lustratus REPAMA

Posts Tagged ‘Strategic Marketing’

I see that Progress Software is in the midst of another restructuring and that to achieve this it will shed 12%-14% of the workforce.

This article details the problem and describes how “One Progress”, an alignment of the different divisions under the same banner, is the plan to turn the company around. I for one really hope that Progress can find some upward momentum. I worked for Progress for many years and still have some close friends at the company and its demise and inability to capitalise on the excellent technology it produces frustrated me then and it saddens me now.

President and Chief Executive Rick Reidy is tasked with a tough mission. To turn around a company whose main product line has reached maturity and whose growth initiatives and acquisitions have failed to gain traction. All of this in ultra-competitive markets and a pretty tough economic climate. My colleague Steve Craggs asked the question a little while ago whether the time is right for Progress to be acquired. It obviously wasn’t then but surely that point is getting closer.

In another article, some detail is provided on how the company plans to turn things around. It plans to:

1.Enhance Progress Software’s product strategy by focusing on growth opportunities in the enterprise software market and bring new products and solutions to market;

2.Change the way Progress Software takes its products to market by becoming more customer and solutions driven. This strategy will enable the company to be even more focused on ensuring customer and partner success.

3.Increase Progress Software’s market awareness, leveraging its more visible product brands that carry strong recognition in their respective markets.

It looks like a good to-do list. The question is whether it can be done.

The last two items struck a chord with me. Historically Progress always saw the technology as primarily important and the marketing function as a necessary evil and cost-centre. Instead of viewing marketing as the creative engine room that could give its products the platform they deserve, the engineering team had a disproportionately loud voice.

This approach came from the previous leadership’s engineering roots coupled to a negative attitude to the very concept of marketing. Instead of listening to the needs of companies and aligning all sales and marketing efforts behind them, products were developed to solve internally perceived technical problems or to match competitors’ functionality. Products were marketed based on esoteric features which resulted in ephemeral technology leadership but not continued sales dominance. It was still great technology because Progress is an engineering company but it was technology for technology’s sake.

I must say that whilst I worked with Rick years back, since he’s taken the helm I really don’t know what priority he places on strategic marketing within the new One Progress. But to achieve 2 and 3 on that list above will involve a fundamental change of corporate DNA.

I just hope that they try to sell and market their way out of the problem and not engineer their way out.

Danny Goodall

I’ve completed the first draft of the cloud computing segmentation model upon which we will build our REPAMA studies.

As I’ve mentioned before along my journey to arrive at this model, I’ve found the cloud computing market to have quickly become crowded and confused. This is largely due to the ease at which “traditional” vendors have re-repositioned themselves to catch the cloud computing wave.

The other issue of course is that over time cloud computing will cease to be a new paradigm and will quickly become the way consumers and businesses avail themselves of computing services. So what I’m seeing here is a market in transition where just about every category in traditional software sales will have an offer in the cloud computing space until on-demand models becomes “the norm”.

So I guess it’s really not that surprising to see so many vendors present in the space. But at the same time it is very confusing for legitimate prospects to cut their way through the mass of terminology to then examine vendors and service providers who appear to have broadly identical capabilities and value propositions.  How do they decide the best way to take their first steps into cloud computing? It’ll be interesting to see what our REPAMA studies say about how each of the vendors/service providers’ takes their products to market.

Anyway, I’ve uploaded a set of slides to slideshare.net which I think is probably the best way to make the material available but if anyone wants a copy of the slides please let me know. The slides are embedded below.

As I’ve said before, this segmentation model will undoubtedly develop and change over time as I look in more detail at the marketing efforts of the various vendors involved. The definitions for each of the functional areas are a little woolly right now. But at least I now have a structure that allows me to decide which segments and vendors/service providers I will include in our studies moving forward.

I’d like to once again acknowledge the significant role that Brad Buck, Peter Laird and Christofer Hoff played in helping to form the ideas on market segmentation and the role NIST has played in crystallising definitions on cloud computing and software/platform/infrastructure as a service.

Danny Goodall

Products and vendors included in the segmentation model are shown below. If you represent a vendor below and I haven’t represented your organisation correctly, or if you represent a vendor that isn’t included but should be, please contact me and let me know a little bit about your company and your proposition and where you feel you fit in the segmentation model.

10Gen MongoDB, 3Tera App Logic, Aconex, Advologix, Altor Networks, Amazon EBS, Amazon EC2, Amazon S3, Amazon SimpleDB, Amazon SQS, Amitive, Apache CouchDB, Apache HBase, Appian Anywhere, Appistry, AppJet, AppNexus, AppZero, Aptana, Aria Systems, Aster DB, Beam4d, Beowulf, Blink Logic, Boomi, Box.net, Bungee Labs Connect, Caspio, Cassandra, Cast Iron, Clickability, Cloud42, Cloud9 Analytics, CloudFoundry, CloudStatus, ClusterSeven, CohesiveFT, CohesiveFT VPN Cubed, ColdLight Neuron, Collabnet, Concur, CrownPoint, CTERA, CTERA Portal, DataSynapse, Desktoptwo, DirectLaw, DocLanding, DropBox, Dynamsoft, Dynect, Elastichosts, Elastra, EMC Atmos, Engine Yard, Enomaly Enomalism, enStratus, Etelos, Eucalyptus, eVapt, FathomDB, Fios, Flexiscale, Force.com, Gemstore Gemfire, Gigaspaces, Globus Toolkit, gnip, Google App Engine, Google Apps, Google BigTable, GridLayer, Hadoop, Hosting.com CloudNine, HubSpan, Hyperic, Hypertable, IBM Lotus Live, iCIMS, InfoBright, Informatica iTRICITY, Joyent Accelerators, JungleDisk, K2 Analytics, Kaavo, Knowledge TreeLive, LayeredTech, LiveOps, LoadStorm, LogiXML, LongJump, LucidEra, memcached, Mercury, mezeo software, Microsoft BizTalk Services, Microsoft SDS, Mosso Cloud Files, Mosso Cloud Servers, Mosso Cloud Sites, Mozy, MS Azure Services Platform, MSDynamics, MuleSource Mule OnDemand, NetDocuments, NetSuite, NewRelic, Ning, Nirvanix, Oco, Open.ControlTier, OpenCloud, opencrowd, OpenNebula, OpenQRM, OpenRSM, OpSource, OpSource Connect, Oracle Coherence, Oracle On Demand, Panaroma, Parallels, ParaScale, Parature, PingIdentity, PivotLink, Platform, Qrimp, Quantivo, Questys, rackspacecloud, Redi2, Reductive Labs Puppet, Responsys, Rightnow, RightScale, Rollbase, rPath, Salesforce.com, Scalr, Sertifi, Serve Path GoGrid, SkyTap, SnapLogic, SnapLogic SaaS Solution Packs, SOASTA, SpringCM, Sterna, StreetSmarts, Success Metrics, Sun Grid Engine, Symplified, Syncplicity, Taleo, TerraCotta, Terremark, TIBCO Silver, Tokyo Cabinet, Trigence, Vertica, VMWare vSphere, Vordel, Workday, Workxpress, Xactly, Xero, Xeround, Xythos, Ylastic, Zembly, Zmanda, Zmanda Cloud Backup, Zoho, Zuora, Mezeo Software, Workxpress, Trigence, AppZero, Platform, OneNetwork, SpringSource, Vaultscape

Continuing the research I’ve documented in these pages…

…I’ve either stumbled across, been gently reminded or have been actively asked to include specific vendors in the list of cloud computing vendors.

So here’s REV 4.

The actual list of vendors is shown in the tag list below. Also included in the Wordle is a list of the categories and classifications from DRAFT 1 of our market segmentation model which I will post here soon.

Danny Goodall

Continuing my quest to segment the cloud computing market, I’m now looking at the role a channel might play in cloud computing…

…and I’m struggling a little to map the traditional channel role onto cloud. But here are my current thoughts.

There are some obvious areas in the cloud taxonomy/segmentation that look like a good old fashioned software sales model. So first let’s start with my draft / work in progress taxonomy/segmentation to help anchor the discussions in something solid. BTW draft/work in progress means that it will change.

Cloud Software

So the Cloud Software segment looks like a traditional software business. Using Brad Buck’s definition for this segment:

Cloud Software is off-the-shelf software that can be used to create an internal cloud or in some cases can be used to customise infrastructure services to mould a customer cloud solution.

Although Brad implies this, I’d extend that even further to say that cloud software will be the basis upon which infrastructure service providers build, host, manage, secure, monitor, etc. their own infrastructure services. So as this is real software being sold to real organisations the channel model I’ve come up with looks familar.

Software is sold to an organisation either directly or through some form of reseller/distribution channel. The end user IT organisation making the purchase either creates a cloud on their own premises for internal use (internal cloud) or a cloud service provider uses the cloud software to create a cloud service which is then made available to others.

Software Services

Looking at the software services segment, the definition here is

Software services are applications or components that can be used as an end application or used as part of a custom solution

So we have packaged applications or application components of varying degrees of complexity made available to application users directly by the software services provider. Application builders will incorporate some of these software services into their own applications which are tailored and then made available to application users – thus forming one channel to market.

The draft channel model I see there is as shown below:

Here we see that the application user is the ultimate consumer of the software service and that they are likely to consume that directly via the software service provider or via a third party application builder that modifies and extends the software service.

Platform Services

Broadly similar to the platform as a service definition, this segment is defined here specifically as:

Platform services offer a ready built infrastructure and application framework than can be used for building and running applications.

Platform services provide the frameworks in which applications can be built, tested and run. The application user is ultimately the end consumer of the service but some form of application builder will have used the platform service to make the application available to the user as shown below:

There is an argument here that the strict consumer of the platform service is the application builder who then makes the application available to the application user as a software service model. I need to think about this a little more before I cast this section in stone.

Infrastructure Services

Finally the infrastructure services segment is defined as:

Infrastructure services provide building blocks that can be moulded to run different application servers, packaged applications, grids, etc., which can be used to host applications.

These are basic data centre-like hardware, software and network elements that are provided as building blocks upon which software services and platform services can be deployed. In addition end user IT organisations also procure infrastructure services directly and then deploy their own software on to it, treating it as a virtual part of their own infrastructure.

This means that the channel model for infrastructure services looks like this:

Implied Channel Hierarchy

There is an implied channel hierarchy as shown in the diagram below but this is not always strictly followed. The diagram suggests that each level of service provider engages the services of the higher level service provider.

Whilst this certainly will be the deployment model for many cloud users it will not always be the the case. For example whilst it might make academic sense to assume that software services are built and made available using platform services which are then deployed in infrastructure services, in reality services at each level can be provisioned and delivered autonomously without the need for a relationship with providers at any of the other levels.

Conclusion

Well I can’t say that I’ve reached any sort of conclusion yet but I think getting these drafts down on paper has helped me think about the way that the IT industry’s traditional channel models will change over the coming years. I think it’s clear that we will either have less “middle-men” in our sales models or that the roles of these middle-men will change significantly as cloud computing becomes more prevalent.

OK, so back to the segmentation exercise. Next I need to decide on the candidate sub-segments within the major segments explored above. And then I need to decide on which vendors will appear in each of those sub-segments. Finally I need to decide which segments, sub-segments and vendors/providers will be the focus of our cloud computing REPAMA research. I’ll keep you posted on my progress.

The  DRAFT Channel Models for Cloud Computing presentation from which the diagrams above have been extracted is shown below.

I’d like to once again acknowledge the significant role that Brad Buck, Peter Laird and Christofer Hoff played in helping to form the ideas on market segmentation.

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

I’m continuing the REPAMA Segment Analysis Study into the Cloud Computing market attempting to arrive at a solid market segmentation and two things have become very clear.

Firstly, every vendor with a remotely related proposition appears to have added the word “cloud” to their product name, presumably in an attempt to bask in the reflected glory that cloud computing provides, perhaps in an effort to appease their investors. This means that there are a large number of vendors claiming to be part of specific segments that may or may not have legitimate claims. This makes the process I’m going through confusing and messy. And if I, as a marketing analyst am having problems, I wonder what sort of success a legitimate prospect would have in finding the product/service they need.

Secondly, the market is still in flux and as such nailing a clear segmentation down is, for some time, going to be like herding cats. This is a classic early market symptom where the market is currently led by vendors’ own ideas about what is needed and what is possible. Once the market starts to form properly and vendors align behind what their prospects and customers are actually buying, then the segmentation will become clearer.

But I have to start somewhere and the good news is that I’ve been corresponding with both Peter Laird of Tendril Inc. and Brad Buck of OpenCrowd and they both have given their blessing to this project and have offered to help if they can. Most importantly they are both happy for me to use their work on a cloud computing taxonomy/model, here and here, as a starting point for my cloud market segmentation.

One thing that I quickly realised was needed for my purposes was some form of professional services (human skills) offer. Plenty of large consultancies, smaller integrators and boutique IT shops offer consultancy services around cloud computing. Both Peter and Brad have rightly focussed on the categorisation of product capability and customer need in fleshing our “their” taxonomy. But to fully understand what propositions are being put together to service the cloud computing “need”, I must include cloud computing professional services.

So far I’ve identified the following list of services under the category of professional services. I suspect that it will grow some and be rationalised some before I finish.

• Strategy, planning and design
• Migration and implementation services
• Testing
• Security
• Cloud application design/porting
• Support services and training

I suspect that cloud application design/porting will be a relatively niche category for a while and that testing, security and support services may all become amalgamated as I carry on my research.

Another major category of cloud computing offer that has also presented itself is that of “Channel”. A number of organisations are white labelling, OEM’ing, reselling or otherwise fronting cloud vendors/service providers’ offerings. One concern that I have is that this sort of partnering is very common in hot early markets where one vendor with no cloud proposition hastily signs a partner agreement to simply tick a box. It does’t mean that either company will do any real business.  I’ll do some digging and and if it looks like a real enough category I’ll add it and blog on it soon.

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.

Well, well, well. TIBCO announced an interesting move yesterday. It has acquired DataSynapse in a cash transaction valuing DataSynapse at $28M.

TIBCO calims that this will strengthen and compliment its distributed and cloud computing initiatives. We work for a lot of high-tech vendors and you get to know a lot of people and I have to say that the DataSynapse crowd are/were amongst the best. Not just good human beings but incredibly bright and innovative engineers.

The problem DataSynapse had was the tsunami that hit their customer base in the shape of the world-wide financial crisis. Almost overnight their remaining prospect base stopped spending while they took stock and a significant proportion of their existing customers either ceased to exist or were bought, merged or forcebly reversed into other willing and/or unwilling banks. They went from being a rising star and surely a market leader in the nascent cloud computing and data centre automation markets, to a company that struggled to make its voice heard with all of the associated human implications that occur when a company backed by venture capital struggles to make its voice heard in a stagnant market.

That said the last time I checked in with them things had stabilised and they were on the up and I’m not surprised because the customer list they have is to die for, their products work as described and once their customers deployed their software they saw real tangible return amounting to many millions of dollars of benefit within months.

So why TIBCO?

Well I can see the financial services link up between the two companies. And I can see that having a financial services Grid Computing offer for TIBCO might be attractive. But cloud computing? I’m not sure that even the greatest DataSynapse fan (and I’d probably include myself in that classification) would say that DataSynapse was pulling up trees and bossing the cloud computing market segments in which it competes. So the question is – will TIBCO’s additional market power be enough to push DataSynapse’s cloud computing offer to the fore? Actually I guess the real question is – will any of that happen before SAP buys TIBCO? – if rumours are to be believed.

So my advice to TIBCO, as if TIBCO needs my advice, would be don’t smother the DataSynapse crew – they are a super-bright team, so give them some space and some funding and give them access to your market reach and reap the benefits.

Danny Goodall

Lustratus’ REPAMA consulting business has moved house. Well strictly speaking we’re still at the “Can’t remember where we put the ironing board and has anyone seen the cat?” stage of the move. But we’ve taken the first step by moving the repama.typepad.com blog to it’s shiny new location at www.lustratusrepama.com. So whilst it’ll be a while before we fling open the doors and invite the neighbours around for drinks, we’ve at least got somewhere to sleep tonight.

The problem was that the Lustratus REPAMA proposition had outgrown it’s home at www.lustratus.com which was always designed to be a place for end users and other interested parties to read and download Lustratus’ published research on infrastructure software issues.  We had tried to make it a place where vendors could also come and access competitive intelligence but it was clear that we needed to separate the two offers – just as our business is seperated into the “church & state” of analysis and consulting.

So for the moment www.lustratusrepama.com is the just new home of the REPAMA blog but over the coming weeks it will become the way in which Lustratus Research Limited communicates its marketing consultancy and competitive intelligence offers to technology vendors.  As well, I hope, as being a home for the exploration of marketing  best practice.  Lustratus.com will of course continue to be the centrepiece  of our end-user research practice.

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.