It's Not About The Technology 198
| It's not about the technology | |
| author | Raj Karamchedu |
| pages | 230 |
| publisher | Springer |
| rating | 4 |
| reviewer | Alex Moskalyuk |
| ISBN | 0387233504 |
| summary | Developing the craft of thinking for a high-tech corporation |
20 chapters are written from the point of view of tech marketing executive, as Karamchedu tries to answer the question of why some products gain a loyal audience and enjoy commercial success, while the others are simply additions to the dusty shelves of history. Everyone has their favorite comparison, where a technically advanced product does not gain acceptance on the market while a supposedly inferior competitor is rolling in cash. Hey, IBM built an entire theory on how it was safe to let Microsoft sell its not-so-great DOS with IBM PCs in order to push the hardware from the warehouse while the company was preparing the next revision of state-of-the-art OS/2 -- which, of course, everyone will buy on the day of release in order to replace Microsoft's software.
History occasionally teaches tech marketers some curious lessons, and the conclusion that the author comes up is summarized in the book title. The title might sound like an insult to a design engineer, but in most of the cases the success in the market is not guaranteed by superiority of technology. Karamchedu is on the mission to find out why.
The first chapters take us through a conflict inside a company. Seldom will you find a high-tech startup where marketing people do not clash with engineers. Marketers promise the features to the customers in order to adhere to the mantra of "we listen to our customers," only to see feature requests denied by the engineers, since the budgets and deadlines are fixed. Marketers then complain to the executives about lack of response from the engineering staff and their inability to deal with the new features, while engineers fight back, claiming that the product is about to miss the deadline even with existing feature set and overworked staff.
Later, Karamchedu focuses on a second problem, peculiar to high-tech marketers: after being immersed in the technology world for too long, they cannot relate to the customers. Hence grandmas in Best Buy staring at the computer described as "P4 3.0 GHz 256 DDR 40.0 GB DVD/CD-RW" when all she wants to know is whether she can check email and view photos of the grandkids. Marketers forget to empathize with the customers. They spend too much time with engineering, and like to tell customers how the new microprocessor has a much wider front-side bus, or how their new piece of software supports dual-core systems, without really telling the customer how that will improve business processes or increase efficiency.
The third part of the book takes a look at a typical semiconductor company and tries to draw the plan of attack for a starting marketing executive. At this point the book turns into a manual on high-tech marketing, which the author hopes the readers will find useful, as there are no set rules and algorithms for launching successful marketing campaigns in high-tech world.
The book is quite insightful, but one can't help but feel that it is missing something. It will probably prove to be a valuable read to anyone facing the daunting task of marketing a high-tech product, but even though I got to the last page of the book, I found the title to be too terse and dry, lacking concrete examples and not quite coherent as far as the chapter-by-chapter arrangement. The preface and the author's description of the book are available online. It's also strange that in an attempt to write a textbook on high-tech marketing, the author decided to provide no case studies whatsoever. In Search of Stupidity from Apress is a great book about high-tech marketing, since it tells the story of a failed marketing attempt and also tries to figure out the reasons, but in It's Not About the Technology, Karamchedu just tells years of his personal experience, without references to specific companies or projects, which makes the book a compilation of abstractions on high-tech marketing.
In his spare time Alex enjoys reading technology and business titles. He also keeps a collection of free books for readers on a budget." Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Bullsh** detector (Score:5, Insightful)
Blame M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine buying a car and it doesn't work until 6 months later when your manufacturer has a recall for you. Commercial hi-tech industry seriously need a good role model.
Who is the customer? (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now? (Score:2, Insightful)
For the first time rather than having three hundred asp/php pages with cut-and-copy disease we had a way to make structured code that could be developed very quickly and maintained easily.
At work we've got loads of legacy ASP and lots of new
I don't think
Simon.
Word (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blame M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, Windows2000 and XP ran just fine for me right out of the box without service packs. Yeah, you needed a good firewall (hardware and software) and you needed to make sure some services weren't running but I really don't consider that to make the "unusuable".
Honestly, I wouldn't run ANY OS without the above mentioned changes being made to the configuration.
Should we say that RedHat is bad because everyone knew that you shouldn't use a RH release before X.3?
Re:Bullsh** detector (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullsh** detector (Score:4, Insightful)
advertising doesn't tell you anything anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
I was reading some back issues of Pc Magazine from the 80's, the ads told me as much as the articles. Ads would say "The new microsoft compiler has these features... that are better than the last version" I miss those type of ads.
Rise and Fall of the Marketdroids (Score:4, Insightful)
teachers' responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
The REVOLUTIONARY next big thing . (Score:2, Insightful)
The cable companies CAN'T and WONT deliver it. I am talking about higher than 100 megabits/sec.
Imagine a billion HDTV channels and no more installing operating systems.
No more needing to even buy a computer because of distributed networking. You will buy supercomputer time for tough projects.
All this will never occur because municipal fiber to the curb has been killed by stupids in government and their cronies in the private markets.
Maybe you should check out Zope one day? (Score:3, Insightful)
To say that the current version of the Company X product is so much better than the previous version of the _same company's_ product does not really endorse _either_ version.
Paul B.
Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is highly debatable, but Joel was talking about
Back in 2000, it *WAS* confusing as to what the fuck
Now when people say ".NET" they are usually talking about ASP.NET or the
Re:Sure, Joel looks silly to those who do odd thin (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true at all. Each "page" is a class and is treated as such in it's implementation from a functional perspective.
A UI developer can make changes to the controls, with out wortying about breaking some server script. In addition it is possible to completely remove SQL code from the presentation tier, this is not possible with out a great deal of engineering and com components with traditional ASP.
ASP.NET simplifies state management on three levels, application, session, and page as well. Page state is something that has traditionally needed to be built by the developer, but this is no longer the case in
Also validation for all forms is simple and easy to implement, taking a fraction of the time to complete, and it's twice as robust (it runs client side, and server side depending on what your browser will support)
At the moment, I'd be hard pressed to find another technology platform for web development that is as flexible as
The revolution was really for the developer - not so much from a product perspective. Have a look at how easy it is to incorporate 3rd party components into web applications. Provided the 3rd party provided designed their component well, it usually "just works". That's more than I can say for similar development platforms.
Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now? (Score:3, Insightful)
I never touch ASP, but if your PHP suffers from "cut-and-copy" you need to take a cattle prod to the developers.
This is a coding practices issue, not a language issue - the legacy code at my current employer is C++ CGI programs that suffer greatly from the use of cut-and-paste rather than code libraries. It's just about the worst C++ code I've ever seen, but that's not C++'s fault. PHP makes it easy to create reusable modules that you can just "require_once"; if developer's don't, that's not PHP's fault.
"Our old code in Language X sucks, our new code in Language Y is better written" doesn't mean that X is better than Y.
PC specs (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear that at work all day and it drives me nuts. Not that I don't look at specs when I buy a computer, but I have learned never to ask about anyone else's new computer because you get the five minute laundry list of numbers that have no real importance. Do I really need to know if your new Duh-ell PC has an 80G or 100G hard drive? PC specs have replaced dick size and engine displacement as bragging fodder or something.
I overheard the guy in the office next to me last year spend hours on the phone shaving costs of his new PC. $10 here. $5 there. He must have spent 20 hours to save $100. He drives a $45,000 car. Nobody places value on their time. He finally bought the thing and announced it to the bay the next day. Absentmindedly, I asked what kind... D'oh! Nine hours later I could have reverse engineered a schematic of the motherboard based on what this guy told us.
Re:Doesn't Joel look a bit silly now? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the marketers standpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, its disgusting at times because they hurt the credibility of the entire industry (not that we had much with the /. crowd to begin with).
I try to do my part by not misleading people with what I market as I understand that an informed customer that you treat with respect will be a repeat customer who will spread the good word about you. I also inform people of when deceptive marketing/advertising is used and explain why it is bad and meaningless.
I think all of you are familiar with such lies as the "industry leader" claim or the "does more" claim. To those I have to ask "industry leader according to whom? The CEO fo the company? Because legally as long as you have the quote from someone, you are allowed to make that claim", and then I ask "does more? Does more WHAT?! Oh wait, legally that doesn't matter as long as you don't state it. It could ben "does more to line the CEOs wallets" and it would still be legal."
Actually, some do. (Score:4, Insightful)
He doesn't know how to work them or even why a cell phone that works in Europe won't always work in the US
They have their point of view based upon their requirements / values and have trouble recognizing that other people have different requirements / values which result in different points of view.But part of "Marketing" is making the consumer believe they have a "need" that they weren't aware of before, that can only be supplied by your product.
That "need" can be as esoteric as "I am a rebel against authority" to as mundane as "fast food you like".
Marketing high tech is different from most other markets because newer stuff is constantly being released. The perception of obsolescence is a key factor both in pushing the new stuff (don't be a loser, everyone else is faster) and in resistance to purchasing (why buy now when tomorrow it will be faster and cheaper).
I haven't read the book so I don't know if he covers that in depth.
Once again, Slashdot blows it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Good going guys!
Re:A Dollar For IT is a Dollar Less Profit (Score:1, Insightful)
I.T. is not just an expense.
Spending $10,000 on System XYZ to replace System ABC might can save my company $15,000 inside a relevant timeframe; the critical, most difficult, and most frustrating part of my job is quantifying the time of particular departments and employees when even the managers and owners cannot do so.
Re:Blame M$ (Score:4, Insightful)
My take on the above is:
Sold: An item is sold to you when you do not have to make any other payments to the manufacturer and you do not have to give it back after a specific period of time.
Lease: An item is leased when you have to make payments based up a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly time period and, after the lease has expired, the item has to be returned to the manufacturer.
From the above, if you "buy" a copy of Windows and do not have to make any additional payments, then the copy has been sold to you - not leased. If this is true (ie: M$ sold the software to you and did not lease it) then all of the leasing agreements imposed by the EULA are null and void. Further, your rights as a purchaser of a product have just increased ten fold because there are a lot of rules and regulations about items which are sold which do not pertain to items which are leased.
With the recent decision by a court in California that M$ et al must display the EULA on the outside of the box and/or have it readily available for viewing before a purchase is made - the distinction of whether a piece of software is sold to the end user or leased will become a greater issue in the near future.
Unplug 'N' Prey (Score:3, Insightful)
I do. About two seconds after the words 'high-tech' and 'marketing' were merged in the acorn sized brain of a marketer. Due to their limited storage capacity any relevant technical information was squeezed out and replaced with marketing slogans. He/She/It thus completely divorced from reality was provided with the ability to create a marketing strategy unecumbered by facts.
Possibly. (Score:3, Insightful)
But people do pay attention. Advertising works. Advertising is what gets people to pay $500 for a pair of sneakers.
Yet if you ask a person who just paid that why he paid that, he won't ever say that it was because of the advertising. He will say it's about style or that they are the best sneakers or some other rationalisation. But the reality is that it is because of the marketing campaign.
Why "solution" is so popular (Score:5, Insightful)
But a solution is often a set or range of products, and in the case of vendors like IBM those products are paired with service. When you sell a product, the assumption is that once you sell it, you want nothing to do with the customer from thereon after. Tech support is offered only for problems. But if you are trying to impress upon customers the notion that the product and the sometimes rather involved, in-depth service associated with it are equally important, the term "solution" makes sense.
While the term is applicable to IBM, it's not applicable to many products that simply bill themselves as a solution, when in fact the vendor would rather eat rat poison than provide integrated and thorough support.
Re:Word (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee where to start, the list is so damn long (Score:3, Insightful)
Service providers that can't make it work
Customers that don't care if it does
Executives that don't know IF it does
Solutions in search of problem that doesn't exist
Designed to fail, working as designed.
Two computers. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. People who see computers as neat and useful tools, which can be adapted for nearly any purpose. Software or Products which give people additional ways to use their computers - especially tools that improve productivity, either personal, or at work, are generally going to succeed in the market place. The way to sell such products is often referred to as "Pull" Marketing.
2. People who see computers as neat and useful ways of getting consumers to spend money on stuff they wouldn't have otherwise spent it. This is accomplished by pushing crippleware that looks neat on the surface, but is essentially useless to a user until they pay more money to unlock the useful features, or basically, the software ends up being a complicated scam to get someone to sign up for some service with a monthly fee.
These products ultimately fail. This kind of marketing is referred to as "PUSH" Marketing.
At the end of the day, #1 is the correct way of looking at computers, and there are a couple of tennants of business and innovation that prove it:
"Built it, and they will come."
and
"Invent a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door."
Unfortunately, High Tech Marketing is full of people who want the world to beat a path to their door, without all that costly and complicated mousetrap-inventing stuff.
They spend so much effort trying to find innovative ways to get people to spend more money, rather than innovated ways to make computers more useful tools for people to buy, because their lives are improved.
Re:Bullsh** detector (Score:2, Insightful)
The service sector is being overpopulated with competition as outsourcing increases.
So companies have no choice, but to innovate, and provide a *solution*. This "solution" does a lot more than just a simple service. This is what will drive the service sector in the future
Wouldn't it be better if a software product provided a solution rather than just a service. Your statement is also valid because some companies nowadays say they are providing a "solution" to sound almighty, but in fact, it is just a service or a product.
Re:Bullsh** detector (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, what would you pay for a "problem"? That's exactly what IBM, Microsoft, Sun and all the rest are really selling you: PROBLEMS. High-tech infrastructure is plagued with problems. But no marketing drone is going to even go near the honesty in that.
I've been busily replacing perfectly good Pentium IIs with expensive P4s. The price alone should have told the company execs that this is a PROBLEM. But they are sold on "solutions"
Don't get me wrong here. I approve of selling problems as "solutions". Those are giant IQ tests, and America's corporate execs are failing them left and right. What bothers me unduly is how long it's taking the American investor to realize this. After all, stupid people are simply a baaaaaad investment.