Informix Brand?
This is a marketing/strategy discussion rather than a technical support thread. Ian Gumby argues that IBM has never clearly positioned IDS alongside DB2 — no competitive literature, no sales enablement, and IDS starved of XPS-derived data warehousing features. Neil Truby counters that IBM lacked the will, not the ability, fearing analysts would call a two-database message incoherent, so DB2 became the flagship. Others note the press still assumes Informix is dead, and ask whether XPS could be revived (answer: no — fold its features into IDS instead). The thread is opinion and debate; no resolution or action is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Its great to see some heated discussions about the product and marketing issues. Serge alluded to something that hasn't really hit the streets and thats the branding effort of IDS and DB2. Yes both are truly brands in the context that there are a couple of different flavors of each and ancillary products like the IDS Datablades. There are some implications to the 'branding' however, different branding under the Information Management pillar is not enough. IBM has not consistently made any statements as to the market position of either brand. Nor have they created competitive sales literature on when and how to position either brand in a solution situation. DB2 has the edge in the DW space because IDS was starved the features that could have come from XPS. 'Arrowhead' (Informix) was viable. 'Arrowhead' (IBM) was not. IDS can gain these features and more than compete against DB2 in this space. Hence the problem. It is unfortunate that IBM can not formulate a 'go to market' strategy that involves two products that have this high of a degree of overlap. I'm not saying that it can't be done. It can. Just that IBM lacks the ability to implement this. I'm sorry but S&D are not capable under their current model and lack of product knowledge. (This is at the SSR level) At the same time, IBM has not done the necessary project/solution investments to create any compelling stories around IDS. Yes you can take a client success and do a write up. But IBM hasn't done anything to seed the market the identifies the capabilities beyond their competition. Mark's the Oracle competitive 'wonk'. I'm sure he can tell you of features in IDS that are lacking in Oracle, just as easily talk about features in Oracle that are not in IDS. I know one of his DB2 counterparts. But I don't know if there exists an IDS counterpart. If IBM is truly going to brand the databases (DB2 and IDS) then they will have to make an investment in to the brand. While under normal circumstances this would have been difficult to get approved, in today's economy and RIF actions, it will be a huge shock if Mills et al will allow such an investment to be made. A SPECIAL NOTE TO AMBUSH (Ambuj) and STEVE MILLS: IBM needs to actually implement a 'Don't work harder, work smarter' strategy. Its not rocket science, but it will mean a change in how SWG actually runs. But hey! What do I know? I'm just a guy who was in the trenches tasked with protecting the brand. ;-) -G 5x8684
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > DB2 has the edge in the DW space because IDS was starved the features > that could have come from XPS. > 'Arrowhead' (Informix) was viable. 'Arrowhead' (IBM) was not. IDS can > gain these features and more than compete against DB2 in this space. > Hence the problem. Can you imagine the horror in the DB2 camp if IDS was to announce a BI platform? :o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
"Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gumby@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:51fc6e1e-532a-468b-ac37-a1199e029e5f@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > It is unfortunate that IBM can not formulate a 'go to market' strategy > that involves two products that have this high of a degree of > overlap. I'm not saying that it can't be done. It can. Just that IBM > lacks the ability to implement this. It's several years since I left the IIUG Board, and other things have certainly changed so perhaps this has, but at that time it wasn't that IBM lacked the ability, it lacked the will. There was a definite decision made NOT to try and implement a strategy of marketing DB2 and IDS because of the overlap. The reason was fear of criticism from IT and Financial analysts that they would have an "incoherent" message on databases. I learnt from my time on the Board that IBM - and I think perhaps US companies generally - are much more sensitive to this than I had previously realised, and that analyst opinions really do count for a lot in the US. (It would be interesting to know the extent to which finaincial analysts continue to hold such sway now that they've been exposed as knowing no more than the rest of us!). It's difficult to think of many areas where IBM offers products that compete directly with one another, and so in the Grand Scale of things, it was (is?) probably easier for them to pursue the "one product for the job" strategy, and choose one database as the flagship and nurture the other as much as possible in a way that attracts little attention outside the existing user base, rather than make an exception in this one case. Given its dominance of mainframe the Golden Child could only be DB2 ...
On 25 Jan, 02:59, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Its great to see some heated discussions about the product and > marketing issues. > > Serge alluded to something that hasn't really hit the streets and > thats the branding effort of IDS and DB2. > Yes both are truly brands in the context that there are a couple of > different flavors of each and ancillary products like the IDS > Datablades. > > There are some implications to the 'branding' however, different > branding under the Information Management pillar is not enough. > > IBM has not consistently made any statements as to the market position > of either brand. Nor have they created competitive sales literature on > when and how to position either brand in a solution situation. > > DB2 has the edge in the DW space because IDS was starved the features > that could have come from XPS. > 'Arrowhead' (Informix) was viable. 'Arrowhead' (IBM) was not. IDS can > gain these features and more than compete against DB2 in this space. > Hence the problem. > > It is unfortunate that IBM can not formulate a 'go to market' strategy > that involves two products that have this high of a degree of > overlap. I'm not saying that it can't be done. It can. Just that IBM > lacks the ability to implement this. I'm sorry but S&D are not capable > under their current model and lack of product knowledge. (This is at > the SSR level) At the same time, IBM has not done the necessary > project/solution investments to create any compelling stories around > IDS. Yes you can take a client success and do a write up. But IBM > hasn't done anything to seed the market the identifies the > capabilities beyond their competition. > > Mark's the Oracle competitive 'wonk'. I'm sure he can tell you of > features in IDS that are lacking in Oracle, just as easily talk about > features in Oracle that are not in IDS. I know one of his DB2 > counterparts. But I don't know if there exists an IDS counterpart. > > If IBM is truly going to brand the databases (DB2 and IDS) then they > will have to make an investment in to the brand. While under normal > circumstances this would have been difficult to get approved, in > today's economy and RIF actions, it will be a huge shock if Mills et > al will allow such an investment to be made. > > A SPECIAL NOTE TO AMBUSH (Ambuj) and STEVE MILLS: > > IBM needs to actually implement a 'Don't work harder, work smarter' > strategy. Its not rocket science, but it will mean a change in how SWG > actually runs. > > But hey! What do I know? I'm just a guy who was in the trenches tasked > with protecting the brand. ;-) > > -G > > 5x8684 Do you think we will ever be able to convinve IBM to restart XPS? How else can Informix compete against DB2 DPF/Sybase Cluster Edition/ Oracle RAC?
> From: david@smooth1.co.uk > Subject: Re: Informix Brand? [SNIP] > > Do you think we will ever be able to convinve IBM to restart XPS? > No. > How else can Informix compete against DB2 DPF/Sybase Cluster Edition/ > Oracle RAC? You bring the feature/functionality in to IDS. The key thing is that IBM doesn't have to re-introduce XPS to stay competitive in the DW space. They have DB2. Ok that may seem a bit counter intuitive, however when you have two products that overlap and also understand a common API, you can switch from one to the other easier than switching from a competitor's product. So an IBM customer using DB2 and the DRDA interface, could switch to IDS using DRDA interface with less issues than trying to switch to Oracle, Sybase or SQLServer. The point is that IBM can succeed without having all of the features of XPS in the next release of IDS. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009
On Jan 25, 12:29 pm, "Neil Truby" <neil.tr...@ardenta.com> wrote: > "Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:51fc6e1e-532a-468b-ac37-a1199e029e5f@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > It is unfortunate that IBM can not formulate a 'go to market' strategy > > that involves two products that have this high of a degree of > > overlap. I'm not saying that it can't be done. It can. Just that IBM > > lacks the ability to implement this. > > It's several years since I left the IIUG Board, and other things have > certainly changed so perhaps this has, but at that time it wasn't that IBM > lacked the ability, it lacked the will. There was a definite decision made > NOT to try and implement a strategy of marketing DB2 and IDS because of the > overlap. > > The reason was fear of criticism from IT and Financial analysts that they > would have an "incoherent" message on databases. I learnt from my time on > the Board that IBM - and I think perhaps US companies generally - are much > more sensitive to this than I had previously realised, and that analyst > opinions really do count for a lot in the US. (It would be interesting to > know the extent to which finaincial analysts continue to hold such sway now > that they've been exposed as knowing no more than the rest of us!). It's > difficult to think of many areas where IBM offers products that compete > directly with one another, and so in the Grand Scale of things, it was (is?) > probably easier for them to pursue the "one product for the job" strategy, > and choose one database as the flagship and nurture the other as much as > possible in a way that attracts little attention outside the existing user > base, rather than make an exception in this one case. Given its dominance > of mainframe the Golden Child could only be DB2 ... Excellent analysis, Neil. Here is just another proof that IBM's dual database strategy message isn't going out: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Is-Java-to-Blame-for-Sun-Layoffs/ Excerpt: ----------- "These guys messed up one after another. In a way they deserve what is happening to them. I predict they will go the same way like Informix, which had good technology and got bought by IBM for its technology and then got 'dumped,' after their technology was grafted into IBM's own databases." You can't even be angry with this journalist as IBM does still too little to transport the new database strategy message outside of the existing Informix user community (:-
On Jan 27, 6:46 am, e...@herber-consulting.de wrote: Eric you raise two points... > > Here is just another proof that IBM's dual database strategy message > isn't > going out: > > http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Is-Java-to-Blame-for... > > Excerpt: > ----------- > "These guys messed up one after another. In a way they deserve what is > happening to > them. I predict they will go the same way like Informix, which had > good technology and > got bought by IBM for its technology and then got 'dumped,' after > their technology was > grafted into IBM's own databases." > This isn't true. During the takeover process, Janet/IBM agreed that they would keep IDS alive and 'well'. That is that they wouldn't buy the company, salvage what they could and dump the product. There were too many fortune 100's that used both companies technologies so a clean and dump wouldn't work. There would be some serious lawsuits, some going back to the valuation of the deal. So one could estimate a billion dollars or more if they starved IDS in to failure. So IBM kept a lot of the good IDS folks, because they too can add wonders to a pig (DB2). Charlie Ills did cut deep and that was in the sales force. Even in the lab, you're cross matrixed to the S&D > You can't even be angry with this journalist as IBM does still too > little > to transport the new database strategy message outside of the > existing Informix user community (:- I don't believe the comment was from the journalist but from a reader's comment. The problem with Sun is that they do have popular and well made software languages and tools. Java and now NetBeans and Glassfish. Its just that they don't know how to translate that in to selling more hardware. Sun had never transitioned from a hardware to a software and services group. Their move towards Open Software was a joke. It wasn't necessary. Java doesn't need to be opened.
On Jan 27, 2:18 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 6:46 am, e...@herber-consulting.de wrote: > > Eric you raise two points... > > > > > > > Here is just another proof that IBM's dual database strategy message > > isn't > > going out: > > >http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Is-Java-to-Blame-for... > > > Excerpt: > > ----------- > > "These guys messed up one after another. In a way they deserve what is > > happening to > > them. I predict they will go the same way like Informix, which had > > good technology and > > got bought by IBM for its technology and then got 'dumped,' after > > their technology was > > grafted into IBM's own databases." > > This isn't true. > During the takeover process, Janet/IBM agreed that they would keep IDS > alive and 'well'. That is that they wouldn't buy the company, salvage > what they could and dump the product. There were too many fortune > 100's that used both companies technologies so a clean and dump > wouldn't work. There would be some serious lawsuits, some going back > to the valuation of the deal. So one could estimate a billion dollars > or more if they starved IDS in to failure. > > So IBM kept a lot of the good IDS folks, because they too can add > wonders to a pig (DB2). > > Charlie Ills did cut deep and that was in the sales force. Even in the > lab, you're cross matrixed to the S&D I've only cited the article of the journalist. It is obvious that he thinks that Informix is dead and DB2 is the successor. That was the old message from IBM after the takeover (Maintaining IDS but DB2 is the future). It seems that the journalist has never heard the new message about IBM's dual database strategy. That's the point I want to make. The new message is not brought to the market with the same ernergy as the old one or it is directed to a restricted audience.
On Jan 25, 5:29 am, "Neil Truby" <neil.tr...@ardenta.com> wrote: > "Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:51fc6e1e-532a-468b-ac37-a1199e029e5f@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > It is unfortunate that IBM can not formulate a 'go to market' strategy > > that involves two products that have this high of a degree of > > overlap. I'm not saying that it can't be done. It can. Just that IBM > > lacks the ability to implement this. > > It's several years since I left the IIUG Board, and other things have > certainly changed so perhaps this has, but at that time it wasn't that IBM > lacked the ability, it lacked the will. There was a definite decision made > NOT to try and implement a strategy of marketing DB2 and IDS because of the > overlap. > > The reason was fear of criticism from IT and Financial analysts that they > would have an "incoherent" message on databases. I learnt from my time on > the Board that IBM - and I think perhaps US companies generally - are much > more sensitive to this than I had previously realised, and that analyst > opinions really do count for a lot in the US. (It would be interesting to > know the extent to which finaincial analysts continue to hold such sway now > that they've been exposed as knowing no more than the rest of us!). It's > difficult to think of many areas where IBM offers products that compete > directly with one another, and so in the Grand Scale of things, it was (is?) > probably easier for them to pursue the "one product for the job" strategy, > and choose one database as the flagship and nurture the other as much as > possible in a way that attracts little attention outside the existing user > base, rather than make an exception in this one case. Given its dominance > of mainframe the Golden Child could only be DB2 ... Neil, You say a lot of things that kind of hit home. Analysts, even under <b>Rule FD</b> still have a large impact on shareholders and investors. But they are more focused on the larger numbers than individual product numbers. IBM as a brand has almost as high a Q rating that the Aflac Duck enjoys. So IBM as a brand is being properly marketed. What isn't being marketed is the individual brands nor the products underneath. And we're not talking about Marketed, but also 'marketed' as in getting the grass roots and viral message out. IBM can't handle marketing dual competing products. Its difficult. And beyond marketing, IBM's S&D is not structured to handle it. Its not to say that they couldn't, but they don't have the internal Information Management teams aligned to handle it. If you want to look at someone who's relatively successful, look at the new coke,'coke zero' , and diet coke. Their ads are successful on one level yet fail at a different level. You know that both products exist, but you don't know which product you'd like. Of course investing a $1.69 per 20oz bottle means you can do your own taste test. IBM's S&D was at first (IGS,ClientRep, SAM, SWG pillar reps, and then IT Specialists). The IT Specialists were assigned to cover certain reps so they had multiple accounts per rep. Behind this you had an IT Architect who know the whole SWG and how to tie the brands together. And then Lab Services to protect the brand. Today, you have (Client Rep, SSR) and if the account is large enough a dedicated IGS rep and a SWG brand sales specialist or two backing them up. Behind them the IT Architect and the Lab Services. In SMB, you have IBM.com telemarketing where the client rep isn't in the field and those client reps in the field have some named accounts but will handle the smaller accounts or white space as needed. Then there's a brand specialist and IT specialist assigned to help support them. That is how thin the teams are being spread. Having said all of that... Your SSR has to have a 30,000 foot view of the product line(s). In reality they can barely maintain a 50,00 foot view. So you have to keep it simple. Where you need to start with the education and set up for a two brand horse race is to educate the IT Specialists and the brand sales specialists. You have to create maps of the products. You have to create win stories and white papers. But that's not happening with IDS and I'm not sure of the sales numbers for DB2 or if we're seeing large license growth of DB2 in the targeted LUW SMB space or the valued but elusive 'white space'. (These are large companies that say 'anything but IBM' )[Some are former IBM customers] The point is that it could be done, however there would have to be some changes to S&D and a lot of work done by brand management teams. Does that make sense? But hey! What do I know? My job title at once said BDM and I took it to heart. ;-)
> From: eric@herber-consulting.de > > That's the point I want to make. The new message is not brought > to the market with the same ernergy as the old one or it is > directed to a restricted audience. > Yes thats a very good point. I think when Ambush took charge after Janet's departure there was a comment that he didn't believe in marketing. My concern is that if said comment was true, then it could imply that he didn't want to market what he thought was a commodity product. Taking the information that they are now attempting to brand Informix and DB2 under Information Management, it could imply that after 8 years they are starting to think of a 2 horse strategy. Unfortunately I don't think they have the creative ability nor the discipline to make it work. If IBM is going to make this work, then they'd have to look towards a couple of professional hires. They don't reach their stated targeted SMB audience because none of them were ever an SMB customer themselves. Those who have spent 15+ years in the blue pig have learned that their best job skill is surviving the annual cull and reorg. Those that took the time and went and got their MBA also got some bad advice that all MBA programs teach. You can't survive long if you're always cutting staff. You need to learn to think on your feet and when you promise to do something, you do it. Right now Ambush has 0 credibility in the market. Jerry Keesee? He's at 50% and dropping. His marketing team? 0%. Product Managers? 50% and mostly because of their long heritage at Informix and the reputation from their prior work. Steve Mills? 0%. You know that a senior exec *is* lying to you when his lips move or he says one thing while his non-verbal communication says another. Alyse P? -5%. Why? Cause she was the IDS WW rep, moved on to IM WW Sales Rep and yet none of the mess has been fixed. She was the *one* person who could have mandated the parity of IT Specialists, yet didn't do so. (By mandate I mean set the PBCs of the FLMS and their staff.) My guess is that the reason we didn't see this happening is that there is fear amongst the DB2 folks. What do you think will happen if/when their IT Specialists are certified on IDS? Do you honestly think that they will want to recommend DB2 in light of knowing and using the capabilities of IDS? (Ok that's a bit tongue in cheek) The point is that IBM has had 3 years post Janet to make changes. I didn't expect them to happen overnight, but within 1 year of status quo and planning and then the following year, pull the trigger. It seems that they can't do it, and unfortunately, the layer beneath them can't do it either. One would hope that with all of the acquisitions, they might have inherited someone with a clue. What gives? -G _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208