Thank you for being objective which makes reading your blog a pleasure and informative!

As an example I work for a leading Global BPO and we have a target hardware platform that we have to follow (i.e. HP Blades for servers, Windows or OEL for OS, VMWare for Virtulisation, NetApp for storage, Cisco for network gear etc). The decision to prime these as strategic vendors (with favourable pricing/discounts etc) was made way above my head (and I suspect many people reading these blogs). Ditto when I was a consultant going into different companies in my last job the same rule applied – you had to source from the strategic partner

So im not interested in vendors telling me their solution is better, quicker, more compliant, cheaper etc. Im interested in them telling me how it works, how it integrates, what issues it may have? What have they got coming, what are they doing, what are the customers seeing in reality (such as you Scott)

So please keep up the good work. I for one sure appreciate it

I’m absolutely not a fan of leading any campaign with slag first – but if it came down to it, would I ask my employers to not use negative marketing at all? Um, no. I like feeding my family. I respectfully disagree with Scott that its “wrong” for someone to say they have the “right” way. If they aren’t that passionate do I want their products?

We can ask for it to be used less, as we cyclically seem to, but that’s like asking for flag football to be treated the same as the NFL.

I think the key sticking point for most people is that “fine line” between comparisons and negative marketing. As with most things in life, the answer is “it depends.” Vaughn, I know you don’t like that answer—especially when it comes to meeting a customer’s storage needs—but the truth is, it really DOES depend.

Consider the context, wording, and tone of a comment. I can make a comment about how I like the way NetApp handles RAID groups and aggregates, or I can say something about how EMC doesn’t have the ability to manage logical blocks of storage like NetApp can. Clearly, I can’t convey tone here, but we all recognize that the way in which something is said can carry as much information as what is actually said. It’s my personal opinion that we’re all capable of presenting comparative information while remaining respectful of our competition. It’s all in how we present the information. I’m not saying we shouldn’t paint ourselves in the best light. What I am saying is that it’s possible to paint ourselves in the best light without painting our competitors in the worst light. Recognize that your competitor has some strengths, but also weaknesses, and freely admit that whatever information you might have won’t be as complete as the information that competitor could provide. If you’re so confident about the quality of your solution and the ability of your solution to meet the customer’s needs, you won’t need to tear down the competitor.

BTW, the reason I didn’t articulate differences in this post was because this post wasn’t about the differences. It was about how we handle the differences.

Again, I do appreciate everyone’s time. Please note that I, personally, am always striving to be able to be the “Truth Machine,” as Vaughn put it, and sometimes that means calling a vendor out. That doesn’t mean I’m not your partner, not your fan, or not your supporter. I’m just looking out for the customer.

Thanks everyone!

Nice post; one which I am in philosophical agreement with. Yet I am critical that what you seek is a romantic fantasy made impossible my the nature of capitalism. Companies take products to market with the belief that they have an ideal solution whether the product is flawless, imperfect, or unsound.

This belief is consistent through all organizations.

So I advocate on the behalf of customers who deserve to understand the details on how a technology works in consideration to their use case. Customer’s are entitled to understand the differences in technologies which on slides appear to be the same.

As the ‘Truth Machine’ has yet to hit the market I expect technical advisers, like yourself, to take on this role.

This places an emphasis on folkslike you to become experts and in educating the market even if in doing so you may run the risk of straining a vendor relationship.

In this role I see you will need to do three things (which at present I don’t see).

1. Articulate on the differences in these products for the betterment of the community? If doing so cause you issues with EPlus, let me know I’ll cover you on our side. I point this out as even in this post you don’t articulate differences.

2. When you suggest a storage related best practice make it an open if you are without empirical evidence that you can elaborate on and share with us. This is a much better practice than simply recommending one vendor’s spokesman should speak on your behalf.

3. Be Transparent and avoid the possibility of being accused of having a conflicting interest. This one is tough as it requires the disclosure of sources of revenue, service, products, etc, but in doing you will earn trust of the community you serve.

The debates Chad & I have are in the best interest of customers and are founded on different philosophies, so please engage as the ‘Truth Machine’ and keep us honest.

Again, great post.

Good post and completely agree with you. While “negative marketing” can be entertaining, I think customers quickly tire of it. Most IT shops are heterogeneous environments and customers are generally not pleased when their vendors squabble like cranky two-year-olds.

Now, having said that, as one of those aforementioned vendor marketing guys, its not always that simple. Anytime you make a subjective comment about a competitor’s product/feature/technology, you open yourself up to charges of “going negative” because “negative” is often in the eye of the beholder.

Omar Sultan
Cisco

1) They get triggered by a negative comment (we do X ___ y% better than EMC! Or a vendor retweeting “Customer ABC doesn’t like product M” – always with no context). I won’t claim that it’s unidirectional, but i will state that from where I sit, it sure feels that way. Perhaps it’s inevitable for EMC as the largest (no implication of best) in our relative space.

2) My position is never that my colleagues at NetApp (including Vaughn) are inhernetly wrong architecturally. My perspective has always been that there are tradeoffs in every design, in every decision. In my experiences the things that make you great (people, products, companies) in one context – are exactly the same that hurt you in other contexts. I’ve even publicly conceeded points where the advantage/disadvantage tradeoff isn’t in EMC’s favor in a particular context. So far, I’ve never managed to get a response in kind that I’ve seen at least.

Each of those multivendor iSCSI and NFS posts (the most popular I’ve ever posted – suggesting people want more openness, less vendor propaganda) have been efforts where I’ve carried a huge chunk (I’d go so far as to say the marjority bulk) of the burden, and fought through the difficulties inherent in getting competitors to align. I’m trying to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

I wonder if next time my blood starts to boil due to #1, if instead of getting rolling on twitter, I should just link to this post.