lustratus REPAMA

Archive for the ‘oracle’ Category

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.

As the saying goes, if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish then the chances are that it is a fish.  Likewise by any measure the products in the recent REPAMA study into the ESB market segment certainly appear to be ESBs but why then is none of the vendors content with describing their products simply as an “ESB”.

As the REPAMA Marketing Element Distribution (MED) chart below shows, the ESB vendors in the study (Microsoft ESB Guidance 1.0, Oracle Service Bus, Progress Sonic ESB, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus) used the following adjectives, qualifiers, modifiers and euphemisms to describe the offer category of their “ESB”.

• A loosely-coupled messaging environment
• A comprehensive Enterprise Service Bus offering
• Architectural guidance, patterns and practices
• Messaging-based Enterprise Service Bus
• Enterprise-class SOA Enterprise Service Bus
• High performance, scalable SOA integration backbone
• Lightweight Enterprise Service Bus
• Mediation Layer
• Enterprise Service Bus

Words are wonderful things and marketing organisations as experienced as these wouldn’t use words without a reason.  As mentioned previously in this blog entry, when a category becomes as ultra-competitive as the ESB space, vendors will attempt to segment and re-segment the market on their terms and the product category is the first place they start.

As a result, there is a raft of valuable competitive intelligence in this simple list of words above (visualised by wordle.net).  Why is each vendor modifying the product category in this way?  Answer that question and you’ll gain an insight into the particular position within the ESB segment that each vendor is trying to own.

Danny Goodall.

Just a quick note to say that the REPAMA Segment Analysis Study into the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) has been published on the Lustratus.com site.  The ESB is a segment that Lustratus knows well as we’ve carried out strategic marketing work for most of the key protagonists at some point.  That said, there were a number of surprises – chief amongst these was some of the competitive differentiation strategies that we saw as well as the markedly different approach taken by Microsoft.

The study reverse-engineered the go-to-market strategies of the following vendors and products:

• Microsoft ESB Guidance 1.0
• Oracle Service Bus
• Progress Sonic ESB
• TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus

In reaction to client feedback, we’ve published two sets of reports with this particular study   I’ve created a summary report that contains a management summary of the state of vendor marketing strategies in the ESB market segment as well as the results of the full-blown REPAMA Segment Analysis Study.

Danny Goodall

The Unique Selling Proposition

Throughout this series of blogs I’ve been examining the format of the positioning statement that we use in our REPAMA consultancy and analysis services.

In this final entry in the series I’m going to close out by looking at the pay-off, the crescendo, the exclamation mark at the end of the positioning statement – the USP or unique selling proposition.

But first, and for one last time, let’s take a look at this element in the context of the complete positioning statement.

FOR [the ideal customer] WHO [has this specific pain or problem] OUR [product name] IS A[product category] THAT PROVIDES [this main benefit and reason to buy] UNLIKE[the primary alternative or competitor] OUR PRODUCT [has this unique selling proposition].

USP is one of those over-used terms that has found friends at all levels of responsibility throughout sales and marketing organisations. I’ve heard everyone from line of business managers, to sales people to CEOs use this term.  Everyone feels they have a handle on it and over time the term has come to generically mean “differentiator”.  Whilst I’m in favour of strategic marketing concepts finding friends throughout an organisation, there is a considerable amount of subtlety and craft missing from the “common” understanding of the USP.  So let’s start with some definitions and perhaps a little bit of history.

Rosser Reeves – what a great name.  He sounds like he should have been some shady 1940s London underworld gangster.  But he wasn’t.  Instead he was an advertising man, one of the first in fact and it was he who brought us the concept of the unique selling proposition.  For him, its use and definition were rooted in (print) advertising and as such the formal definition assumes that the USP is being used in some form of promotional campaign.  There was also an implied assumption that we were dealing with business-to-consumer advertising too.  Since then we’ve broadened the definition to think of it as any general proposition made via any medium (adverts, web site, emails, phone calls, face-to-face conversations, etc.) whether that be business-to-business or business-to-consumer based.  Whilst the use of the USP may have changed, the disciplines and thought processes used in its creation are still valid today.

The definition below is taken from the book Differentiate or Die (survival in our era of killer competition) by Jack Trout and Steve Rivkin.  In this book the authors refer to Rosser Reeves’ 1961 work Reality in Advertising from which they quote Reeves’ three-part USP definition:

1. Each advertisement must make a proposition to the consumer.  Not just words, not just product puffery, not just show-window advertising.  Each advertisement must say to each reader “Buy this product, and you will get this specific benefit.”
2. The proposition must be one that the competition either cannot, or does not, offer.  It must be unique – either a uniqueness of the brand or a claim not otherwise made in that particular field of advertising.
3. The proposition must be so strong that it can move the mass millions (i.e. to pull over new customers to your product).

As I mentioned above, whilst many of these disciplines are still valid, there is now so much competition in just about every market category, segment and sub-segment that being “unique” is increasingly more difficult.  So it’s no surprise that many of the USPs I see when reverse-engineering vendor’s positioning statements are often just SPs - with little or nothing unique about them.

When looking at the USP in the context of the positioning statement its important to remember that the “OUR PRODUCT” positioning element is typically paired with the “UNLIKE” section.  The UNLIKE element sets up the main alternative and the OUR PRODUCT element describes the USP that the alternative doesn’t have.

As shown below:

UNLIKE [the primary alternative or competitor] OUR PRODUCT [has this unique selling proposition]

The biggest challenge in defining this element of the positioning statement is in defining that unique space (number 2 on Rosser Reeves’ list above).  With product categories, segments and sub-segments so granular across many markets and with ultra competitive competitors competing within each of those segments, finding a position that only you can own is not the work of a moment.  In addition its important to remember that we’re not just trying to find a unique space, but a unique space that has compelling value to the consumer/customer as outlined in Reeves’ point 1 above.

In reality what tends to happen (in my experience of the infrastructure software space) is that the first entrant to the market (first mover) aims for something unique which is then “flatteringly” copied by later entrants to the market.  To later entrants this makes sense as they want to have some of the pie of the first movers and are happy to trade uniqueness for being perceived as similar to the market leaders.  Understandably it makes sense to “look” like the first mover.  This tends to lead to what I call “standards-based marketing” and simply creates a homogeneity of messages and propositions amongst the market protagonists.  This leads to little real differentiation and leaves prospects studying highly technical features to really understand the differences between products.

Examples

• OUR PRODUCT removes up to 20% of data centre costs whilst reducing your carbon footprint
• OUR PRODUCT starts reducing risk from day one.
• OUR PRODUCT not only integrates with your existing systems but also provides comprehensive management capabilities
• OUR PRODUCT ends world hunger (Well maybe not – but you get the idea)

Real world example

(If you have a specific interest in the SOA and ESB market you might find this section interesting…)  In our latest REPAMA Segment Analysis Study we looked at how a number of ESB vendors approach the market.  The vendors and products studied included Oracle’s Service Bus, Progress Software’s Sonic ESB, TIBCO’s ActiveMatrix Service Bus and Microsoft’s ESB Guidance.  Reverse engineering these vendors’ positioning statements gave some interesting insights and as an example I’ve listed Microsoft’s USP section below:

OUR PRODUCT provides a superset of ESB functionality, extending the ESB pattern to include modelling and execution of business rules, workflow, and adapter integration.

Here Microsoft selects a pretty strong USP.  They claim that UNLIKE other ESBs they provide extended functionality.  Whilst other ESBs may legitimately say  that they also offer extended functionality, these vendors may not actually be making that claim.  So this certainly passes Rosser Reeves’ test above.

The basis for this claimed USP is that their ESB Guidance is underpinned by their BizTalk product – which features broader functionality than other “simple” ESBs.  I think this is a pretty well constructed USP – despite the fact that the rest of Microsoft’s marketing for the ESB Guidance is pretty poor.  Perhaps this is a function of the non-product nature of ESB Guidance.

In summary when defining the OUR PRODUCT element we’re looking to communicate a specific benefit that will be delivered that none of the competitors or alternatives is able to offer, all of this couched in language that compels the prospect to take action.

So that’s it for the OUR PRODUCT element and for the positioning statement series too. <More information can be found in the Lustratus REPAMA Guide here>

Danny Goodall.

BTW
It should be borne in mind that Lustratus’ focus is on the high-tech software industry and whilst positioning as a concept will transfer to just about any business to business industry, many of the classifications we use assume that we’re dealing with a technical audience for infrastructure software.  So please bear that in mind for your own industry.

Positioning

Happy 2009! I’ve been in debate with a number of correspondents about the layout and format of the positioning statement that we use in the Lustratus REPAMA-based research.  So I’m going to dedicate the next few blog entries to the positioning statement.  I hope to answer the following questions.

• What is the positioning statement?
• Why use a positioning statement?
• What is the value of a positioning statement?
• What is the format of a positioning statement?

The first thing to say is that over the years, having worked with some of the best product marketing people in the industry, I’ve seen many different approaches to positioning and equally many different formats for positioning statements. Each of them, to a greater or lesser extent has been valuable.  Most positioning statements that I’ve seen and used have had a very similar structure.  Although I have seen some that have been very different, in fact more like a what I would refer to as a value statement or a value proposition.  Perhaps I will revisit them in a future blog but here I’m going to focus on the classic positioning statement.  So as I’ve mentioned there is no single way to construct a positioning statement but Lustratus has settled on a specific format that captures and conveys the seven key product marketing elements and it is this format that I will concentrate on here.

What purpose does the positioning statement serve?

It’s probably best to start with a definition for positioning first.  And if positioning statements are contentious then the the broader subject of positioning is even more so.  Whilst there are many views on this, for me, positioning is about creating a unique, compelling and defensible space in the minds of your prospects where your product/service and only your product/service sits.  Your ideal prospect must feel that you created the product/service for them alone to answer their specific problems and very importantly they must understand exactly how you are different/better that the alternative/competition.  Most product marketing professionals understand this well but as mentioned above, the development of positioning strategies and the statements that captures those strategies can take many different forms.

In my experience most positioning statements are designed to be internal tools for the development and then internal communication of a unique and compelling market proposition.  The positioning statement seldom gets used externally (with customers or prospects) in its raw format.  External marketing communications strategies are typically developed using the internal positioning statement as a guide.

The positioning statement conveys the following seven product marketing elements:

1. The Ideal customer
2. The main pain that the ideal customer has or the negative situation they find themselves in
3. The name of the product
4. The name of the product category – the generic way to refer to the class of product (I often see this omitted)
5. The main benefit that the product provides and the key reason that the prospect should buy the product
6. The primary competition or alternative
7. The unique selling proposition (USP)

The format of a positioning statement

A positioning statement is natural language-based and should read fluidly and easily as a single sentence and yet should contain all seven of the marketing elements above.  This sounds like a complex task and to aid us in that development we use a specific structure for the statement.  This is shown below.

FOR [the ideal customer] WHO [has this specific pain or problem] OUR [product name] IS A [product category] THAT PROVIDES [this main benefit and reason to buy] UNLIKE [the primary alternative or competitor] OUR PRODUCT [has this unique selling proposition].

So the “for”, “who”, “our”, “is a”, “that provides”, “unlike” and “our product” elements give our positioning statement the structure it needs.

An example positioning statement

An example positioning statement is shown below. It is taken from the upcoming Lustratus REPAMA Segment Analysis Study into the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) market segment. In the study we reverse-engineer the seven marketing strategy elements of positioning statement (as well as many others) used by a number of the vendors in the ESB space – in this case the products examined were Microsoft ESB Guidance, Oracle Service Bus, Progress Sonic ESB and TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus.  In the example below we’ve attempted to capture Microsoft’s position and proposition in the ESB market.

FOR Microsoft BizTalk Developers WHO are building solutions that leverage the SOA pattern OUR Microsoft ESB Guidance IS A loosely-coupled messaging environment THAT PROVIDES an infrastructure for enabling a service-oriented architecture UNLIKE traditional ESBs OUR PRODUCT provides a superset of ESB functionality, extending the ESB pattern to include modelling and execution of business rules, workflow, and adapter integration

It’s notoriously difficult to be precise when reverse-engineering a vendor’s positioning statement and sections like the “that provides” and “our product” are especially difficult to define precisely.  But hopefully it shows how an organisation like Microsoft might set about defining its approach to a particular market segment.

In the next several blogs I’ll expand on the positioning statement and cover each of the seven elements in a bit more detail.  <More information can be found in the Lustratus REPAMA Guide here>

Other posts in this series

The Positioning Statement
FOR… positioning element
WHO…positioning element
OUR…positioning element
IS A…positioning element
THAT PROVIDES…positioning element
UNLIKE…positioning element
OUR PRODUCT…positioning element

Danny Goodall.

Working out the depositioning strategy used by specific vendors is normally complex.  Do they actively look to emphasise their positives over their competitors?  Do they look to highlight their competitors’ perceived negative attributes?  Do they infer who the competition is?  Do they actively name the competitors, or the class of competitor?

Reverse-engineering this information usually involves a great deal of inference and subtle interpretation of the way certain features are spun and certain advantages are claimed.  In some cases I even conclude that the vendor has no specific competitive marketing strategy and that no direct depositioning of the competition occurs.  So it was with some mutual professional respect that I started to review Oracle’s marketing for their ESB product as part of our latest REPAMA Segment Analysis Study (SAS) into the ESB market segment (IBM, Oracle, Software AG, Progress, TIBCO, Microsoft).  I realised that Oracle had already done my job for me.

An ex-Oracle marketing VP that I used to work with once told me that Larry Ellison’s DNA runs right through Oracle’s marketing organisation.  That is – kill the market leader until Oracle is the market leader then kill #2.  Expanding upon this tactic looks like this:

1. Claim to be #1 and find some measure by which market leadership can legitimately be claimed
2. Identify the nearest competitor
3. Identify the largest delta in functionality (i.e. the greatest gap between the competitor’s weakness and Oracle’s strength)
4. Tell the world why this factor is so important
5. Tell the world why Oracle is better than the competitor in this regard
6. Acquire competitor if the world won’t listen
7. Repeat ad nauseam until Oracle legitimately is the market leading product

As regular readers or anyone who as looked at the REPAMA Guide will know, amongst 25+ other marketing elements Lustratus monitors vendors’ depositioning strategies as well as the likely (self-perceived) primary competitor or alternative.  As mentioned above I usually have to work hard to find this information, but take a look at some of the text extracts below that are directly lifted from the Oracle marketing literature.

“Unlike other ESBs…”

“Unlike other vendors that require multiple products to ascertain the health of services…”

“Unlike other vendors’ disjointed SOA and business process management (BPM) products…”

And look at the competitive statements that follow the “Unlike” element of the positioning statement…

“[Oracle] has unparalleled quality of services (QoS) with optimum performance, scalability, reliability and management and a unique combination of integration capabilities, embedded management and integrated governance”

“[Oracle] offers integrated service governance and management capabilities across multiple SOA domains to enable consistent QoS, control and visibility, ensuring reuse across the enterprise wide service network”

“Oracle Service Bus delivers built-in capabilities for service virtualization, Web service security (WS-Security), and enforcement of policies around throttling and service pooling to meet the reliability, availability, scalability, and performance requirements and avoid overloading the back-end services for the real-world enterprise-class applications”

“Oracle Service Bus provides built-in monitoring capabilities, including comprehensive dashboards displaying service-level agreement (SLA) alerts, operational metrics, and message pipelines for the business services it hosts.”

“Oracle Service Bus delivers service-oriented BPM by using optimized connectivity for seamless integration with Oracle SOA Suite and Oracle BPM Suite.”

“[Oracle] is the first solution to combine integration, messaging, operational service management, and security-enforcement capabilities”

“[Oracle offers] code free configuration-based service integration”

So full marks to Oracle for both sharpening that marketing knife and for also understanding who to stick it into.  This is a company that truly understands guerrilla product marketing.

That said they’ve got a little bit of an acquisition to swallow at the moment and whilst they are digesting that, they could be fairly easy prey for savvy vendors.  Once digested however, early results suggest they’ll be executing a text book competitive marketing strategy.  And whilst it’s not my role to comment in detail on the product or functional strategy (that’s the job of my colleagues Steve Craggs and Ronan Bradley), from a pure marketing perspective I’d say ESB market beware.

Danny Goodall