even the ideology of the company itself.

For example could Company A, staffed and populated by conservative and modest management feel comfortable going to market with a message of “We’re different from Company B because we do X better than them”?  It’s not an easy step for them to take.  The opposite of this would be to expect a vendor who really understands competitive differentiation such Oracle to say “Test our product and it will speak for itself”.  Whilst this might be true a company like Oracle will never turn up the opportunity to thrust the differentiation dagger into the chest of the competition.

Somewhere in the middle lies the truth I guess.  There is immense credibility, not to mention the moral high ground in looking to let your product win the battle for you.  But equally, aggressive marketing by aggressive competitors can cause you to be de-positioned in the eyes of your prospects such that they think they know where you are positioned and won’t even bother to evaluate the product.

So I’m going to cover this subject in a series of short blogs taking a look how differentiation works from a psychological perspective and how this translates into corporate psychology.

Danny Goodall.

Just a quick note to say that the updated High Performance Messaging REPAMA Segment Analysis Study has been uploaded to the Lustratus site.  It now contains the reverse-engineered product marketing strategy for TIBCO’s Messaging Appliance P-7500.  Existing customers and Lustratus research subscription holders will already have been contacted with details of free upgrades.

Following on from the blog entry I made when the first version of the report was released I thought I’d show the updated value proposition below.  As I mentioned in a previous blog entry TIBCO’s primary competitive focus is very unusual – it is TIBCO Rendezvous – one of its own products.  The different approach to the market doesn’t stop there as you’ll see from the report extract below.  TIBCO also plough its own furrow by taking a different proposition to the market when compared with most of their competitors.  This one based around green IT and data centre costs (in addition to the obligatory low latency = competitive advantage proposition).

For more information on the REPAMA methodology visit here.

Danny Goodall.

So closing out this series of posts looking at differentiation in markets where technical standards have caused little technical difference between products, I’m going to look at standards bodies and technical education as a technique to create differentiation.

Preach the gospel – Educate

The first point to make is that in my experience products that have developed through the process of ratification of technical standards, first find an audience amongst the technical community.  This means that there is an opportunity, albeit with a finite window of opportunity, to become the first vendor to provide education together with access to evaluation software for these early technical evaluators.

I’ve had first hand experience of this early stage marketing exercise.  We fed the thirst for knowledge and the need for evaluation software (to mix metaphors) to build a loyal community of technical evaluators, developers and systems architects.  We were able to craft an image for the company as the developer-friendly standards implementer, the first company to turn to when wanting to understand how the standards should be interpreted and implemented.

Obviously at some point you have to turn this rather “altruistic” approach into a business that  licences software and keeping that audience with you as you do this is not easy.

“Work” the standards bodies

Another technique that can be exploited, although it needs significant “muscle” to be able to carry off, is that of leading that standards-bodies.  Again I’ve had experience of working for a relatively small vendor that was represented on standards-bodies where we came up against larger vendors.  These vendors were able to almost completely dictate the direction of the body through a mix of funding, bluff, bluster and threats.  It was an interesting process to observe and the outcome, whilst not being everything that larger vendor wanted to achieve, was that they were able to grab territory from other vendors on the committee.  If a camel is a horse designed by committee then all I can say is count the humps on the back of the standard when a large technology vendor charitably volunteers to donate 50 man years of code to “expedite” the adoption of the standard.

Time to abandon standards

Lastly, understanding at what point it is right to move on from the standards to create a “proprietary” offer is important.  This may not be a public admission that your product now features proprietary capabilities alongside the standards-based functionality, but the point will come when in order to take the product forward at the pace required standards become secondary.

Using this message of “We have used standards to get ourselves to this point but now we need to implement specific technology to deliver what the market really needs” can be powerful but is a double-edged sword.  Being seen to “abandon” standards in this way can have a very negative reaction.  Whilst this would typically only happen once the market has reached the later stages of maturity, the benefit to the vendor that can first differentiate with proprietary features whilst externally still being perceived to embrace the philosophy of standards is significant.

So if you can be seen as more devout than the other guys, and preach the standards gospel further afield than anyone else, you can grab a position in the market that other vendors will struggle to defend.

Danny Goodall

I’m carrying on this series of posts on how vendors can differentiate themselves in the market when technical standards have had the effect of removing significant functional difference between competitive products.

This time I’m going to look at partnering to create differentiation in your offer.  Whilst the product proposition will remain materially similar to that of the standards-driven competition, a proposition carved from the synergies of the product and a strategic partner can be beneficial.

Partnering – Other complimentary vendors

As I suggested in this post, broadening the product portfolio is one way to create differentiation.  Whilst this can be done through internal product development, it is also possible to broaden the product proposition through strategic partnerships.  Obviously there are some ground rules here.  Firstly the products must be complimentary in that they should not overlap functionally.  Secondly the resultant product set must take the vendor into new areas when compare to the competition.  Thirdly, the partner must not have the same resultant product set themselves or conflicts can occur.  Lastly, the resultant feature set must not be too much of a departure for your sales team to credibly take to market.  If, to sell the partner’s products would require your own sales team to take on skills that they don’t naturally posses, this can be counter productive.  All of these caveats notwithstanding, one shouldn’t underestimate the value of partnering for obfuscation.  i.e. you partner to achieve a tick in the box and to create differentiation with no real intention of selling the partner’s products.

Partnering – Professional services

Similar in concept to the ideas I discussed on methodologies, differentiation can be created around how you implement your technology within your customer’s organisation.  Third-party system integrators or boutique technical consultancies can add value and create differentiation in your offer.  If you are going to rely on a third party organisation to create differentiation like this. it is essential that the reputation of the third party is second to none and that they provide something that you alone cannot.  Perhaps access to a different audience strata or a reference customer base you don’t posses.  In addition you should be wary of laying yourself open to the challenge that your proposition is so different or complex that you require specialist third-party services to implement it.

Partner – Embed your technology

Finally, the ultimate differentiation through a third party is to embed your technology within a third-party’s product.  Not really differentiation as typically when this embedding is carried out your own proposition is actually hidden within that of the embedding vendor’s offering.  That said, I have had first hand experience of using embedding deals like as references to create differentiation.

The claim that “We’re the solution that is embedded in ACME Corp’s product” can have a significant positive impact on credibility.

I’ll close out this discussion in the next post when I look at the use of standards bodies and technical education for differentiation.

Danny Goodall