RE: Informix Positive Post #2
Not a technical thread: it's a marketing/advocacy debate sparked by a "positive post" about a client running IDS 10 on HP with ~4TB of data, re-platformed onto Veritas clustering, where the consultant praised IDS's ease of administration. Discussion turned to complaints that IBM advertises brands (DB2/Information Management) rather than IDS itself, whether channel partners and embedded/ISV sales are a better use of marketing dollars than print ads, and whether IDS is losing visibility. Opinions were exchanged, sometimes heatedly, and no technical issue or resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
LOL! First, I guess Mark never bothered to honor the terms of an NDA. There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about IBM. IBM doesn't market individual products but they do market/advertise brands. So how do you market/advertise the Information Management Brand? That's going to be a bigger picture than just little ol IDS. Which is really a product line not an individual product. You know like advertising the P-Series of AIX servers or the I-Series. Both are individual product lines but *are* they a *brand*? Mark also seems to think that the posts I have made are negative. Sorry but the posts merely reflect the lack of attention of the IBM IM execs who in a series of mental lapses, wipe out the majority of the good work that their staff has done. And Mark, 4TB of data? Thats nothing these days when you have home consumers buying 1TB raid systems for their home pc. Sorry. Just too funny. > Subject: RE: Informix Positive Post #2 > Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:33:59 -0500 > From: eemills@nationalbeef.com > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list- > > bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of mark.scranton@gmail.com > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:22 AM > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Subject: Informix Positive Post #2 > > > > I am working with a client using IDS 10 over HP with ~4TB of data. In > > prep for their peak season, we've been "gutting" both the hardware > > (moving to Veritas Clustering and related items) and the engine layout > > over the last year. Early testing looks great with regards to > > performance when load is up to 5X what is expected. The consultant > > working the hardware side recently said very plainly..."I'm just glad > > IDS is what it is and can be administered as easy as it can. It would > > have been impossible to make all the major environment - hardware and > > software - changes with any other product." > > > Now all that needs to happen is for IBM to convert that into a full page > ad running in all those magazines that usually only have Micro$oft and > Orable ads. > > --EEM > > Mark Scranton > > Xtivia Inc. > > _______________________________________________ > > Informix-list mailing list > > Informix-list@iiug.org > > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference. Learn more. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause
On Mar 26, 11:50 am, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > LOL! > > First, I guess Mark never bothered to honor the terms of an NDA. > > There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about IBM. IBM doesn't market individual products but they do market/advertise brands. > So how do you market/advertise the Information Management Brand? That's going to be a bigger picture than just little ol IDS. Which is really a product line not an individual product. You know like advertising the P-Series of AIX servers or the I-Series. Both are individual product lines but *are* they a *brand*? > > Mark also seems to think that the posts I have made are negative. Sorry but the posts merely reflect the lack of attention of the IBM IM execs who in a series of mental lapses, wipe out the majority of the good work that their staff has done. > > And Mark, 4TB of data? > Thats nothing these days when you have home consumers buying 1TB raid systems for their home pc. > > Sorry. Just too funny. > > > > > Subject: RE: Informix Positive Post #2 > > Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:33:59 -0500 > > From: eemi...@nationalbeef.com > > To: informix-l...@iiug.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: informix-list-boun...@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list- > > > boun...@iiug.org] On Behalf Of mark.scran...@gmail.com > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:22 AM > > > To: informix-l...@iiug.org > > > Subject: Informix Positive Post #2 > > > > I am working with a client using IDS 10 over HP with ~4TB of data. In > > > prep for their peak season, we've been "gutting" both the hardware > > > (moving to Veritas Clustering and related items) and the engine layout > > > over the last year. Early testing looks great with regards to > > > performance when load is up to 5X what is expected. The consultant > > > working the hardware side recently said very plainly..."I'm just glad > > > IDS is what it is and can be administered as easy as it can. It would > > > have been impossible to make all the major environment - hardware and > > > software - changes with any other product." > > > Now all that needs to happen is for IBM to convert that into a full page > > ad running in all those magazines that usually only have Micro$oft and > > Orable ads. > > > --EEM > > > Mark Scranton > > > Xtivia Inc. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Informix-list mailing list > > > Informix-l...@iiug.org > > >http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > > _______________________________________________ > > Informix-list mailing list > > Informix-l...@iiug.org > >http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > > _________________________________________________________________ > Watch "Cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference. Learn more.http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause Everett - I agree - but history shows it most likely won't happen. So "we" have two choices....to continue to promote as best we can, or not. Consider that when I first became an IBM'er, I was told that "your future is in DB2". I refused to believe that, and to date, I continue to do ONLY IDS work. What's the future? Not sure. But I am enjoying the work while it is here, and personally I don't see it going away. Witness that I've worked with many, many clients that have said they were "moving to Oracle" at least 2 or 3 years ago, and yet, they have not. Some of those clients are those I've mentioned that have hired additional Informix DBA's in the last year or so. 2 of my major clients have hired a full-time DBA just for Informix. That bucks the trend, and is good news for IDS overall. I can spout plenty of complaints and negative items, and when I think it will further the cause, I will. For now, I am just trying to illuminate the evidence that is out there that many clients are choosing to stay the course. Many have fled, and will flee, but many are not. I think that's a good thing. Thanks - Mark Scranton Xtivia Inc. Informix 1995 - retirement
<Begin Gumby> There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about IBM. IBM doesn't market individual products but they do market/advertise brands. So how do you market/advertise the Information Management Brand? That's going to be a bigger picture than just little ol IDS. Which is really a product line not an individual product. You know like advertising the P-Series of AIX servers or the I-Series. Both are individual product lines but *are* they a *brand*? <End Gumby> Different products may have different ways that are the most cost-effective for marketing that product. For a database product with very low administrative needs, especially in the embedded market, the most cost-effective way of gaining more sales may be something other than taking out full-page ads in WSJ, for example. For this type of product, channel partners are very effective at increasing the sales. The customer does not even need to know they are getting IDS or even that the product they are buying has a full-blown enterprise relational database embedded in it. The channel partner has some wizzy app to sell that the customer wants. If IBM can convince them to build their wizzy app on top of IDS and include IDS in their product, boom, more IDS sales are generated, even though you didn't see an ad for IDS in any of your favorite mass media outlets. So if IBM has allocated a certain number of dollars to spend on the mission of increasing the sales of product X, one might assume they will do some kind of analysis as to how they can get the best bang for their buck. Buying print ads or online banner ads is one way to spend the bucks, and this will produce a certain amount of bang. However that may not be the method that produces the greatest bang per buck, and it may also be very hard to verify the amount of bang each buck actually purchased. In a product like IDS, perhaps the best way to spend those bucks is to use them to woo more new channel partners to your product. If it costs $10,000 to run an ad in some media outlet that might produce one sale of one license of IDS somewhere down the line (and very hard to verify), whereas it also costs $10,000 to fly a couple IBMers to a potential channel partner's HQ a few times to try and convince them to build on IDS, and this effort succeeds, that partner might generate thousands of new sales of IDS -- and it is much easier to measure the hit rate and the payback. As a side note, I find it encouraging for the long-term viability of IDS that it is able to generate so much passion in someone like you that you will post and post and post about how you want IBM to market this product more! I'm glad you love the product so much. I think this kind of passion throughout its customer base has helped IDS weather the years of reduced investment, and now that lots of new features are being put into the product, this can only help smooth the way for greater adoption, however IBM chooses to spend its marketing bucks. -- Kevin Cherkauer Software Engineer IBM Informix Dynamic Server -- Database Kernel First, I guess Mark never bothered to honor the terms of an NDA. There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about IBM. IBM doesn't market individual products but they do market/advertise brands. So how do you market/advertise the Information Management Brand? That's going to be a bigger picture than just little ol IDS. Which is really a product line not an individual product. You know like advertising the P-Series of AIX servers or the I-Series. Both are individual product lines but *are* they a *brand*? Mark also seems to think that the posts I have made are negative. Sorry but the posts merely reflect the lack of attention of the IBM IM execs who in a series of mental lapses, wipe out the majority of the good work that their staff has done. And Mark, 4TB of data? Thats nothing these days when you have home consumers buying 1TB raid systems for their home pc. Sorry. Just too funny. > Subject: RE: Informix Positive Post #2 > Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:33:59 -0500 > From: eemills@nationalbeef.com > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list- > > bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of mark.scranton@gmail.com > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:22 AM > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Subject: Informix Positive Post #2 > > > > I am working with a client using IDS 10 over HP with ~4TB of data. In > > prep for their peak season, we've been "gutting" both the hardware > > (moving to Veritas Clustering and related items) and the engine layout > > over the last year. Early testing looks great with regards to > > performance when load is up to 5X what is expected. The consultant > > working the hardware side recently said very plainly..."I'm just glad > > IDS is what it is and can be administered as easy as it can. It would > > have been impossible to make all the major environment - hardware and > > software - changes with any other product." > > > Now all that needs to happen is for IBM to convert that into a full page > ad running in all those magazines that usually only have Micro$oft and > Orable ads. > > --EEM > > Mark Scranton > > Xtivia Inc. > > _______________________________________________ > > Informix-list mailing list > > Informix-list@iiug.org > > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list Watch 'Cause Effect,' a show about real people making a real difference. Learn more.
> So if IBM has allocated a certain number of dollars to spend on the mission > of increasing the sales of product X, one might assume they will do some > kind of analysis as to how they can get the best bang for their buck. Buying > print ads or online banner ads is one way to spend the bucks, and this will > produce a certain amount of bang. However that may not be the method that > produces the greatest bang per buck, and it may also be very hard to verify > the amount of bang each buck actually purchased. In a product like IDS, > perhaps the best way to spend those bucks is to use them to woo more new > channel partners to your product. If it costs $10,000 to run an ad in some > media outlet that might produce one sale of one license of IDS somewhere > down the line (and very hard to verify), whereas it also costs $10,000 to > fly a couple IBMers to a potential channel partner's HQ a few times to try > and convince them to build on IDS, and this effort succeeds, that partner > might generate thousands of new sales of IDS -- and it is much easier to > measure the hit rate and the payback. Good point, Kevin. Did IBM Management already book their flights to Walldorf (SAP) ? :-)
"Kevin Cherkauer" <invalid_address@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:fse3kq$pea$1@aioe.org... > <Begin Gumby> > There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about IBM. IBM doesn't > market individual products but they do market/advertise brands. Not true, in the UK at least. IBM does advertise DB2. And, flying in the face of the evidence for Best Practice from every study ever done on advertising in the UK, these adverts sure look re-cycled American ones. > For this type of product, channel partners are very effective at > increasing the sales. The customer does not even need to know they are > getting IDS or even that the product they are buying has a full-blown > enterprise relational database embedded in it. The channel partner has > some wizzy app to sell that the customer wants. If IBM can convince them > to build their wizzy app on top of IDS and include IDS in their product, > boom, more IDS sales are generated, even though you didn't see an ad for > IDS in any of your favorite mass media outlets. Well I agree with this to an extent. But ultimately, if the world thinks that the database is dead technology, the customers will resist, the little app vendor will note that resistance, and develop on something more "mainstream". ISVs are a great boon to a database (and used to be Informix's strength), but there needs to be general product awareness too. The two go hand-in-hand.
Kevin Cherkauer wrote: > <Begin Gumby> > There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about IBM. IBM doesn't market > individual products but they do market/advertise brands. > So how do you market/advertise the Information Management Brand? That's > going to be a bigger picture than just little ol IDS. Which is really a > product line not an individual product. You know like advertising the > P-Series of AIX servers or the I-Series. Both are individual product lines > but *are* they a *brand*? > <End Gumby> > Since when is Information Management a brand? "Information Management" is an idea but not a brand. A brand is identified by a product not an idea. When you are selling a product, you typically sell a product within a concept that tells the consumer this is the best choice amongst other products in the same category of product. Selling products is not the same as selling ideas, because ideas alone are not an offer that converts into a sale. Branding is the art of selling a product, not an idea. Ideas are only convertable into cash if you are willing enough to simply plop down money for the idea, which is not what databases are about, and neither are applications. Applications and databases are products, not ideas. People pay for products, with the promise that the product will deliver some kind of value to the person paying for it. You buy databases because of what they will do, not because they are an idea. The offer to provide you some kind of benefit is embodied in the brand. But you can't brand ideas. Only products. > > Different products may have different ways that are the most cost-effective > for marketing that product. For a database product with very low > administrative needs, especially in the embedded market, the most > cost-effective way of gaining more sales may be something other than taking > out full-page ads in WSJ, for example. For this type of product, channel > partners are very effective at increasing the sales. The customer does not > even need to know they are getting IDS or even that the product they are > buying has a full-blown enterprise relational database embedded in it. The > channel partner has some wizzy app to sell that the customer wants. If IBM > can convince them to build their wizzy app on top of IDS and include IDS in > their product, boom, more IDS sales are generated, even though you didn't > see an ad for IDS in any of your favorite mass media outlets. > If this is reality then IBM and Informix really are in trouble. What you have written so far is evidence you are not getting good smoke. > So if IBM has allocated a certain number of dollars to spend on the mission > of increasing the sales of product X, one might assume they will do some > kind of analysis as to how they can get the best bang for their buck. Buying > print ads or online banner ads is one way to spend the bucks, and this will > produce a certain amount of bang. However that may not be the method that > produces the greatest bang per buck, and it may also be very hard to verify > the amount of bang each buck actually purchased. In a product like IDS, > perhaps the best way to spend those bucks is to use them to woo more new > channel partners to your product. If it costs $10,000 to run an ad in some > media outlet that might produce one sale of one license of IDS somewhere > down the line (and very hard to verify), whereas it also costs $10,000 to > fly a couple IBMers to a potential channel partner's HQ a few times to try > and convince them to build on IDS, and this effort succeeds, that partner > might generate thousands of new sales of IDS -- and it is much easier to > measure the hit rate and the payback. > IBM is a multi-billion dollar company with dipshits running the Informix marketing, probably because opportunistic legacy Informix twits told IBM don't worry, it'll all be ok, we'll take care of the marketing. The proof is seen in the same apathetic, myopic behavior shown before IBM bought Informix. Nothing changed. Still the same old shit. All this mom-n-pop rambling and spew is some kind of apology for IBM simply ignoring Informix marketing. IBM may bring the product forward in new features, but it doesn't mean it will ever reach out to new markets. It's just all shit shit shit. > As a side note, I find it encouraging for the long-term viability of IDS > that it is able to generate so much passion in someone like you that you > will post and post and post about how you want IBM to market this product > more! I'm glad you love the product so much. I think this kind of passion > throughout its customer base has helped IDS weather the years of reduced > investment, and now that lots of new features are being put into the > product, this can only help smooth the way for greater adoption, however IBM > chooses to spend its marketing bucks. > And then I woke up... :-/