Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  tonyo  | 7/21/2008 3:47:06 PM

   so.. does this mean to be successful at IBM you need to have your head covered with a trashcan? :)

1. 2  Bruce Elgort http://linkjam.elguji.com | 7/21/2008 3:49:17 PM

   Some nasty thoughts just crossed my mind when I thought to myself "if this video is to advertise for collaboration I wonder what social networking viral videos from IBM would look like" :-)

1. 3  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 7/21/2008 3:51:39 PM

   "Look what happens when you collaborate and work together... "

   Well, from what I can tell, a load of people gang up on one of their number and turn him into a human ram. I had no idea collaboration could be so painful.

1. 4  Glen http://thesalmonfarm.org | 7/21/2008 4:23:27 PM

   I don't get the point or the humor. I must be Web 1.0.

1. 5  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/21/2008 4:25:33 PM

   Yet another instance of IBM's insane fear of ever actually showing a product. First we have two guys turning into the chimps from 2001 when they hear about unified communications, now we have teams turning into Lord of the Flies and the X-Men because their facilities people didn't have the sense to put the keycard system on a UPS. (And why do you need a keycard to EXIT the room anyway? Are these business people or prisoners at Gitmo?) I feel like doing an overdub for this where the guy screams "I'm the Juggernaut, b%&ch!" at the end. { Link }

1. 6  tonyo  | 7/21/2008 4:29:32 PM

   maybe you need to be english to appreciate the humor :)

1. 7  Bernd Webster  | 7/21/2008 4:49:22 PM

   I just hat a 2nd look on this movie... äh... I didn´t got it... sorry ... my woman thinks its a joke movie from some students who drunk to much :-D.

1. 8  Ben Rose http://www.jaffacake.net | 7/21/2008 5:01:05 PM

   It's funny how humour reaches different people in different ways.

   There was a feature on the UK F1 German Grand Prix coverage yesterday about the host nation. They interviewed both German drivers and spectators.

   They asked them various things with one common question "tell us a German joke..." - there was one common answer "there are no jokes in Germany". Of course this amused the Brits no end, especially to hear the Germans say it.

   The best IBM ad in the UK right now is the one about disaster recovery, had be crying with laughter it was so close to real life.

1. 9  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 7/21/2008 5:30:14 PM

   Wow. I love British humor. But I'm missing this one, I'm afraid. Maybe you need to be a native?

   Let's see. Don't collaborate, you wind up eating your colleagues after devolving into various animals. Ugh. Do collaborate, one of you gets to be a human battering ram? Um, no thanks? It would have killed them to come up with a collaborative solution that was actually clever or MacGyver-ish? What's with the recent trend to portray IBM's customers as morons? Is that supposed to be funny?

1. 10  Kerr  | 7/21/2008 5:44:04 PM

   Sadly, the answer does not lie in British humour.

1. 11  Paul Mooney http://www.pmooney.net | 7/21/2008 5:45:49 PM

   I did like the "clear your desktops" campaign.. but this?

1. 12  Ian White http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/IT-collaboration-technology-blog/ | 7/21/2008 5:47:57 PM

   I hope its not British - 'cos we have a sense of humour

1. 13  Ian White http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/IT-collaboration-technology-blog/ | 7/21/2008 5:48:33 PM

   Sorry just realised it came from 'marketing', that explains everything

1. 14  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 7/21/2008 6:08:27 PM

   Marketing? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

1. 15  Julian Robichaux http://www.nsftools.com | 7/21/2008 6:11:06 PM

   If you go to the link at the end of the video (which redirects to { Link } ), there's a much more engaging Flash video/game thing on the right-hand sidebar -- the "choose your collaboration destiny" link. Oddly, you have to login to the IBM site to view it though.

1. 16  Keith Brooks http://www.vanessabrooks.com | 7/21/2008 6:30:35 PM

   hmmm, not going to beat the i'm a pc, i'm a mac ads.

   British humour is better than that, well it was, but then Eric Idle or John Cleese are probably not in the budget.

1. 17  Graham Dodge  | 7/21/2008 6:46:37 PM

   I liked it because it was so close to reality. I often see customers stumbling about in the dark when their systems fail and then I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall (or wooden door) until we have a breakthrough and then everyone is happy.

1. 18  Brett Hershberger  | 7/21/2008 7:10:13 PM

   @14 It's "inconceivable" that they still refuse to show the product...

1. 19  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/21/2008 8:38:55 PM

   So the moral of the story is, never blog while distracted -- I am not sure I should have said anything positive about this, but I was trying to post the blog entry quickly from a very slow link.

   Ogilvy created this for IBM UK, and they sent me the link...maybe they are also watching the feedback.

1. 20  Henry Ferlauto http://www.geniusinside.com | 7/21/2008 8:49:26 PM

   I would have to agree with a compilation of some of what's stated above.

   I think it's funny, but it drags on a bit.

   I also think there should be some showing of the product or at least a better mention of it.

   When viewed in the context of other IBM ads it kind of blends in. Guys in white shirts have something "legacy" go wrong while there's a better way to accomplish the task. Yesterday blade servers, today Lotus collaboration software.

   Get it down to a minute and have at least the last 10 seconds be dedicated to the product thingee and I it could be a winner.

1. 21  Andrew Pollack http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | 7/21/2008 9:10:06 PM

   I have a few questions re: Ogilvy.

   1. How long has Ogilvy been doing IBM's advertising? (advertising is not marketing, it is a small part of it)

   2. When was the last good campaign by Ogilvy?

   3. Are Ogilvy the ones who perpetrated the idiots in space suits who cam looking for good software and never found any, then got stuffed in a conference room and ignored?

   Satire is a dangerous weapon and require training and discipline to use properly. Ask the New Yorker Magazine.

   This ad tries too hard to be hip. It isn't hip. Its sophomoric. They are not the same.

1. 22  JFranchetti  | 7/21/2008 10:17:34 PM

   As far as showing the product - this is enterprise software. You dont see many commerical spots showing PeopleSoft, SAP or even Outlook, Word or Safari screenshots.

   Its one thing to show an iPhone or iPod. In this category it always has been about selling the company (IBM) or the strategic problem to be solved (running s business; communications; innovation; etc).

   However, is there a better way - probably. Better than above - for sure.

1. 23  Alex Kassabov http://kassabov.wordpress.com | 7/21/2008 11:07:16 PM

   @9 Rob, thanks. Now I get the licking of the hand part. I couldn't figure out where they got the hand from -- there was no skeleton in the meeting room.

   Now I understand the moral of the story. It is simple: Collaborate and someone gets hurt. Don't collaborate and someone gets eaten.

1. 24  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/21/2008 11:12:21 PM

   @21 - the last good campaign by Ogilvy was for a global B2B technology company. Tragically, that wasn't IBM.

   { Link }

   { Link }

   { Link }

   Y'know, Ed.... it's not unusual for a client to demand a different creative executive. :-)

1. 25  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/21/2008 11:19:47 PM

   @9 - "What's with the recent trend to portray IBM's customers as morons? Is that supposed to be funny?"

   Do you get the radio ads up in the Boston area? I want to weep every time I hear them. Apparently IBM customers are the equivalent of people that point at the drive-thru menu saying "I'll take that one." At least, that's the take away from the radio campaign.

1. 26  Julian Woodward http://blog.woowar.com | 7/22/2008 1:43:07 AM

   I like those ads @24, thanks Nathan. And it does go to show two things:

   1. If that is Ogilvy, and Ogilvy is the same agency that does IBM, then IBM needs to switch agency or bang some Ogilvy heads together, because IBM advertising is pathetic and has been for years.

   2. It is possible to 'show the product': okay, you're not actually seeing switches and routers and cabling and jazz in those ads, but you are clearly seeing that people are USING products and the ad clearly makes a connection between Cisco and the products being used.

   The IBM campaigns seem so scared of claiming that the products are good, that all they can focus on is the fear factor of look-what-happens-to-you-if-you-don't-use-our-stuff. It's embarrassed, and it's embarrassing. Even the 'clear your desktops' clips, which had the makings of a good idea, was entirely negative and failed to create a link between the amusing imagery and any product/solution/benefit.

   Now, I think I'll go and put a bucket on my head ... cos we find that absolutely hilaaaaarious in the UK ;-)

1. 27  Christian Tillmanns  | 7/22/2008 1:55:18 AM

   My marketing prof always told us that funny adds are free entertainment but bad marketing. I did not believe this, but this here is certainly a proof for his theory.

   IBM's marketing campaings always make me desperate to change my life and do something completely different.

   And you can't blame Ogilvy for this. It is IBM that decides in the end.

   Can I please have that job as head of Lotus marketing? I certainly don't do a worse job.

   Showing a product would be a start to boost the recongnition in the market and I would get all the credit.

   Probably there is a hidden fear in the IBM marketing departement that there are people out there that don't know IBM. Somebody should tell them NOW, that they sell different products and the IBM brand does not need more market penetration. But the products do.

   If the Foundations marketing is like that, MS has nothing to fear and Foundations will be something like ... hang on ... darn ... right - Workplace.

1. 28  Peter Wilson  | 7/22/2008 2:32:25 AM

   > Ogilvy created this for IBM UK

   Ogilvy should be sacked.

   Pete

1. 29  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 7/22/2008 4:55:34 AM

   Peter, wouldn't that be shooting the messenger? Ogilvy has made some amazing stuff for other clients.

1. 30  Genia Holsing http://www.bcc.biz | 7/22/2008 5:13:47 AM

   The best commercials from an IT company I ever saw are still those by EDS (herding cats, running with squirrels, building the plane)! Funny, not silly, and nevertheless in context of their business. Maybe some people should learn... { Link }

1. 31  Gary Grant http://www.conseq.co.uk | 7/22/2008 5:24:26 AM

   I want to know how this ad gets the message across that collaboration is not only good (ok, that's a good message) but that IBM software makes it in any way easier and more effective than collabortation using what ever happens to be lying around the office (a bucket, a tie, what ever software you have installed now... ).

1. 32  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 7/22/2008 5:43:47 AM

   Genia, imagine the cat herders dubbed in german, where "cat herding" does not even make sense.

   EDS does not have a product. Lotus has several.

1. 33  Sean Jennings  | 7/22/2008 5:49:32 AM

   Don't understand this....

   Ogilvy is part of WPP.

   WPP has the Apple account; not sure which agency within it though.

   Could never see Apple accepting an advert like this.

1. 34  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 7/22/2008 6:09:35 AM

   WPP is an umbrella for all sorts of companies, and includes myriad ad agencies. Some are good, some are not so good. Olgivy & Mather were an iconic agency once upon a time, but that era is long gone.

   Even if IBM switched to Apple's agency (who are TBWA\ by the way), that wouldn't guarantee good ads. There's a lot more to it than that.

1. 35  Erik Brooks  | 7/22/2008 6:47:39 AM

   Wow...

   Whoever thought it was a good idea to emphasize collaboration technology when the power's out needs to step outside and get some air.

   When I saw the power going out I thought "Sweet - somebody's going to bust out their iPhone/PDA/whatever running Lotus stuff (oh, maybe the upcoming 8.0.2 iPhone integration?) and collaborate some help."

   Heck, they could've combined it - group A collaborates to get rescuers, and then said rescuers find group B in their cannabilistic state. Best of all worlds.

   This ad also emphasizes another problem I have with IBM's ads - the URLs at the end.

   I hope that ad never airs on TV. Imagine having just seen that ad - "Hang on, let me go type that in..."

   Why not just "www.ibmlotus.com"? Where there would obviously be a big "collaborate" button to tell you more? Oh wait, here's why:

   Domain Name: IBMLOTUS.COM

   Registrar: DSTR ACQUISITION VII, LLC

   Whois Server: whois.dotregistrar.com

   Referral URL: { Link }

   Name Server: NS1.DR-PARKINGSERVICES.COM

   Name Server: NS2.DR-PARKINGSERVICES.COM

   Name Server: NS3.DR-PARKINGSERVICES.COM

   Status: clientDeleteProhibited

   Status: clientTransferProhibited

   Status: clientUpdateProhibited

   Updated Date: 11-apr-2008

   Creation Date: 12-dec-2000 <<<<<<<<

   Expiration Date: 12-dec-2010

   Am I reading that creation date correctly?

1. 36  Jeff Gilfelt http://www.jeffgilfelt.com/ | 7/22/2008 6:53:58 AM

   Codernauts FTW

1. 37  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/22/2008 7:04:48 AM

   @36 LOL

1. 38  Peter Wilson  | 7/22/2008 7:13:06 AM

   > Peter, wouldn't that be shooting the messenger? Ogilvy has made some amazing stuff for other clients.

   Yeah, good point. Sack Ogilvy and the team in IBM who signed off on this rubbish :-)

   Pete

1. 39  Keith Brooks http://www.vanessabrooks.com | 7/22/2008 8:06:01 AM

   Ed, Can't you get them to reshoot the admin/dev video fom Paul Mooney?

   Better yet, get Mooney and team to create ads for IBM.

1. 40  Sean Jennings  | 7/22/2008 8:29:24 AM

   @35 as someone inevitably brought up the iPhone again, can I suggest a rebranding of IBM to make it more hip and cool...?

   how about "iBM" ;o)

1. 41  Brett H  | 7/22/2008 10:19:48 AM

   Ummm... case in point, whatever they are doing is not working.

   { Link }

   Sorry if link doesnt "link", I'm a noob at posting links in blogs.

1. 42  Dvir Reznik http://dvirreznik.blogspot.com | 7/22/2008 11:18:52 AM

   AWESOME !

   Me like :-)

1. 43  Karen Demerly  | 7/22/2008 1:27:39 PM

   Fwiw (and I just now got around to watching it, so I'm late to the party), I thought it was really funny. Especially the guy licking the arm bones - that was hilarious. I see some of the points being made here, but still and all... I got a good laugh out of the piece.

1. 44  Pedro Quaresma http://playroom3.wordpress.com | 7/22/2008 4:21:23 PM

   I'd suggest hiring the guys that made this ad:

   { Link }

   I believe all Notes devs will agree with me that it's brilliant :-)

1. 45  David Bell  | 7/22/2008 6:15:53 PM

   Two sets of people, each trying to achieve the same goal. One team works together and is successful, the other destroys itself. IBM is the enabler of teams seeking to collaborate.

   Don't think there's too much more to it than this.

   But I am British and work for IBM so maybe I have an advantage over the casual viewer.

1. 46  Thilo Hamberger  | 7/23/2008 4:34:29 AM

   Hey dude, you gotta see this:

   Ads for MS Server 2008: { Link }

   Funny :)

1. 47  Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 7/23/2008 6:36:27 AM

   I remember a very grumpy eMail exchange, where I bemoaned the lack of actual spending by IBM (especially in the UK) on 'marketing', where I thought 'marketing' meant 'showing your stuff to folk who might be interested in knowing about it'. The other side postulated that Marketing was something else.

   Having now seen what IBM UK can do when asked to perform this (I thought:Simple) action, I now concur with the other side of the aforementioned grumpy email exchange and agree wholeheartedly that:

   1. IBM (and especially IBM UK) cannot and SHOULD NOT attempt to market their product. The high point was the Terry Giliam 'Internet' cartoon - back in the early '90's. No offense, but I'm trying to help.

   2. Business Partners - such as I or the rest of the people on this thread - should STOP trying to help. Obviously, we cannot and should not try and market Lotus Notes without IBM's assistance. We just need to fill out 14 copies of form 198461/b and wait 18 months for approval from our super-duper hugely improved Business Partner program.

   3. We should all accept that there's a little yellow bubble, and thanks to IBMs' lack of investment (and now: lack of clue) in marketing/advertising OUTSIDE this little yellow bubble, all us whiny business partners should SHUT UP about shrinking market share.

   I get it now. Thanks. Sorry about the Grumpy eMail exchange.

   ---* Bill

   (BTW, WPP are HUGE Lotus Notes users)

1. 48  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/23/2008 7:23:42 AM

   Bill, I didn't disagree with you that IBM marketing could be doing more. I did not know at the time that this is what they'd come up with. As I said on my earlier comments, they should do more/better. But I'm also somewhat heartened that several commenters see this for what it is, no more, no less.

1. 49  Brett Hershberger  | 7/23/2008 11:39:57 AM

   We all see it, why can't IBM? Every day the "other guys" not just the main competitor, are doing great things with marketing and getting their word out, yet I hear nothing of Notes/Domino/Symphony/Foundations/Quickr/Connections except the occasional review and a bunch of love-fests among the faithful.

   IBM/Lotus must stop preaching to the choir!

   Who got to see any of the recent web ads, including this one? Who was the target audience for the "Clear your desktop" ads? I wonder if IBM/Lotus realize no-one else see's these things except the people who are already on the boat. We share them amongst ourselves, but they never seem to make it anywhere else.

   People's attention spans, especially at the CXO level is practically nil nowadays, showing "concepts" or "ideas" is pretty much completely useless, many of your readers (me included) have been saying "show the product!" ever since R8 hit beta, but it still remains hidden except for a few reviews and the few who knew anyway. I constantly here/see people that think Notes is still stuck in the 90's and didn't even know it had been updated, every time one shows them it's all "ooohs" and "ahhhs" and "when can I get it?" If we could just get that emotion out there and show the world I think there would be a large jump in market/mind share.

1. 50  Brett Hershberger  | 7/23/2008 12:30:55 PM

   One more thing to add... something that Micorsoft "got" years ago. Today's "user" is tomorrow's "decision maker".

   IBM has cut it's nose off to spite it's face by not marketing to "users" or "consumers". Why the heck don't they get it? Those users they missed, have been spoon fed the M$ line for years, and now that they are decision makers... guess who's product they are buying?

   It's freakin' unbeleivable that we have been telling IBM this, yet they still have the proverbial fingers in their ears going "la la la I can't hear you".

   And no, I am not a marketing geneous, I just play one on the web.

1. 51  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/23/2008 3:38:05 PM

   @50 - Thank you for that last line. :-)

1. 52  Pedro Quaresma http://playroom3.wordpress.com | 7/23/2008 4:16:05 PM

   @50 "One more thing to add... something that Micorsoft "got" years ago. Today's "user" is tomorrow's "decision maker". "

   Gosh it never dawned on me, but you're absolutely right - I know a few people who went from Notes Devs to MS-oriented Managers.

   "Those users they missed, have been spoon fed the M$ line for years, and now that they are decision makers... guess who's product they are buying?" - bingo!

1. 53  SteveDave  | 7/24/2008 6:09:18 AM

   Did you mean this end user campaign?

   ibm.com/software/info/createsimplicity/desktop/uk/

1. 54  Brett Hershberger  | 7/24/2008 10:47:53 AM

   @53 Yes indeed, that's one of them. I read as many of the trade mags online as I can, IBM/Lotus gets narry a mention on a daily basis. MS puts out a press release or a whitepaper every time they sneeze, and they sure as heck make sure the rags know about it.

   They may or may not have them "in their pocket" but I'm pretty sure IBM/Lotus is not penniless, and so meek that they can't muscle their way into the mag's content? I don't mean just adds, they can pay for those, but mindshare of the reporters and editors too.

   That Superbrands survey from the UK was pretty damming evidence that IBM has been, as the article said, relegated to "also ran" as a brand, at least in the minds of the average "consumer" in the UK. So... therefore, pushing the brand doesn't seem to be working!

   How about pushing an actual product? Preferably a Lotus one please? Perhaps the hottest thing to come out of Lotus in years? R8... I'm talking about R8.

1. 55  Julian Woodward http://blog.woowar.com | 7/24/2008 11:01:44 AM

   @54 - oh don't worry, IBM has wisely invested the TV advertising budget on BladeServer ads.

   Because BladeServers are, obviously, out of all of IBM's products, the one that most of the TV audience will relate to. I mean, why would they relate to some software that sits (or could) on their desktop at work every day, when they can hear all about how lovely the world would be if the CIO bought IBM servers instead of Dell ones?

   Honestly, has anybody at IBM ever stopped to think about how many people - even C-level execs - give a shit what servers their company uses? Or even, frankly, how many people have a clear concept of what a server is, let alone a 'blade'?

1. 56  Brett Hershberger  | 7/24/2008 11:04:15 AM

   @55 Hear hear!!

1. 57  Paul Mooney http://www.pmooney.net | 7/24/2008 4:24:15 PM

   @55 -good point well made.

1. 58  David Bell  | 7/24/2008 4:31:28 PM

   @54 - Windows IT Pro magazine has carried multiple full page ads (per magazine) from the various IBM SWG brands for the last several months.

1. 59  Brett Hershberger  | 7/24/2008 5:17:05 PM

   @58, that's great David, unfortunately brand awareness really doesn't do jack any more. It's the product that counts. Until we see those multiple full page spreads showing R8 in all it's glory like a playboy model, folks are still going to see IBM/Lotus as stodgy and old fashioned. Excellent choice in venue too(seriously), if they can place adds in DominoPower magazines, then vice-versa.

   If the adds did show any products that's awesome and good to hear, sorry I missed them. Pretty much like the rest of the IT world that doesn't read much print any more.

1. 60  David Bell  | 7/24/2008 11:37:15 PM

   @59 - you said @54 that IBM was not getting into mags. I simply pointed out that IBM is advertising in an MS-focused mag. You did not make any statement about the content.

   "Pretty much like the rest of the IT world that doesn't read much print any more."

   Then why are you complaining about IBM not being able to "muscle their way into mag's content". Make your mind up.

1. 61  Brett Hershberger  | 7/25/2008 1:32:40 AM

   @60 Did the adds actualy show the new products David? If so then that is indeed great to news and I'm doubly glad to hear it. But if it was more of the same, brand focused "concept" type adds with no products being shown, then it really doesn't open people's eyes to the new yellow. Decision makers will continue to hold the same prejudices against Notes et al until they are shown something different.

   If you look at the on-line content of most IT trade magazines, it's MS this and MS that (good and bad). I did a few searches for "Lotus" and "Notes" again today, and the results were very disheartening. The amount of coverage Lotus products get is a small fraction of what MS gets. Why is that? It's a serious question, I really would like to know.

1. 62  Julian Woodward http://blog.woowar.com | 7/25/2008 1:59:13 AM

   @60 "You did not make any statement about the content."

   Actually, I rather think he did:

   ".. pushing the brand doesn't seem to be working! How about pushing an actual product?"

1. 63  Brett Hershberger  | 7/25/2008 11:35:12 AM

   Ok this is sad...

   Search results on Networkworld.com for Lotus Notes produces 161 results, only 12 of which are actually about Notes, the rest are about something else and Notes is just mentioned in the article.

   Search results for Exchange maxed out the filter at 500 results. Same with Outlook.

1. 64  David Bell  | 7/25/2008 12:58:03 PM

   @62 - I stand corrected.

   But I went back and looked through some Win IT Pro mags and here is what I see:

   1. If its not hardware, most ads do not show the product at all.

   2. MS's ad for Windows 2008 server does not show the product, it shows a robot in a datacenter; their ad for Forefront Security talks about fighting ancient warriors.

   3. IBM's ads focus on the IT problem and the brand that has the capability to solve it (which today is likely to be more than one product).

   3. is telling in the different philosophies around IBM and MS product development priorities and this should not be new to anyone in the business.

   IBM focuses on solving the problem, MS focuses on aesthetics and could care less about solving the actual problem.

   And I have said this before. Anyone within an organization, who has fiscal responsibility for good business decisions, should be fired for making a decision based on the latter. Does that happen, unfortunately not.

   I expect these people go to bed thinking about how they will solve a business problem, not how they would like the next release of Outlook to look. So why then do they switch these priorities when making an actual decision to solve that problem ? It defies all logical reasoning.

   But does that mean that IBM should change its fundamental philosophy or values ? In many respects, they are why so many customers put their faith and trust of the enterprise in IBM. The same is not true of Microsoft because they are consumer-centric, and always have been.

1. 65  Brett Hershberger  | 7/25/2008 2:43:13 PM

   @64 some good thoughts there David, but surely there is a middle ground. One does not have to eschew ethics in providing a good solution, for showing how good said solution looks.

   One CAN have a consumer oriented add campaign along the lines of... "it works better AND looks great doing it!"

   Many in the Yellowverse have offered up some really great ideas long these lines. Sorry I can't recall exactly who, but others will know.

   When you eat, you eat with your eyes first. This holds true with software too - except the eating part ;-)

1. 66  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/25/2008 4:27:15 PM

   @64 "IBM focuses on solving the problem, MS focuses on aesthetics and could care less about solving the actual problem."

   I guess you hadn't noticed, but most decision makers assume that either option will actually solve the problem. What they care about then becomes that the solution be one that they don't have to argue about. Better aesthetics means less defense of your choice between the available options.

   And if Microsoft is a consumer-centric company, why is it that something like 60% of their earnings comes from business products?

   Putting ads in "Windows IT Pro?" Are you kidding? Do you really think you need to create brand awareness in data center line managers already committed to Active Directory?

   Put ads in Golf Digest, The Economist, and Wired. This isn't the 80s. IT managers don't make decisions.

1. 67  David Bell  | 7/25/2008 5:34:39 PM

   @66

   NTF: "I guess you hadn't noticed, but most decision makers assume that either option will actually solve the problem"

   And "assuming" makes it alright ?

   "Sorry Mr. Shareholder, I assumed that either one would solve my problem, I didn't really take the time to check it out for sure. Hope you don't mind me wasting your money".

   If a good looking solution solves 50% of the problem, and a poor looking one solves 100% of the problem, what are they defending ? Please. We have got to expect and demand more common sense, fact-based decision making from these people.

   The MS mentality is that their software satisfies both business and consumers. Ray Ozzie said at Lotusphere 2005 (or 2006 whenever he was on that panel) that a single piece of software cannot satisfy both enterprise and consumer because they have very different needs. Maybe I worded my original statement badly. I believe MS is closer to the consumer end of the spectrum than the enterprise and because of that things like security and availability have always been, and continue to be, an afterthought.

   I didn't say Windows IT Pro was the be-all-and-end-all of advertising. It was an *example* that IBM *does* advertise in printed materials and this one even happens to be an MS-oriented mag.

1. 68  Brett Hershberger  | 7/25/2008 5:59:55 PM

   @67 Sorry but I reject that statement...

   "a single piece of software cannot satisfy both enterprise and consumer because they have very different needs"

   The current convergence of Web 2.0 technologies refute that statement too. IBM's headlong push of Web 2.0 technologies into the enterprise is proof that it IS happening and right now.

   Again, if users and decision makers were SHOWN the new tools in action they would see for themselves. Give them the benefit of the doubt and do a Coke vs. Pepsi "taste test".

1. 69  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/25/2008 6:21:20 PM

   @67 - "If a good looking solution solves 50% of the problem, and a poor looking one solves 100% of the problem, what are they defending ?"

   Because Samantha in marketing or Betsy on the admin staff don't experience whatever percentage of the problem that isn't getting solved. They don't face the bill-back rates for a system that requires a server for every 200 users. When the email system is down, that simply offers them a welcome excuse to take a long lunch or surf the web for a while.

   And c'mon... 50% vs. 100%? I'm been a Notes junkie for 17 years, and even I wouldn't claim that Notes as a mail client is TWICE as capable as Outlook as a mail client.

   Look, I'm a wholehearted advocate of IT accountability. I think the very existence of the position of "CIO" has been a catastrophe of monumental proportions to western corporations. I think IT should be auditable in exactly the same way that a public corporations financials should be. And I've stated that clearly on this very blog.

   But they aren't. And they're not likely to be unless the SEC starts making rules about it, or the market cap of these organizations that engage in consumer-style decision making gets nuked. If IBM is serious about this kind of accountability, then why isn't IBM investing it's massive pension fund into companies where they can shake up the boards to ask these questions? Why does Steve Ballmer get on the BoD of Accenture and get them to be the all-time case study for migration? Where is IBM matching that kind of direct attack on corporate leadership to drive the fact-based decision making that you think is needed?

   In the meantime, IBM's approach to marketing is "our stuff is better, and if you don't see that, then we'll go wait over here until you come to your senses and start ASKING US ABOUT OUR SOLUTIONS." Because IBM sure isn't going out of it's way to get those solutions in the face of the customer, as evidenced by all the discussion in this entire thread.

   I guess you can point to Ray Ozzie's statements about enterprise vs. consumer software all day long, but his actions certainly speak louder than his words.

   And incidentally, I was very specific in choosing to reference Microsoft's BUSINESS-based income rather than ENTERPRISE-based income. While IBM beats its chest about how enterprise customers need security and availability and MS can't deliver, they're doing a damn good job of drinking your milkshake in any shop smaller than 5000 users. Shall we count how many seats that adds up to?

   David, honestly... nothing personal, but I long for the day when IBM's front line stops saying "we push the overall brand and that must be the right thing to do because that's what we're doing." Pushing the overall brand is dumb, because IBM is far too diverse for that to matter. Every single person on earth that has a PC has experienced Microsoft software, so they don't need a picture of what they look like. Only a tiny fraction of those have experienced a piece of IBM software, so they need a pretty picture. Until then, you're the guys that make the email client everyone complains about and you make some retail point of sale systems that Walmart employees use.

   Drop the attitude and start embracing the idea that software is used by human beings who cares about whether things are easy and fun instead of secure and reliable.

1. 70  David Bell  | 7/25/2008 8:52:31 PM

   @68 - technology is different than a software product. Facebook and Connections employ web 2.0 "technology" - but which one is more suitable for the enterprise.

   @69 - does it matter who they have to defend against, if they made the correct business decision ? Isn't that why they are in the senior position, to make those decisions, because they supposedly have some leadership qualities and sound decision making ability ?

   I don't disagree that what you are saying occurs, but I do disagree that we should just accept it.

   50 and 100 were just examples.

   And as Ed can atest, this thread caused me to pen an internal email this week because, although I am griping about the decision making process of our customers, I actually do believe that IBM is not being anywhere near aggressive enough. On that I agree with everyone's comments in this thread and in the past.

   Per Brett, when we do a "taste test" against MS we always do well, but we need to be in it to win it.

   My comments here do not say that I think we are doing enough, I started out posting in this thread to highlight some inaccuracies about what we *are* doing, not what we *should* be doing.

   I am on the front line talking with customers every day. I too would love to see us step it up and go after hearts and minds, period. Don't confuse my irritation with the way customers make decisions as endorsement of IBM marketing / advertising.

1. 71  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/25/2008 10:26:10 PM

   @70 - I go to bed tonight with this...

   "does it matter who they have to defend against, if they made the correct business decision ?"

   Absolutely! How do you determine "correct?" Isn't that the whole quandry? If "correct" is highest return to shareholders over some period, then MAYBE you can estimate that clearly, though versus alternative options is hard. But lots of people in an organization are likely to call any decision that's different from their own desires "incorrect." And you'll get defensive against them. Especially when they're VPs and CxOs.

   "Isn't that why they are in the senior position, to make those decisions, because they supposedly have some leadership qualities and sound decision making ability ?"

   Senior in what scope? Senior in IT is pretty similar to being senior in accounting. It means you're a good implementer, but you don't decide what's policy.

   If you jump to a CIO, then maybe you decide what's policy, but then you have a choice -- pick the popular option or pick the effective option. If you want to know where the tendency is, I need only introduce you to any modern democracy.

1. 72  Erik Brooks  | 7/25/2008 11:34:05 PM

   @67 -

   "The MS mentality is that their software satisfies both business and consumers. Ray Ozzie said at Lotusphere 2005 (or 2006 whenever he was on that panel) that a single piece of software cannot satisfy both enterprise and consumer because they have very different needs. Maybe I worded my original statement badly. I believe MS is closer to the consumer end of the spectrum than the enterprise and because of that things like security and availability have always been, and continue to be, an afterthought."

   And none of this matters, because the decision makers of tomorrow's enterprises are the CONSUMERS today, and they don't yet care about security and availability.

   Picture this:

   - child is born today

   - child grows up with XX software and email

   - child (now teenager) goes to college

   - child uses XX software and email

   - child graduates

   - child enters workforce, plugs XX software and email

   - child moves up to IT management, and needs to implement company-wide software...

   ...can you guess what brand of software they're going to *want* to implement?

   IBM's targetting the last piece.

   MS is winning the first.

1. 73  David Bell  | 7/25/2008 11:38:09 PM

   @71 - some fair points Nathan, but...

   "pick the popular option or pick the effective option. If you want to know where the tendency is, I need only introduce you to any modern democracy."

   Hmmm, so it's ok with you that the US is going down the toilet because the popular guy won ? Does that not illustrate my point ?

   @63 - since you mentioned NetworkWorld explicitly, did you see this:

   { Link }

   And on the point of your "lotus notes" search, there are 223 results (the 161 you reference is related tags) - but searching for "lotus" yields 457.

1. 74  David Bell  | 7/25/2008 11:57:30 PM

   @72 - I understand the point, I really do. And as I have said, I absolutely believe IBM has to do much better here. I agree with that.

   Let's say I grow up driving a mini cooper. I love it, its a lot of fun, I know it well, it looks good (or at least I think so). I take a job at UPS and move up the ranks until I am Fleet Manager.

   We need to purchase some new vehicles. I really loved my mini, but I can't put many packages in it. My other choice is a big brown boxy van which is no fun, harder to drive and looks awful.

   What you're saying is that you would not be surprised if I picked the mini ?

   You see, along the way, my NEEDS changed. So what I knew and loved before is NO LONGER (or less) applicable to the question at hand. Your premise assumes that consumers and businesses have the same needs; when that consumer gets into business they had better care about things like security.

   A bit extreme an example maybe, but I am not prepared to accept that there is no longer any room for common sense and factual decision making based on business needs and requirements.

1. 75  Julian Woodward http://blog.woowar.com | 7/26/2008 1:17:07 AM

   @73 - I really don't know why you're continuing to defend the indefensible here.

   Statement: IBM's marketing of Lotus Notes/Domino and the entire Lotus product set as well as the overall Lotus brand is completely and utterly crap.

   How can I say that? Because marketing should be measured on results, and all of us outside the cosy IBM bubble are screaming saying that there are no results. Yes, there is activity: advertising bladeservers on TV, pushing the IBM brand with those rubbish two-fat-gits ads, putting 'viral' videos on YouTube (incidentally, a viral video is only a viral video if it goes viral - until then it's just, er, a video). All this is happening, yes: but it's not getting results. If it was, the IBM wouldn't be languishing in the who-the-feck-are-they section of the brand-awareness league. I wonder where Lotus is in that league compared to where it was, say, ten years ago?

   A result would be when I, or any other business partner, speaks to a potential customers about Lotus and a response along the following lines:

   - Yes, I heard that IBM was doing some really interesting things in the area of X. Please tell me more about X.

   - Lotus Notes eh? I've heard that's an excellent system. What's so good about it?

   - Lotus - I used to think they'd disappeared but I've heard that they're actually making a bit of a comeback. Tell me more.

   The theme is "I've heard". If nobody is hearing the message, then the message isn't working = the marketing is crap. Lord Leverhulme said "I know that half of my advertising budget is wasted, but I’m not sure which half". If only if were just half that's being wasted.

   "I am not prepared to accept that there is no longer any room for common sense and factual decision making based on business needs and requirements"

   Please don't blame the CIOs and decision-makers for being lazy, blinkered and indoctrinated. Those are all part of being human. It's marketing's job to get past that into the consciousness. People don't make decisions intellectually: they make decision emotionally and then justify them intellectually. Playing to the intellect, while it may make you feel morally superior, is not a strong strategy. You don't see Apple ads saying that a Mac is better than a PC because the kernel is based on version bla of Unix which means bla bla bla - instead they mock Windows to get the emotional buy-in, and you only have to open your eyes to see how successful that approach is being for them. A person is just a person. A business-person is just a person who happens, temporarily, to work in business. They weren't born that way, and (one hopes) they won't die that way. It's just something they do, in between, for roughly a third or a half of their waking hours.

   "And as I have said, I absolutely believe IBM has to do much better here"

   I sincerely hope that's british understatement there.

   "What you're saying is that you would not be surprised if I picked the mini ?"

   I love the metaphor: Microsoft = Mini Cooper = fun and looks good, IBM = big brown boxy van = no fun and looks awful. And that from an IBMer too. Jeez. Says a lot.

   Finally, you've called "common sense" into play into your last post. Please have the common sense to stop trying to stand up for something that is so blatantly and woefully inadequate. Let's all just accept that it's crap, shall we, and move on ...

   (See @47)

1. 76  Brett Hershberger  | 7/26/2008 3:20:48 AM

   Right now Lotus seems to have a "perfect storm" of awesome products. They look great and many people feel they are technically superior than competing products. I just hope IBM/Lotus marketing will take advantage of this opportunity, and capitalize on the excellent design job done in the R8 code stream.

   When Macy's want's to sell something they put in the front window don't they?

1. 77  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/26/2008 3:59:42 AM

   @74 - "What you're saying is that you would not be surprised if I picked the mini?"

   Actually no. What everyone here is saying is that we wouldn't be surprised if you picked the BMW. If you loved your Mini, there's a good chance that Mercedes wouldn't even be in the running.

1. 78  Erik Brooks  | 7/26/2008 9:44:49 AM

   @74 -

   - "We need to purchase some new vehicles. I really loved my mini, but I can't put many packages in it. My other choice is a big brown boxy van which is no fun, harder to drive and looks awful."

   It's definitely ironic that IBM is the "no fun, harder to drive, looks awful" in that statement. But you gave a horrible analogy.

   How do you know you can't put many packages in the Mini? Because you can *see* it. Physical storage space is readily tangible. It is obvious - VERY obvious - that the Mini won't do the job.

   But more importantly, you *know* there are other big van and truck models available because you can *see* them, even if you don't want to.

   - "You see, along the way, my NEEDS changed."

   In your example, yes. But not so much in the software world. That IT manager's needs didn't change so much as they *increased*.

   If they believe their familiar vendor can satisfy their *increased* needs, they will stick with that vendor. And there will be a cheerful MS sales guy there to ensure them that MS products can scale, are enterprise-ready, etc. and voila - decision made.

1. 79  James Epson  | 7/26/2008 9:53:34 AM

   It amazes me how easily Ed's posts turn into Lotus marketing sucks rants by the commenters. I agree, Lotus's name is not on the tip of everyone's tounge, but what is besides the Google, iPhone, and Sharepoint? What would people like to see IBM do, other than just have a million TV commercials? If you were them, what would you do?

1. 80  Brett Hershberger  | 7/26/2008 10:40:38 AM

   @79 A million TV commercials showing the product instead of the brand would be a great start!

1. 81  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/26/2008 11:52:47 AM

   @79 - Really? 'Cause Ed's post was to show a piece of Lotus marketing. I can't imagine a more predictable outcome than for people to evaluate the piece.

   And "what would you do!??!" Really? You didn't see all these replies saying "show the product. show the product. show the product?"

   @78 - Actually, the interesting part here is how we made the jump from driving a personal Mini all the way to the entire UPS fleet. That's just a wonderful demonstration of how IBM is obsessed with the superscale. Customer needs can only go from the personal to the grand global infrastructure of hundreds of thousands of people moving millions of packages all over the planet. I guess no one delivers pizzas, flowers, legal documents, office supplies or car parts -- all of which might be easily done with, you guessed it, a Mini; probably with better gas mileage and less-obtrusive parking requirements than a big brown truck.

1. 82  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/26/2008 12:02:07 PM

   @73 - "Hmmm, so it's ok with you that the US is going down the toilet because the popular guy won ? Does that not illustrate my point ?"

   And for the record, no, it's not okay with me at all. But while I long for a modern America led by benevolent philosopher-kings, I do recognize that I live in the real world. Simply saying that something OUGHT to work a certain way does not cause it to come into being. You have to fight for it and win.

   How about IBM runs out and registers ITACCOUNTABILITY.ORG? Start building a marketing campaign around that. And advertise in the WSJ, IBD, the Economist and Money. Hell, see if you can get Ralph Nader as a spokesman. Or maybe Michael Moore can make a documentary based on "Where Have All the Emails Gone?"

1. 83  David Bell  | 7/26/2008 12:33:50 PM

   @75 - actually I am British, so yes it is probably understated.

   I didn't say that *I* think of MS=mini, IBM=van. It was supposed to be a contrast between form vs. function, individual vs. business.

   I'm not standing up for IBM marketing / advertising, how many times do I have to say that. I wrote the first email internally on the topic this last week because I too am concerned about our terrible performance there.

   I am standing up for a belief that somewhere, someone cares about addressing BUSINESS NEEDS versus CONSUMER LIKES.

   @81 - The jump was from "my individual need" to the "needs of my organization" that go along with my change in responsibilities over time, and as such the perspective of what will satisfy that need must come into play rather than assuming what I have used all along will just do.

   @82 - "You have to fight for it and win."

   I am advocating that we fight for it, and with 15 years of Domino consultancy behind me, I really, really want to win. But it takes two to tango. It is hard to combat irrational thought or complete lack of it.

1. 84  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/26/2008 1:54:46 PM

   @83 - And my point is that when you jump from "my individual need" to the "needs of my organization," you automatically assumed the needs of the organization were transcontinental in scale. That's a really bad habit of IBM's -- to effectively cede everything in the middle scale.

   Let me give you a great example that pertains to exactly your analogy. There's a huge chain in the US for consumer electronics called Best Buy. It's been incredibly successful to the point of putting several competitors out of business and being challenged only by Walmart as the place where people in the states get computers, TVs, stereos and digital media via retail.

   One of the reasons they're so successful is that they combine their brick & mortar locations with installation and maintenance services. They have a crew at every store -- often high school kids who grew up with computers, or college CompSci majors, or somebody that took some A+ training courses and doesn't want to work a corporate help desk -- called the Geek Squad. If your HP system you bought at Best Buy breaks, you can call up the Geek Squad and get an in-home service call. Need a DVD RAM drive installed? Or want a second LCD panel set up? Or want to switch your kids' systems to Macs, but you don't have time to go into the store? You can call the local Geek Squad and they'll come help you out. They'll even deliver parts from the store if there's smaller stuff they can carry with them.

   Local in-home service is really the only reason anyone in the US buys computer hardware retail anymore.

   So guess what the Geek Squad drives when they conduct in-home visits? It's not a Mini, but it's damn close. { Link }

   To tie this back to the point: here is a huge retail enterprise that needed to make a choice on a fleet of vehicles, and made a choice largely due to issues of form, because it tied to their brand visibility. It's been very successful for them.

   Form vs. function is a false dichotomy. The form IS the function. That's a basic lesson of modern design engineering in everything from architecture to automobiles to vacuum cleaners to telephones and yes, to software. IBM's engineers clearly know it; look how much energy has been put into the OneUI design!

   Now that IBM has included form in its function, it's time to TELL PEOPLE ABOUT IT -- not to hide behind empty "overall brand awareness" efforts.

   The needs of an enterprise include the needs of the individuals that make it up. That's what I mean when I say software is used by humans. Just because you sell international business machines, doesn't mean you sell them TO machines. You sell them to people, and people's needs are individual, capricious and highly emotional. Ignoring those needs and blaming the customer for not being more "rational" is just burying your head in the sand.

1. 85  David Bell  | 7/26/2008 6:33:48 PM

   @84 - honestly, scale was one thing that was not on my mind; simply different than consumer was my intent. I obviously did not do a good enough job of getting that across.

   "The needs of an enterprise include the needs of the individuals that make it up. That's what I mean when I say software is used by humans. Just because you sell international business machines, doesn't mean you sell them TO machines."

   Agreed. Includes but does not constitute all of them. Security for example. If everyone understood and practiced good security, there would be a lot less identity theft. But many consumers don't think about security, especially in the IT context. So, if the majority of the users in a business don't understand or care about security, should it no longer be considered in any IT decisions ? Of course not; that is my point. The business need, as Erik said, is greater (the word I used was different) than the consumer. But in any case, just because you use product X at home, school, etc. does not necessarily mean product X is the right choice for the business. Is it more likely, maybe, but not a foregone conclusion. Likewise, business product Y may not be a good fit for home, school, etc.

   "You sell them to people, and people's needs are individual, capricious and highly emotional. Ignoring those needs and blaming the customer for not being more "rational" is just burying your head in the sand."

   I'm not advocating ignoring needs; my whole tenet here is that IT decision makers are the ones ignoring needs. I WANT decisions to be made based on all of the pertinent needs.

   And if IBM pulls its finger out and shouts the message from the rooftops for all the world to hear, as we *all* would like them to do, decision makers are still going to be required to make appropriate choices for their business.

1. 86  alan lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 7/26/2008 7:01:46 PM

   Wow, I'm outside of ibm a week, and now I get to read about lotus marketing from the other side. Its so clear now. Just joking. But as the new socialtext marketing dude, at least I know you all want to see the product. Were working on a complete web site redesign and new marketing material, so ill try and keep "show the product" in mind.;-)

1. 87  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/26/2008 9:08:24 PM

   @75 Julian, while you have some valid points, I have to point this out:

   "Because marketing should be measured on results, and all of us outside the cosy IBM bubble are screaming saying that there are no results."

   Perhaps you missed our last fifteen earnings reports.

1. 88  Ian Scott  | 7/26/2008 11:44:48 PM

   Is it possible here that those contibuters who own their own companies or who work for small outfits have a quite different perspective from those who are permanent employees of quite large companies?

   I've been programming Notes for 15 years and I am top notch. I've had my own company and I've been a consultant and contracter but today I'm just a member of staff in a company which couldn't care less about specific technologies. I'm an overhead that is trying to extract added value from something we bought; we could use Notes more or we could use it less but it would cost the same either way.

   I think Notes is overlooked a lot here for major systems solutions but I don't for one minute believe that the decision makers are so naive as to choose it or any other product based on the words of a marketeer.

   The 'solution' approach IBM takes is, I firmly believe, the right one. It talks 'up' to the customer.

   When I came to work here there were 11 Notes databases in production and Notes had been deployed for 7 years. Four years later we have well more than 100 databases in production and demand for them is growing at such a rate that we are about to try and recruit someone to give me a hand.

   I can't express this without running the risk of sounding egotistical but quite simply it is me that has changed the perception of Notes from being 'just' e-mail to being an indispensable business tool and a first choice for handling new time critical situations.

   When I came to work here the 'Exchange/Outlook' words terrified me and I repeatedly wanted to bang my head off a wall when I saw the entire company being e-mailed an Excel spreadsheet or a Word 'form' to fill in but that is no longer so. Today, the 'knee jerk' reaction to a new business situation is for people to come to me in the hope that Notes can deliver. These days (still on R7 in production) people say to me "I prefer Outlook but I realise we use Notes because it is more than that. [BTW you have to fix the R8 issues where the cursor can't regain focus in a form unless I switch tabs and the one where the screen goes black for a couple of seconds. IMHO it's not fit for purpose until those issues are sorted!!].

   I recall demonstrating the first database I built here and at the end a very senior manager squeezed my arm and said 'Thank you. This is what IBM sold us'

   I'd love to see an inspiring concept advertisement in the cinema for Notes (and an abridged version on TV) partly because it would alter the perception of the randoms in the pub (who believe Outlook is the winner) but also because it would vindicate the people who chose to buy Notes in the first place. Such advertising would encourage and in environments where Notes potential hasn't been realised it would surely compel at least some decision makers to ask why Notes is not being used to its full potential. Notes is vulnerable in sites where its potential is not realised. FUD can permeate such sites with ease.

   Remember the R3 'Sssshhh. Don't tell anyone about Lotus Notes'? Well, it's a bit like that here today and it's great. We think we have a secret (weapon).

   IBM can't show the databases I build in an advertisement and even if they could the viewer wouldn't understand what the applications were for and so would fly over their heads. What's happened here over the last four years is that influential senior members of the company have 'got it'.

   Because I'm a simple member of staff I can deliver Notes solutions at a lower cost than a third party and I can do it because it is clear that my *only* agenda is to keep myself busy (in work) and maximise the utility of something we have already paid for.

   I don't have to sell the next version of Notes because we are on maintenance. I can concentrate on delivering immediate solutions while cutting through red tape. If we were to put Notes development work out to contract we'd have to go through so much process that the thing would *have* to cost 4 or 5 times as much as it costs to get me to figure it out and just do it.

   Sorry if I'm rambling but what I'm trying to say is that IBM wants to sell Notes but can't (shouldn't) really care too much what it's used for after that. The problem, it seems to me, is that once sold keeping Notes in situ is up to small numbers of dedicated individuals who are often operating inside or (in the case of third party consultancies) on the periphery of large companies and it is those individuals who *need* IBM to be specifically advertising Lotus Notes so that they can either point to it or deflect to it.

   Ed - You have written and presented in the past about 'Selling Notes Within The Organisation'. I do it all the time and I presume you have written and presented on the subject because you view it as important. Focussed Lotus Notes advertisments are required to assist that effort.

   The much vaunted 'Superman' TV ads inspired and got people curious. They might not have translated into sales then (9/11?) but maybe today they would. America is screaming out for super heroes these days. Notes is!

   You have to specifically advertise Lotus Notes. BP's can't do it!

1. 89  Ian Scott  | 7/26/2008 11:47:55 PM

   Is it possible here that those contibuters who own their own companies or who work for small outfits have a quite different perspective from those who are permanent employees of quite large companies?

   I've been programming Notes for 15 years and I am top notch. I've had my own company and I've been a consultant and contracter but today I'm just a member of staff in a company which couldn't care less about specific technologies. I'm an overhead that is trying to extract added value from something we bought; we could use Notes more or we could use it less but it would cost the same either way.

   I think Notes is overlooked a lot here for major systems solutions but I don't for one minute believe that the decision makers are so naive as to choose it or any other product based on the words of a marketeer.

   The 'solution' approach IBM takes is, I firmly believe, the right one. It talks 'up' to the customer.

   When I came to work here there were 11 Notes databases in production and Notes had been deployed for 7 years. Four years later we have well more than 100 databases in production and demand for them is growing at such a rate that we are about to try and recruit someone to give me a hand.

   I can't express this without running the risk of sounding egotistical but quite simply it is me that has changed the perception of Notes from being 'just' e-mail to being an indispensable business tool and a first choice for handling new time critical situations.

   When I came to work here the 'Exchange/Outlook' words terrified me and I repeatedly wanted to bang my head off a wall when I saw the entire company being e-mailed an Excel spreadsheet or a Word 'form' to fill in but that is no longer so. Today, the 'knee jerk' reaction to a new business situation is for people to come to me in the hope that Notes can deliver. These days (still on R7 in production) people say to me "I prefer Outlook but I realise we use Notes because it is more than that. [BTW you have to fix the R8 issues where the cursor can't regain focus in a form unless I switch tabs and the one where the screen goes black for a couple of seconds. IMHO it's not fit for purpose until those issues are sorted!!].

   I recall demonstrating the first database I built here and at the end a very senior manager squeezed my arm and said 'Thank you. This is what IBM sold us'

   I'd love to see an inspiring concept advertisement in the cinema for Notes (and an abridged version on TV) partly because it would alter the perception of the randoms in the pub (who believe Outlook is the winner) but also because it would vindicate the people who chose to buy Notes in the first place. Such advertising would encourage and in environments where Notes potential hasn't been realised it would surely compel at least some decision makers to ask why Notes is not being used to its full potential. Notes is vulnerable in sites where its potential is not realised. FUD can permeate such sites with ease.

   Remember the R3 'Sssshhh. Don't tell anyone about Lotus Notes'? Well, it's a bit like that here today and it's great. We think we have a secret (weapon).

   IBM can't show the databases I build in an advertisement and even if they could the viewer wouldn't understand what the applications were for and so would fly over their heads. What's happened here over the last four years is that influential senior members of the company have 'got it'.

   Because I'm a simple member of staff I can deliver Notes solutions at a lower cost than a third party and I can do it because it is clear that my *only* agenda is to keep myself busy (in work) and maximise the utility of something we have already paid for.

   I don't have to sell the next version of Notes because we are on maintenance. I can concentrate on delivering immediate solutions while cutting through red tape. If we were to put Notes development work out to contract we'd have to go through so much process that the thing would *have* to cost 4 or 5 times as much as it costs to get me to figure it out and just do it.

   Sorry if I'm rambling but what I'm trying to say is that IBM wants to sell Notes but can't (shouldn't) really care too much what it's used for after that. The problem, it seems to me, is that once sold keeping Notes in situ is up to small numbers of dedicated individuals who are often operating inside or (in the case of third party consultancies) on the periphery of large companies and it is those individuals who *need* IBM to be specifically advertising Lotus Notes so that they can either point to it or deflect to it.

   Ed - You have written and presented in the past about 'Selling Notes Within The Organisation'. I do it all the time and I presume you have written and presented on the subject because you view it as important. Focussed Lotus Notes advertisments are required to assist that effort.

   The much vaunted 'Superman' TV ads inspired and got people curious. They might not have translated into sales then (9/11?) but maybe today they would. America is screaming out for super heroes these days. Notes is!

   You have to specifically advertise Lotus Notes. BP's can't do it!

1. 90  Julian Woodward http://blog.woowar.com | 7/27/2008 12:04:27 AM

   @89 Spot on. Marketing the IBM brand doesn't count for anything. People don't buy a General Motors car: they buy a Vauxhall, a Saab, a Chevrolet, a Hummer, an Opel, a Corvette, etc.

   Putting generic General Motors brand ads on TV in the UK would achieve nothing. Put Vauxhall ads on the TV in the UK, and you are persuading people to be interested in Vauxhalls.

   Putting generic IBM brand ads on the TV would achieve nothing. Put Lotus Notes ads on the TV in the UK, and you are persuading people to be interested in Lotus Notes.

   @87 I would have thought that you, of all people, would know not to confuse sales with marketing.

   So can you tell us that there are umpteen successive quarters of growth once all licence renewals, customers going back onto maintenance, up-sells into existing IBM customers, and currency fluctuations are stripped out of the figures? If so, that's excellent, because what's left is the stuff that would be a measurable success of the marketing effort: genuine new sales of Lotus software into businesses that previously had no Lotus software and no contact with IBM. The other areas, while of course a real success story and I (I'm sure that's "we") salute you for it, is down to successful account management, CRM, and general preaching-to-the-converted.

   I was actually setting the bar much much lower, which was simply to be able to speak to potential (SMB) customers and for the response not to be the ubiquitous "oh, are they still around?", but interest because they've been exposed to and remembered some marketing materials and already know that Lotus us still a going concern. They don't actually have to buy anything, they just have to have heard of it! And, on that measure, Lotus marketing in the UK may as well not exist.

1. 91  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 7/27/2008 3:25:59 AM

   >> stripped out

   You forgot price hikes.

1. 92  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/27/2008 8:32:48 AM

   @91 so you charge the same rate today as you did ten years ago? No? Then you marketing must not be working. Huh?

   @90 Julian, you're right, I blurred the sales v marketing distinction to make a point. Ultimately, no company engages in marketing to drive brand image or awareness alone...it's to generate awareness that leads to understanding that leads to interest that leads to buying. So, one way to measure whether IBM has done *any* effective marketing of Lotus Notes is to see if the product is selling. After all, if Notes was dead as many times as has been declared, then no amount of CRM and account management would be keeping the lights on, much less growing the business.

   There are a lot of ways that the relative success or failure of marketing can be measured. IBM put $18K currency plus speakers into ILUG -- from marketing funds -- do you think that is simply "general preaching to the converted" ? Since you seem to think the metric for marketing success is only around brand new customers, I suppose I know what the answer will be. At any rate, yes, there are brand new Notes customers each and every year, who buy Notes for the first time without having had any Notes apps or mail or anything in place before. In fact we sold a 300,000 user deal in Q2 in Asia that is not Exchange replacement nor Notes consolidation. There are many more such customers, in addition to metrics which do in fact pay the bills, like existing customers buying more. Renewal and growth business is far far more than just account management and CRM.

   At any rate, as a business partner, you should have access to the customer references database, which has far more success stories than are published publicly on ibm.com. Have you submitted any, Julian, for Axiot? I can't find any on your firm's website. We could always use more stories of how new customers are making use of Notes, so I'm sure you have some that are worth sharing.

1. 93  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 7/27/2008 9:19:10 AM

   "At any rate, as a business partner, you should have access to the customer references database"

   Well, I'm a BP, but I don't have access to anything like that ;-p In any case, none of my clients would thank me for listing them as references on such a site, in much the same way that few big clients tend to "go public" on ibm.com (which I agree is a shame).

1. 94  Erik Brooks  | 7/27/2008 9:21:26 AM

   @79 - "what is besides the Google, iPhone, and Sharepoint?"

   ...Coke, BMW, Charmin, Corona... all who show the product instead of the brand. Though if you want to stick with just I.T., then you've pointed out Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Don't you think IBM should be in that list?

   @80 - Heck, I'll take *one* TV commercial showing the product instead of the brand!

   @83 - "I am standing up for a belief that somewhere, someone cares about addressing BUSINESS NEEDS versus CONSUMER LIKES."

   I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you. But you've pointed out the problem - Why can't IBM tackle advertising for both business needs AND consumer likes? 5 years ago they didn't have any products a consumer would like, but now they have many!

1. 95  Erik Brooks  | 7/27/2008 9:32:11 AM

   @92 - IIRC there was a price hike of ~3% as recently as the past year or two.

   "So, one way to measure whether IBM has done *any* effective marketing of Lotus Notes is to see if the product is selling."

   Have there been any recent Lotus (not IBM) brand awareness surveys? If I had the time, I would *love* to run across town to FSU (Florida State University, a decent state university with 40,000+ students) and do a quick survey of the Business, Computer Science, and Information Studies departments.

   Question #1:

   "Please list all of the e-mail and/or collaboration software programs you are aware of."

   Question #2:

   "Have you ever heard of Lotus software?"

   ....I would love to see the awareness amongst:

   - incoming undergrads

   - current graduate students/PhD candidates

   - faculty

   I'd be willing to bet that more people will answer "iPhone" as an email program than "Lotus (anything)".

1. 96  David Bell  | 7/27/2008 12:07:02 PM

   @94 - "Why can't IBM tackle advertising for both business needs AND consumer likes? 5 years ago they didn't have any products a consumer would like, but now they have many!"

   I am not disagreeing with this part of the equation. I would love to see Notes all over the TV. The whole point of all my posts, and maybe I have just not been succinct enough to get it across, is that while we want to see marketing / advertising to satisfy this equation:

   business needs + consumer likes = chosen solution

   what we are seeing from too many decision makers is:

   consumer likes = chosen solution.

   And I don't think that can be fixed any time soon with *just* marketing / advertising because the typical consumer (and by that I mean non-IT people) does not get all of the business needs. That is why decision makers with IT responsibility need to be the ones to include them. As Ian points out, when the business needs are part of the decision making criteria, Notes does much better.

1. 97  Brett Hershberger  | 7/28/2008 10:27:53 AM

   @96 The problem everyone can see... except it seems IBM, is that they are only doing this equation:

   business needs = chosen solution

   The current product set does include the "consumer likes" factor but it's just not being shown. Lotus HAS both parts of the equation right now, why not use them both?

1. 98  David Bell  | 7/28/2008 11:16:34 AM

   @97 - I know. I have not disagreed with this. I am an IBMer, I do not speak for the whole of IBM.

   Actually, I should probably have put "individual needs" instead of "consumer needs" as that is more accurate.

   We need both sides and as you and Nathan explicitly said, from a product perspective we are now in a much better position to do this. You all are complaining about one part, and I am complaining about the other, together we make it whole.

   Some of the responses to my posts suggest that they were either misread or misunderstood. Seems like a number of leaps / connections were made that were not there, or at least not intentional.

   For example, people inferred that I was saying MS was the mini and IBM was the UPS van in an "analogy". That was not what I was saying, but it illustrates a historical reason for choosing MS vs IBM. In my post, it was intended as an example contrasting that as a young individual car driver, smaller, good looking and fun fits my needs better than a van. And as person responsible for UPS vehicles, the van is a better choice than the mini for moving large packages. A decision based on suitability to addressing needs.

   Nathan complained that I was taking a typical IBM superscale approach discussing quote "the entire fleet" at UPS. I made no such statement. I said the fleet manager (role / responsibility) needs "some new vehicles". It was an example of a decision maker making a business rather than a personal / emotional decision.

   Might be worth a re-read; but in any event this is my last post on the topic.

1. 99  Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 7/28/2008 11:58:04 AM

   I suppose a useful point to finish on is that I have a huge amount of hope that the new boss of Lotus - coming from a sales background - will turn all this around.

   When does he start ? I've not heard anything from or about him yet.

   ---* Bill

1. 100  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/29/2008 7:57:23 AM

   Bill, what did you think of Picciano's

   Keynote at DNUG last month? How about in Japan earlier this month?

1. 101  Kerr  | 7/29/2008 9:12:28 AM

   @100, Ed, Do you have a resource with a good breakdown of those keynotes for those of us that couldn't make it?

1. 102  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/29/2008 10:14:58 AM

   @101 I am not sure if I can get the slides (typically general manager presentations are not posted) but you can hear similar messages in his podcast on LotusUsergroup.org: { Link }

1. 103  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 8/1/2008 11:53:37 AM

   I've been on holiday (UK) / vacation (US) so very late to the party. I work for IBM so have to keep some opinions to myself. I haven't read every single comment so apologies if I'm re-iterating something already said.

   Point #1 - when Notes 8 was getting ready to ship, what I wanted to see was big in-your-face artwork / posters / ads showing the Notes 8 UI. People have a perception that Notes is ugly and clunky, but Notes 8 provides the "I want that" factor that works well on big posters on the London Underground (for example, in the same way that Microsoft have bought an entire platform from end-to-end). Very expensive to do. And yes, advertising is a sub-set of marketing.

   Ten months after it's ship, and many more months after we started demoing it, I'm still meeting people who've not seen Notes 8.

   Point #2 - interesting that a vehicle analogy came up, I've used that in the past. Snap decision - would you like a Maserati GranTourismo or a Volvo Estate? Hands up who went for the Maserati? Ah, but you have three kids (with bicycles), a dog, and grandma is coming out for a day trip too. Does the Maserati fulfil your requirements? Probably not. The Volvo doesn't look as nice, but it handles your requirements.

   Point #3 - "our users like Outlook and they use it at home". No they don't. Some of them maybe, most likely Outlook Express and not the big Outlook, but the point is don't even spout this crap unless you have evidence otherwise it's just a perception I can shoot holes in. However, there is a shift in the Earth's rotation caused by one simple fact. Five years ago IT departments could tell end-users to go away back to their desks because they weren't qualified to make IT decisions. Now thru daily use of e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, social networking, forums, etc end users are more tech-savvy and ARE qualified (to a certain extent). Okay, they don't get the big picture about cost of ownership, integration with other systems and standards, etc, but their collective voice counts much more than five (or even two) years ago. That's why marketing to end users is important and has to happen where end users see it. More to the point, end users have to understand it, or be interested enough to go away and investigate further, or start talking about it (like the gorilla playing the drums in the Cadburys ad - irrelevant but it got people talking, and then it becomes truly viral).