Ian,
If the success rate ( or suffocation rate ) is so minimal with the current
marketing method, at what point does it become unacceptable to IBM? Isn't
there a reasonable goal that any child could understand for IBM to market
IDS? It's not like it's rocket science, you either market it or you
don't.
In fact, the marketing efforts to date look quite amateur, by any measure.
Like retards are doing it, having no imagination or creativity.
But then again, maybe common sense isn't how this works. Instead I see a
perpetual trail of tears of really strange bedfellows touching Informix
and
keeping it in a permanent state of limbo. Just plain ****ing weird how in
the simplest of terms IBM wants to piss on your head and tell you it's
raining. Sorry, I don't understand weird **** like that, or just lame
excuses to
explain the lack of real marketing for Informix. Oracle and Microsoft
don't
do anything spectacular other than the basics. Geez how dumb do IBM think
people are? All the lame ass excuses and nobody from IBM has the balls to
simply stand up and make **** happen. Just amazing.
Informix :: The Database With Invisibility Built In
Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
> On Jun 30, 10:15 am, InDeep <ind...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> REALLY? IF THERE AREN'T ANY CUSTOMERS BESIDES WALMART, WHAT ARE MY
OPTIONS?
>> WHY WOULD I WASTE MY TIME WITH THE PRODUCT IF NOBODY OUT THERE IS USING
IT
>> BESIDES ONE BIG CUSTOMER?
>>
>> INFORMIX :: THE DATABASE WITH INVISIBILITY PERMANENTLY BUILT IN.
>
> InDeep,
>
> Do you know why IBM sings the praises of IDS?
> Its simple really. Its an organization where the members volunteer to
> work on a grass roots marketing campaign with little or no help from
> IBM.
>
> If you look at the numbers from the cost of the IIUG's conference, and
> the number of people "touched", IBM got bigger return for what they
> spent than for a "brand" advertisement in a single ad.
>
> Congrat's on the IIUG, and Eric's site for being the marketing arm of
> IDS.
>
> Oh TANSAAFL applies and some of the board member along with Eric et
> al, do what they do because of their own self interest. (And there's
> nothing wrong with that).
>
> But unfortunately, the community is small enough and they're not out
> there creating the buzz that one would expect from a "web 2.0"
> company.
>
> IBM doesn't want to invest their time/money/equipment in creating
> that.
>
> Because of this, those large clients that see value in IDS will
> continue to use IDS and its to their advantage in keeping quiet.
>
> To your point about a developer's program, its a loss leader. In order
> to promote the program, you need to promote it across the board of SWG
> and you need to have evangelists who can talk about using IBM's
> products to architect a solution. Evangelists cost money, more money
> that they want to spend or have buget for.
> HINT: I know of a way of solving this problem. But again, you'd have
> to fight silo politics.
>
> Of course the bigger question... "Why should Senior IM execs spend
> more money when they don't have to? I mean after all, look at IDS's
> growth curve. As long as its growing, they're making money and hitting
> their projected sales targets, who cares?" "Don't rock the boat as
> long as you're successful and you're getting your ticket punched..."
>
> BTW, getting your ticket punched is a military expression. I'll leave
> it to the ex-military types here to explain it to you civilian
> folks. ;-)
>
> But hey! What do I know? Hmmm maybe enough to fill a book ? ;-)
>
> -G
|
