Posts Tagged ‘differentiation’

I’ve just uploaded the first draft of my latest Cloud Computing REPAMA Segment Analysis Study.

This time I’ve looked at a couple of vendors in the Cloud Software / Cloud Management / Application Services Management segment (using the Lustratus REPAMA Cloud Computing market taxonomy / segmentation model). Specifically I’ve reverse-engineered the key go-to-market strategies of 3Tera and Appistry. I will add another couple of vendors to the study as time goes on but for the moment I thought these would be two good candidates to start with. They are very different companies with very different product approaches to solving similar, if not quite the same problems. I wanted to spend a little time here highliting some of the interesting findings.

Differentiation

I’ve already blogged on my concern that Cloud Computing vendors/ providers are currently differentiating themselves against previous paradigms as opposed to creating differentiation strategies versus their real competitors – i.e. other cloud computing solutions. So it’s no surprise to see that this trend continues in this study with 3Tera. Looking at where 3Tera fires its competitive differentiation fire power in the UNLIKE element of the positioning statement we can see that the focus is:

traditional dedicated infrastructure

To be honest this is an implied competitor/alternative because whilst 3Tera is very clear on its value proposition and target audience, it doesn’t appear to engage in traditional competitive differentiation. Nowhere does 3Tera clearly define what type of solution they feel they are a better alternative to. There is an obvious implied competitor / alternative which is the traditional ways of doing things. But this is never called out explicitly by 3Tera.

Appistry is clearer on its competitive situation. It believes that its competitive differentiation lies versus:

infrastructure approaches to cloud computing

The implication here is that Appistry focuses on the application and not the infrastructure which they believe yields many benefits.

Existing Applications

One area of strong correlation between the vendors in this study is that they both stress their ability to work with existing applications. This correlation suggests that this is a key customer requirement in this particular market segment. As shown in the chart below:

As you can see from the dashed pink line on the chart above (which represents the market mean – the average marketing strategy for this segment) there is strong support for existing applications in addition to the somewhat obvious “table stakes” feature of automated application deployment and management.

Value Proposition

Another strong area of correlation is in the value proposition. The first chart below shows the raw claims made by each vendor for the value they ascribe to their product offer.

Much of these categories of benefit/value are fairly generic and are all very similar to the the value propositions I would expect to see for a cloud computing product. When these value propositions are interpreted against our MITICOR value proposition classification, we can see a very strong correlation between the products of the different vendors as the chart below shows.

The value proposition for both of these products boils down to operational improvement and cost saving which again is very much as I would expect for a cloud computing technology in this segment.

Positioning Statements

I’m not completely 100% happy with either of these positioning statements as both of these companies appear to aim everywhere and focus nowhere. This lack of focus is important to note in itself as it is common in immature markets, but it does make nailing down a semi-accurate reverse-engineered positioning statement a little tricky. But here they are:

3Tera AppLogic Positioning Statement

FOR organisations looking to deploy successful online services to millions of users WHO are struggling to manage the complexity of the infrastructure required to serve online services to online users OUR AppLogic IS A grid operating system for web applications THAT PROVIDES the ability to assemble existing software into portable applications that run on any grid and scale from a fraction of a server to hundreds of servers with a single command UNLIKE traditional dedicated infrastructure OUR PRODUCT makes it extremely easy to deploy scalable web applications without dedicated IT resources and personnel

Appistry CloudIQ Platform Positioning Statement

FOR enterprises seeking to take advantage of cloud computing WHO need to migrate existing applications to the cloud and virtualized environments OUR CloudIQ Platform IS A Cloud application platform THAT PROVIDES enterprises with the ability to move multiple existing applications to the cloud and manage them across multiple cloud environments UNLIKE infrastructure-focussed approaches to cloud computing OUR PRODUCT allows existing applications to be packaged and deployed to a cloud without re-architecture

Both statements are weak in the target customer and their respective pain, need or desire reflecting the lack of clarity in their outbound marketing.

Slides

I’ve placed a slide deck which expands upon this research on Slideshare.net and this is embedded below. If you’d like more information on this study or a copy of the slides, please contact me. Details of  how to interpret REPAMA studies can be found in the Lustratus REPAMA Guide here.

Danny Goodall

I had a meeting with a prospective client earlier in the week and we were chatting about how differentiation and positioning in Cloud Computing has to mature.

The contention was that cloud computing vendors and service providers today are too inwardly-focussed and that they should look at the external market to determine their competitive marketing strategies. Cloud Computing differentiation bears all the hallmarks of early market strategy and is very limited. It got me thinking. Imagine if competitive differentiation was carried out in other walks of life the way it is currently carried out by most Cloud Computing vendors and service providers.

Imagine if Porsche for example had spent 7 years perfecting its new sports car, a car that was specifically engineered to be better than the comparable Ferrari in many very specific ways, a car that can do many things for its prospective owner. Imagine then if at the car’s launch it’s main differentiation was:

The Porsche 912 – you no longer need a horse to pull it along the road

Imagine if Xerox copiers, in an attempt to differentiate itself within the highly competitive markets in which it is present made the bold claim that:

The Xerox X987 – eliminates the need for corporations to maintain a typing pool full of typists to make copies of documents.

When the car was a disruptive new technology it was important to explain to its potential users how it was different from the paradigm it was replacing – the horse and cart. Likewise this was true with the discontinuous innovation introduced with the photocopier / photostat / copier. But once these technologies matured to the point where the paradigm was accepted and there was a genuine choice of suppliers to source it from, vendors then had to focus on their real competition and their real differentiation.

But today this is exactly how much of the differentiation in the various segments of the Cloud Computing market is currently carried out. Vendors and service providers have not yet made the leap that Cloud Computing is “an idea whose time has come”. So instead of aiming their fire at other cloud computing vendors, their differentiation strategies focus on the thing that they are replacing – the corporate data centre, on-premise hardware, non-virtualised operating systems, non-scalable web applicatons, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, it is absolutely essential that the prospect knows how cloud technologies differ from traditional technologies, but Cloud Computing vendors must also realise that they are in real competition for this business and lead with clearly drawn lines of differentiation between themselves and their actual, cloud-shaped competition.

The good news is that there are many “positions” still available to cloud computing vendors. And once these positions are established in the minds of  prospects, it will be doubly difficult for their competitors to change these perceptions.

Taking such a position now will give some vendors a great advantage in the nascent Cloud Computing market but others will just feed the horse and call “walk on”.

Danny Goodall

OK so having arrived at the first cut of a segmentation model for the Cloud Computing market, I am now embarking on a series of Reverse Engineered Positioning and Messaging Analysis (REPAMA) studies.

The problem I now face though as I start tp look in detail at various cloud vendors’ marketing propositions is that their products, capabilities and value propositions all appear to blur into one.

I guess this is a symptom of the early market nature of Cloud Computing. I would expect that as the market develops, real prospects will make real decisions based upon their real needs, and real differences will be stressed and perceived between the products and services of different vendors/service providers.

But right now the general approach I see is that no matter which product or service of a particular vendor I’m looking at, the proposition to the prospect typically boils down to.

Cloud Computing is good

…and this fits for any product in the portfolio. I see…

Cloud Computing does this, Cloud Computing enables that,Cloud Computing reduces this and Cloud Computing increases that.

Fine. But there are a couple of problems with that.

Firstly, and somewhat obviously, if all vendors/service providers simply evangelise the category like this instead of focussing on what they specifically can do, there is zero differentiation. And with zero differentiation the business typically goes the way of ‘market leader’ or at least the vendor/provider with the greatest market reach.

Secondly, if I were a prospect and all I hear about is the generic capabilities and benefits of the cloud, how do I know what each of the different products in your portfolio could do for me? It might be good to talk to me in terms of what the individual products do, how they are each different from/superior to competitors’ products or alternative approaches, what tangible things each product changes for me and what I would be left with AFTER I’ve bought each product from you.

I should stress that there is another category of proposition developing in my analysis which says cloud is good BUT there are lots of problems and potential problems to address first.

This is an obvious proposition and one that vendors/providers in new paradigms like cloud quickly rally around. It goes something like this…

Cloud will do lots of great things for your organisation but you have to make sure you do it right or all sorts of bad things could happen…

The problem with this proposition is that there is an obvious implication.

…and if you don’t solve these things, you’ll lose your job.

This negative connotation and association with the potential failures of cloud initiatives are perhaps not the best way to attempt to mobilise prospects. Having said that, as the movement toward the cloud builds pace it will likely be this “proceed with caution” proposition that gains traction. As cloud becomes a given, so it will be the vendors/providers that can prove that they can quickly address the deficiencies inherent with current cloud strategies and mitigate the risks involved that will rise to the top.

Anyway these are some of my early findings that I thought I would share.

I’ve decided to first look at the Cloud Software / Cloud Management / Application Services Management category from the segmentation model. And I’ve decided to take a look at Appistry first – mainly because its a category that I’ve had direct experience of but also because in a market as broad and as complex as this one, well, you have to start somewhere.

I’ll keep you posted as I move forward.

Danny Goodall

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.

Part 4 – Broaden the Debate

I’m continuing this series of blogs here by looking at the techniques that software vendors can use to create the “illusion” of differentiation in markets where technical standards have led to little material product difference.

So moving on from my last blog where I looked at the way an organisation can differentiate based on the way that they sell, this entry will look at techniques to move the focus away from the technology and onto some other element of the proposition where real differentiation between vendors exists.

I should perhaps first acknowledge that achieving this sort of holistic approach to taking a proposition to market is not the work of moments.  It takes a committed and capable marketing machine to craft the story and then real focus to ensure that the entire organisation rallies behind the proposition as one.  Getting the prospect to evaluate the competition on your terms is the objective and only through consistent and disciplined messaging can that be accomplished.

But if you can pull this off, in my experience it is one of the most successful ways to move the debate away from a particular product or technology where little difference exist towards an holistic proposition where difference can be noted.

Synergies, other product lines and product stacks

The most obvious place to start, and if you’ve monitored the SOA infrastructure software space at all you’ll be familiar with this concept, is that of combining products or even building out complex stacks of products that together deliver synergistic benefit to the prospective customer. Whilst the capabilities of one product may be very similar to those of the competition, when combining those features with additional products the total is greater than the sum of the parts and is very different from the competition.

The idea goes something like “Well whilst our XYZ product might be based on the same set of standards as ACME corp’s, when combined with our ABC product line you can achieve these additional benefits that ACME cannot deliver”

Methodology or philosophy

Another technique I’ve seen work well is that of presenting the product as being as-is or even commodity and suggesting that the real value delivered comes from a specific way in which the product is implemented.  Professional services offerings often come into play here.  Taking the product and the services together, it is suggested, helps deliver benefits that the product alone cannot.  Again the implication is that whilst the competition might ape the features of the product, the methodology is borne out of a deeply philosophically differentiated approach.

Ensuring the competition is evaluated “properly”

Creating broader propositions as outlined above is actually not that difficult.  The key is ensuring that prospects are encouraged to evaluate the competition on your terms.  You want the prospect to be asking the competition if they have an implementation methodology or a complete product stack.  That doesn’t sound easy and in my experience it’s not as easy as it sounds!  But if you can force the market to value the elements of your proposition that are different from the competition then you’re half way to building a successful business.

Danny Goodall.

Part 3 – Sell Differently

I’m continuing this series of blogs here by looking at the techniques that software vendors can use to create the “illusion” of differentiation in markets where technical standards have led to little material product difference.

Perhaps the most obvious differentiator between organisations that have “broadly” similar technology, and an area that particularly hurts smaller or less well established software vendors, is the vendor’s approach to selling.

Which audience strata do you aim at and what do you say to them?

At its most crude this can be the difference between Vendor A talking to a technical audience about the features of Product A whilst Vendor B is talking to line of business managers within the same company about how their product will provide some business benefit or other. Two similar offerings, with similar capabilities being “sold” in very different ways to very different parts of the same organisations.

The benefit of selling at a business level is enormous.  Decisions get made at that level, budgets get signed off at that level and enterprise-wide relationships get built at that level.  However, the difficulty with this approach, especially for smaller or less well connected vendors, is that gaining access to senior management outside of the IT domain of their prospects’ organisations is very difficult.

It takes years of building credibility and demonstrating proof of delivering benefits (reducing risk, Increasing profit, saving time,removing cost, etc.) to buy a ticket to the business-benefits ball.  Unless you’ve paid your business benefit taxes, have documented how you’ve helped deliver benefits and have an army of references willing to stand up on your behalf you’re likely to not be taken seriously.

In addition, in my experience, the skills that a sales exec needs to credibly describe the features of a technical proposition are usually mutually exclusive from the ones they need to engage a senior C-level exec in a discussion about the business issues that keep them awake at night.

So where to start if you’re a technology-focused vendor looking to sell differently?

Well it’s a journey and will involve dramatically changing the way your organisation thinks, behaves and looks.  Many of your staff will have to undergo a dramatic transformation and many won’t make it (especially the sales team).  Then you need to look at developing marketing messages for IT Business and the Business audiences.  You’ll do this by talking less about specific product capabilities and instead aligning yourself with where the prospect wants to be AFTER they’ve done business with you.

What are their pains, what are they looking to achieve, how can you help them do this and what proof can you provide that you’ve done it before?

The marketing materials and programs that support such a business audience-focused sales approach are very different too.  And whilst this has a significant impact on the structure of the marketing organisation, perhaps the biggest challenge is that just because you’re now selling to a business audience doesn’t mean that you stop marketing to the technical audience.  We still have to convince these guys that we’re able to do the job. So now you’re waging a marketing battle on two fronts and this means significantly greater investment.

But before embarking on this approach you should ask yourself whether you’re committed to the journey.  I’ve worked for, and with many organisations that have seen “selling to the business” as the holy grail, the panacea to address their competitive losses and their inability to control the sale.  But embark on this journey without fully committing to the changes it WILL have on your organisation and it will lead to a bloody disaster.  I speak from bitter experience.

Well that’s about it for the “selling differently” approach to differentiation in a homogenised market.  The benefits of selling at the business level while your competitors are talking to “minions” in the technical side of the business are enormous, but as I’ve mentioned about it’s not an easy journey.

I’ll cover some more differentiation techniques in coming blog posts.

Danny Goodall

Continuing on from this blog entry, I’ve decided to create another mini series of blogs, this time looking at the difficulty of differentiation in markets where software standards have created homogeneity amongst the offerings of the protagonists.

So first a little bit of a history lesson…

I surfed the wave of middleware resurgence in the early stages of the new millennium and had great success marketing various technologies. Initially, working with some of the best people in the industry, I introduced SonicMQ to the world while at Sonic Software (now Progress Software).  This was a market proposition that was heavily based on standards. Well at least we made sure that the debate was about standards – JMS in this case.  My ex-colleague Dave Chappell was talking to developers all over the world and writing books that led the debate on JMS and other standards.  We de-positioned the competition as being complex and proprietary and we enjoyed great success. Obviously the competition reacted by introducing their own JMS-based products, a move which we expected but by then Sonic had introduced the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) and had moved the debate on to standards that enabled a service oriented architecture (SOA).

All the while I was creating marketing programs that stressed Sonic’s commitment to standards and, by implication, I was de-positioning other vendors’ technologies as being the Devil’s spawn due to their reliance on proprietary features. “How,” we asked “would organisations ensure interoperability between their, and their trading partners’ infrastructures if they didn’t conform to the emerging standards?”

Sonic enjoyed great early market success with this strategy as did the other vendors in the JMS and related markets such as Fiorano, Cape Clear, PolarLake, et al.  These vendors punched above their weight and went into battle and won against some of the industry’s heavyweights.  All of this was made possible by their commitment to standards.  These companies existed because a) standards made it easier for them to build software and b) customers wanted to move away from vendors’ costly and proprietary solutions and ran with open arms to this new breed of standards-based middleware.

For a while the old school vendors held out.  Claiming that their incredibly feature-rich offerings justified their proprietary methods and high price tags because they could do more “stuff”.  But the slow move towards standards gathered pace and eventually turned into an avalanche as, helped by maturing software standards, first the least established proprietary vendors and then latterly the market leading EAI vendors validated the market by introducing their own standards-based products.  Sonic had won the battle.

But then the problems became obvious.  When your product is based around freely available specifications and built with the help of common libraries that are available to others, how can you differentiate when your competitors are using the same specifications and standards?  If the software must conform to these standards, differentiation, at least at the product level, becomes a challenge.

Obviously not all animals are equal so some degree of difference exist between standards-based products.  During customer evaluations these come to the surface.  In fact in the sales situation where prospects can be engaged in detailed discussions about a technology and the company that is behind it, it’s actually not too difficult to draw distinctions between different approaches.  But within the marketing organisation, where we’re tasked with creating a credible, unique space in our prospects’ minds by placing 130 words on a web site, how can you do this?

It’s not easy and there are no hard and fast rules or guarantees but I’ll take look at some of the techniques that can be used to achieve this in upcoming blogs.

Danny Goodall.

At the risk of sounding like I’m repeating myself, once again I’ve just got off the phone from a friend and ex-colleague. This is a different friend and a different conversation to my last blog entry, and this time he was looking to do me a favour rather than picking my brains for free.  Which was nice.

Anyway, after a while we got on to the subject of how sales of his organisation’s SOA, ESB and BPM offerings were going.  A mixed bag was his response.  “Where it’s good it’s very good and where it’s tough it’s very tough” was his view.

My mate is in sales looking after a geographic and industry-focused region for a large integration/SOA infrastructure software vendor.  One issue he has is how to take his products to market in a specific industry sector.  In this case energy and utilities.  His concern is differentiation.  As he put it to me “How do you compete when all of the other vendors can do what you can do?”.

It’s a good question and one that I touched on briefly in these hallowed pages earlier in the year.  It’s a phenomenon that I refer to as “standards-based marketing” – a tongue-in-cheek description of what happens to an organisation’s marketing efforts when they are taking technology to market that is driven and governed by technical standards.  Effectively as the market matures, so all vendors in the segment meet the standards which in turn means they can all do broadly the same things which makes being unique, from a marketing perspective, very difficult.

Or put another way, Goodall’s third law of competitive marketing states that:

“As the impact of software standards bodies in a market segment increases, the probability of nil vendor-to-vendor differentiation approaches one”

…or

“I’ve got generate leads and my marketing campaigns look like they could’ve been written about my competitors.”

Actually there is no Goodall’s third (or first or second for that matter) law of competitive marketing.  But it did make me think that I should spend some time in these pages addressing this area.  So over the next several blog postings I’m going to focus on some of the differentiation tactics I’ve seen and used to create that illusion of differentiation when in reality your competitors are in fact your evil identical twin.

Danny Goodall