lustratus REPAMA

Posts Tagged ‘marketing’

I was reading Robin Bloor’s blog entry from earlier in the year recently where he makes some interesting points. But I’m not sure that I agree with all of them…

Robin attempts to identify some of the defining characteristics of cloud computing but I get the feeling that he is starting from a slightly cynical stand point. And whilst I agree that vendor and service provider marketing tactics have created a great deal of hype, I feel others must also share some of the blame for the confusion in the space.

Anyway, his 10 Defining Points for Cloud Computing blog entry is here. I tried to post a comment but as it appears that it’s still awaiting moderation, I thought I’d reproduce it below.

An interesting read as ever Robin but I can’t help thinking that you’ve defined Cloud Computing more so by the things it is not, than what it is. But perhaps that is the place to start when defining something as nebulous as Cloud Computing.

Completely agree that cloud computing is a confused set of definitions and misunderstandings but whilst I acknowledge that the marketing tactics of vendors and providers should take some of the blame – so should the market analysts. The global IT analysts have resisted the temptation to coalesce around a series of definitions and market categories for reasons of vested interest. De facto market category definitions and market segmentations are still up for grabs. So for analysts it’s currently about land grab – attempting to be the firm that defines the broad Cloud Computing categories and drivers. Their attempts to define and steer the market on their terms simply further serves to confuse prospective Cloud Computing users.

I also agree that standards are currently few and far between. The upshot of this is that market analysts and vendors can afford to go in different directions without being restrained by common understanding and artificial technical limitations. Again the impact is on the potential Cloud Computing user who is left trying to find their way in a world that is not easy to define, classify and compare.

Finally the ease at which technology vendors can enter into a hosting agreement with someone and then rename a product line and voila – they become a Cloud Computing vendor, has made the Cloud Computing market incredibly crowded, incredibly quickly. Attrition and customer cynicism should account for the weakest vendors here leaving the candidates for success in the market categories in which they compete.

For what it’s worth I’ve tried to bring some sense to the categorisation of the various market categories and cloud computing vendors/providers in the Lustratus REPAMA market landscape, taxonomy and segmentation model. Instead of ploughing my own furrow, I stood on the shoulders of giants and worked from some of the best definitions I had found in the blogosphere and beyond.

I wondered if your readership my find this useful. This is discussed here.

http://www.lustratusrepama.com/go-to-market/a-market-landscape-for-cloud-computing/

My colleague Steve Craggs has also attempted to define cloud computing in lay-terms based on the categories above.Steve’s piece is discussed here.

http://www.lustratusrepama.com/marketing/cloud-computing-explained-without-the-hype/

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

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

Q. What do the questions…

“How do porcupines make love?”

and

“How do you ’sell’ open source software?”

…have in common?

A. The answer to both is “Carefully!”

Software sales is a funny business.  Push too hard and you’re open to accusations of potentially ripping people off through aggressive tactics, don’t push hard enough and you end up having had many nice discussions (tea and biscuit meetings as they are known) with many nice people but your children go hungry.  It’s a balance.  And nowhere is this more in evidence than in the open source world.

I was chatting to an ex-colleague last week about the issues they have taking their open source software products to market.  I know that sounds like an oxymoron “taking open source to market” but there is usually a business model somewhere when commercial organisations put effort behind open source projects.  And so it is with my mate’s organisation.  They supply documentation, services and support in addition to taking the responsibility for ensuring the stability of releases of the open source projects that they are behind.  They allow organisations to see open source as a viable and low cost alternative to commercial-off-the-shelf software.  And by all accounts, despite what my colleague Steve Craggs said about open source adoption slowing in his 2009 predictions, their business is doing well.

Many commercial software organisations have invested in open source initiatives.  I’m not talking about the pure-play open source vendors such as JBOSS, Apache, Red Hat or MuleSource, but rather commercial-off-the-shelf software vendors who have put their “support” behind open source initiatives. They donate code, they place key people onto committees, they even open up divisions of their own commercial organisations dedicated to providing commercial support services.

In doing this, you have to wonder at their motives.  I mean, if their open source initiative is wildly successful does that spell the end for their commercial products?  Is it a hedging strategy?  An obfuscation strategy?  An intelligence gathering strategy?  Either way they can’t afford to run these efforts at a loss for too long, but neither can they bring their usual commercial sales and marketing tactics into play.  Open source market dynamics are very different.

Open source economics rely on getting “market” reach, having the best community/product, attracting a volume of users and therefore achieving critical mass.  Open source projects that achieve these things in their particular software segment are likely to find their software in use within end-user enterprises and can then expect these companies to require services.  And hence a market for support services around the open source project is born.  It happens almost by osmosis.  As a result, being first and biggest in open source matters more than it does in the commercial-off-the-shelf world.

The issues for those second movers in open source markets who can’t rely on the critical mass in open source are many and varied:

• How do you force the sale?
• How do thy get new users?
• How do they move on from evaluation of the software to generating revenue?
• How do they promote the commercial offer behind the open source project?
• How do they sell?

The dilemma for second movers in an open source market is that open source communities can’t be built to order.  They can’t be pulled together solely by the actions of a commercial entity.  Sure they can be encouraged and all the right ingredients can be put in place.  But open source is about the community working for the good of the community and is not about hard sell.  Selling to open source communities is seen as a no-no.  Open source is “free” software.  There is no selling to be done.  Like worker bees in a hive or ants in a mound, the community en mass decides to use the software, or not.

So all open source vendors can do is put passive offers to deliver services out there in the hope that the community reaches a critical mass and the need for these services occurs.  “Build it and they will come”  It’s a little bit like a shy teenage boy that goes to stand close to a girl, but stops short of asking her for a date.  If you don’t ask you don’t get.

Whilst this approach is earnest and admirable, it doesn’t help to drive sales.  And if you represent a commercial vendor who has sales expectations from the services you wrap around open source projects, then you will be judged on your quarterly performance and not how earnest you may or may not be.

My question however is what is wrong with making statements about the value you can provide the open source world, and for asking for money for that?

If you’ believe that you’ve got a valid commercial offer that delivers value, then why not shout about this and ask for money for it?

In the coming months, we’re going to track a few open source project “vendors” with our REPAMA Methdology to take a look at how they tackle some of these problems.  I’ll report back some of our findings.

Danny Goodall.

I don’t mean to be crass here and I know that I’ve asked this question before, but I have to wonder whether we are experiencing as deep a slowdown as the media would have us believe.

Perhaps it hasn’t reached my part of the software industry yet but right now I’m working with four companies who are all doing incredibly well.  They’ve all had great years and are looking forward to a better year.  I have to balance that by saying that I’ve also got contacts in my network who have been hit by some real problems – but most of them are really closely tied to the investment banking market.

But most surprising for me is the UK job market.  I’ve been trying to help someone in my network to recruit for a sales position in the UK.  Because we work with lots of companies I have a very broad and deep network and from time to time I’ll try to help companies who are looking for good people.  I never try to pull people out of existing roles, but I’m happy to ask my network if they know someone “good” who is looking for a role.  Anyway the role I’m looking to fill looks excellent.  Good company.  Good pipeline.  Good people.  Good backers.  Good proposition.  But I’m struggling to find candidates.  “All the good people that have jobs and are staying put” I keep hearing.  So either this is the calm before the storm, or things are still “OK” out there.

I’m sure if we all believe it enough we can turn this slowdown into a real crisis but right now, in my network, things aren’t as bad as they might appear.

(This blog inspired by Troy McClure’s self-help film “Get some confidence, stupid!“)

Danny Goodall

Despite being available in “beta” form to REPAMA users for some time, I finally got round to packaging up a publicly downloadable version of the Lustratus REPAMA Guide. This can be downloaded from Lustratus.com for no charge.

I should say a big thank you to clients, colleagues and everyone else who has provided feedback on the guide, which studies should be included and how they should be presented.

So “Thank you”!

And for those looking to understand the product marketing and go-to-market strategies of TIBCO’s competitors in the High Performance Messaging space – specifically  Solace Systems’ Content Router, 29West’s LBM and IBM’s WebSphere MQ LLM – I’ve also put the High Performance Messaging REPAMA Segment Analysis Study in the store.  I’ll be adding the individual reports on each of the vendors in the coming days

Danny Goodall

I was discussing the economic slowdown with some friends over the weekend.  We were trying to predict the likely depth, length and impact but we came to the conclusion that logic and a sound understanding of economics alone couldn’t help.  You’d need to apply complex chaos psychology first.  The issue, we realised, is that whilst people anxiously focus on the harsher trading conditions, we’re not focusing on the positives – the things that will bring us out the other side.

I’m not going to suggest that all we need to do is shut our eyes and wish it away but if we stop anxiously focusing on the negatives, we can turn a bad situation into a better one.  That said, I do recognise that it would be churlish to suggest to someone that has just lost their job that they should simply look on the bright side of life.  But someone’s loss has to be someone else’s gain – even if they were previously on the losing side.  It’s the way of things.

I believe that in enterprise software sales, generating interest is going to be tough for a little while yet.  But it is at precisely this time that market dynamics can be completely turned on their head.  The share of voice and vendor pecking order that “naturally” exists in a given segment can be completely, positively turned around when our staunchest competitors are focusing on the problem and not the opportunity created.

And as it is such a precious commodity, once we have generated a sales lead and it is handed over to the lead maturation process and ultimately the sales team, we better be completely sure that a) we’re saying the right things when we’re on our feet in front of the client and b) we know what the competition will be saying. This means laying traps for the competition, focusing on the things you do well and providing proof of the claims you make.

I think long-time marketing guru Seth Godin has captured it well when he talks about focusing on the wrong boxes.  And I think that the NLP fans out there would refer to the need for positive perceptual filters.  Either way I think it’s time to stop focusing on the red box and pay some attention to the others.

Danny Goodall

I remember using the phrase “You’re marketing 8 fingered gloves” with a client a few years ago.  And without wanting to show any disrespect to those unfortunate or fortunate enough to have more than 5 digits on each hand, I think it illustrates perfectly the dilemma that some technology vendors face.

Imagine you are the VP Marketing for Octodigit Inc.  – a manufacturer of 8 fingered gloves for men.  Your market is pretty small.  Really small in fact.  Getting new customers is quite a chore and involves some incredibly detailed research, focus and a lot of leg work.  However, when you find a prospect – an octodigit (or whatever the term is) male who works outside who has cold hands, he’d buy from you in a flash.  You alone understand his unique problems.  You have the solution (the 8 fingered glove) to his problem (cold 8 fingered hands).

But then again our friend has other possible solutions.  No, there isn’t another 8 fingered glove supplier.  Octodigit Inc. really can claim to be the marketing leading supplier of wool-based hand apparel for the discerning multi-digit male.  However our 8 fingered friend is looking for a solution to his cold hands problem, he’s not necessarily looking for a glove.  So he could consider a coat with big pockets as an alternative.  And there is even the option of surgery which would fulfil a life-long dream of being able to wear five-fingered gloves like the majority of the rest of the planet. So our friends at Octodigit Inc. still have some selling to do but chances are they’ll be successful – but only once they’ve managed to find a prospect.

The original client who prompted the 8-fingered glove anecdote was marketing an object database, the target audience for which were self-selecting.  They were highly technical individuals who were object software fanatics, they needed to persist objects to a store that maintained object properties and object-oriented principles and they needed to be able to carry out lightening fast searches of the resultant database.  However, as is often the case, the business making the purchasing decisions behind these techies just wanted a cost effective solution to store and retrieve complex, related information. And as time went by, plain old relational databases were “good enough” for the task.

The result for my client was that once the fashion of object-orientation had passed, their sales slowed and they had to put their energies into other areas and recognise Object Databases as the 8 fingered niche they really are.

I admire focus. As an early market software vendor it takes huge courage to turn your back on other potential markets.  As a result I really admire companies that have the self-control and self-confidence to stay focussed on their audience, their value proposition, their messages and their prospects.  The challenge for vendors therefore is to segment the total addressable market in such a way that there is enough of an addressable audience for whom you are a perfect solution but at the same time ensuring that the market size gives enough opportunity for growth.

And remember that a coat with deep pockets is a valid solution to the problem of cold 8-fingered hands.

This topic came to mind recently when I looked at Solace Systems and 29West who each take a different approach to high performance messaging.  One vendor certainly appears to be marketing a 5 fingered product that appears to a very broad audience, but the other, whilst not sporting 8 fingers per hand, certainly looks like a good 6 to me.  I’ll post the details on them both soon.

Danny Goodall

Post script.  I know the image has 6 fingers and not 8 but unsurprisingly since Octodigit’s sad demise finding a picture of a glove with 8 fingers has proved a little difficult.  I also know that the depending on where you originate from, the thumb may not constitute a finger.

Welcome to the Lustratus REPAMA blog from Lustratus Research.  I’ve never been a fan of mission statements for the sake of mission statements.  I guess that is because most that I read are painted in the blandest shade of beige or taste of vanilla.  This tends to make them less of an “inspiring,  rallying-call” type of mission statement and more of “a collection of boring indisputable facts that we think the CEO won’t fire us for putting down on paper” type of mission statement.

Mission?

That said, I think it’s worth setting out a plan for the type of material that we’ll be covering in this blog in future editions. So here goes.  I want to write about the efficaciousness or otherwise of the strategies and tactics that vendors in certain market segments use to reach their audience.  I’d like to compare and contrast the marketing efforts of certain vendors and even rank them.  I’d like to give awards for good as well as bad marketing and I’d like to start a discussion about best practices in B2B infrastructure software marketing.  I want to look at the tactical side of marketing such as press and analyst management and lead generation as well as the strategic side.  We’ll be looking to use our REPAMA methodology (more of that below) to infer actual vendor positions against the claims they make.

REPAMA?

Well REPAMA was created by a desire to get competitive intelligence on early market software companies.  I realised that analysts didn’t or weren’t able to track early market vendors which made creating competitive strategies very difficult.  Even in mature markets, it was tough to really understand the detail of how certain vendors were taking specific products to market.  So I set about designing some exercises that would allow me to infer key strategic marketing strategies from the way these companies address their market.  Since then we’ve expanded on these exercises to produce a methodology that allows us to build comprehensive comparisons of vendors’ positioning and messaging by reverse engineering their marketing strategy from the way they approach the market.

Hence REPAMA is our Reverse Engineered Positioning and Messaging Analysis methodology.

Who is we?

Well “we” is Lustratus.  I formed Lustratus with Steve Craggs and Ronan Bradley a couple of years ago as a marketing consultancy and market analysis organisation.  We’re very focused on a small number of infrastructure software segments and we help vendors to better understand the market landscape in which they compete and ultimately to clearly communicate why they believe their technology will be of benefit to their prospects.

Me?

Well I’m Danny Goodall but I’m sure that Steve and Ronan will also contribute to this blog.  For the first 10 years of my career I was a techie but moved into marketing when I realised that the company cars were much better.  I’ve worked for many vendors in field marketing, product marketing, product management and VP Marketing positions and for the last 4 years I’ve been consulting to many others helping them to set or correct corporate marketing strategies or to improve the effectiveness of their tactical field marketing programs.

You probably ought to know that I’m also a massive fan of Southampton Football Club.

Danny Goodall