drink the sweet feeling of the colour zero

On not dropping the PR and marketing ball

Tags: , ,

As a tech journalist and as a commercial tech writer the bane of my professional existence is PR and marketing people who don’t know anything about the companies or products they are trying to promote. The very worst among offenders among them are simply applying “tickbox” marketing and PR; they go through whatever list they were given in school and figure selling tech is the same as selling apples.

Fortunately, not all PR and marketing people are like this.

I don’t have time to praise everyone in tech PR and marketing that are great at their job. There are a lot of you out there, and I love each and every one of you for it. There is, however one comparative anecdote I’d really like to share that should drive home the difference between someone who’s terrible at their job and someone who is truly amazing at it.

Dropping the ball

On the terrible at their job side we have an individual working for a hybrid-cloud-in-a-can company that doesn’t know what their own product does. The solution in question is an OpenStack-based hyperconverged appliance starting at four nodes that has some built-in options to interconnect with OpenStack-based service providers and/or a major public cloud provider.

This isn’t exactly rocket surgery anymore. At the end of 2017, there are a dozen cloud-in-a-can providers, many of which shift OpenStack based solutions. By now, anyone who knows anything about private cloud technology can tell you pretty much all you need to know about this product just by saying “OpenStack-based hyperconverged cloud-in-a-can”.

I published a blog on a tech news website that mentioned the vendor in question’s solution. It was a passing comment as an example of a vendor in the space who has done reasonably well and had a few big customer wins.

A marketing person for this company wrote me to ask that I make some changes to the article. They didn’t want me to mention that they were using hyperconvergence to lash the nodes together. “They’re not hyperconverged” sayeth the marketdroid (yes they are, BTW), they’re “multi-cloud” (that’s a huge stretch).

If that wasn’t enough, the marketing body had a list of things in the article they wanted clarified. From common acronyms to terms of the trade to idioms. There was even a discussion about how “snapshotting” isn’t a verb. (Terrifyingly, this is the second time in less than a month that this particular conversation has come up with supposed tech people who should know better.)

I was blown away. Not so much that a marketing person asked that I change an article to be more “on message” for their client – that’s sadly par for the course – but that someone working for a hyperconvergence-based cloud-in-a-can company doesn’t know that nerds use “snapshotting” as a verb.

Juggling with style

My salvation lies in the part where there are marketing people and then there are marketing people. The polar opposite of Marketing McDerpy up above is the incomparable Jane Rimmer.

Let’s consider a recent conversation I had in the vEpxert Slack. I was discussing with some vExperts how I’d like to do some testing on a node that a vendor is sending me for review. I was thinking about reaching out to a few VDI vendors so that I could use their software to push the node to its limits and include their software (and the results) in my review.

One of the vendors I mentioned directly was Liquidware Labs, who happen to be one of Jane’s clients. A couple of hours later I have email from Jane saying she saw my comment on Slack, and could she help.

I don’t know why I was so shocked by this. Jane’s not some fresh out of school marketing droid eager to sell clouds like they were apples. She’s so devoted to her craft that she herself is a vExpert.

Because of course she is. She’s Jane Rimmer. If tech marketing had a super hero, she’d be it.

The bottom line

Having marketing and PR people who care enough to learn about your product and the market in which you operate makes all the difference. It makes life less frustrating for the writers you interact with. It helps to build a community around your brand. More importantly, it helps everyone understand what it is you do and why organizations should give you money to do it.

The tech industry needs more technologically competent people like Jane Rimmer. The Tech industry needs a lot less buzzword bingo playing derpologists in senior marketing and PR positions.

It’s up to tech vendors to choose whom they’ll employ. And it’s up to us, as buyers of that tech to choose which vendors we support.

Striving for objectivity

Tags: , , ,

Being accused of being a shill for a company is pretty common for anyone who writes in tech these days.  Writers don’t even have to express an opinion to earn such epithets; simply reporting facts will earn spittle-flecked outrage if someone doesn’t like the facts presented.  Welcome to the internet era.

I am a writer.  I write for technology magazines, directly for vendors, and sometimes for other organizations themselves directly engaged with vendors.  One of the most frequent questions I get is how I maintain any sense of neutrality or objectivity with such an arrangement.

Five years ago I would have been terrified to write about any of this.  Content marketing was still something of a secret.  It was a badly kept secret that marketing types blogged about ceaselessly, but still largely a secret kept from readers.

Today, it’s the middle of 2017.  We are smack int he middle of the era of “fake news”.  There are powerful forces – billionaires and even the mechanisms of entire nations – devoted to destroying the credibility of journalists, analysts and new outlets everywhere.

How these news outlets survive matters.  How marketing works in the 21st century can’t be something we all pretend we don’t know.  Keeping schtum makes everything appear far more sinister than it really is.

Journalists, analysts and writers of all kinds need to get paid.  News organizations, magazines and everyone else who publishes content advertise in order to bring in money.  And yes, you guessed it, traditional display advertising isn’t bringing in the money it used to.

None of this means that writers, editors and publishers don’t value objectivity.  Many – and I personally hope it’s accurate to say most – of us think about bias, objectivity and neutrality a lot.  I know I certainly do.  So this brings us back to the original question: how does someone like me maintain any semblance of objectivity?

I am biased

I start by admitting I’m not objective.  Objectivity is an unattainable goal; all any of us can do is strive for objectivity and hope that.  This starts with understanding ourselves.

I have biases, just like anyone else.  I work hard on self-awareness to not only understand my biases, but get to the root the cause of them.  I am very much a champion of the end user and the small business.  I see “the little guy” as the one whose interests are never met and I tend to be pretty hard on vendors whose only interest is large enterprises.

Being aware of this, I can temper my own natural responses by getting better information from others who work in large environments, who don’t live daily with the budgetary constraints of small organizations and so forth.  For the most part, I know when my own idealism needs tempering.  That’s the start of writing in as objective a manner as possible.

Another part of objectivity is to put the time in to learn.  One reason that lobbying, for example, is so effective in today’s democracies – even when the politicians themselves are trying hard not to be corrupt – is that knowledge is power.

Knowledge isn’t merely power to those who have it.  Imparting knowledge is also a means of exercising power.  A politician drafting legislation can only consider the points of view to which they have been exposed.

The same is true for journalists.  If all we know about a given technology segment is a single vendor’s solution or approach, then we are unwittingly “captured” by that vendor.  To become more objective we need to understand the problem space we’re writing about as completely as possible.

The problem space

Talking about problem spaces in technology writing gets muddled.  Individual technologies can solve multiple problems, and many organizations have similar – but not identical – problems.  Consider, for example datacenter networking.

Ethernet is easily the dominant networking technology in today’s datacenters, though there is still plenty of Fibre Channel and Infiniband to be found.  This is a completely different problem space from WAN networking, where we might talk about SONET/SDH versus OTN.

Datacenter and WAN networking differ in more ways than the individual technologies used.  For example, they have completely different assumptions about link oversubscription.  The east-west versus north-south discussion is very different in both and discussions about asynchronous versus synchronous traffic delivery can quickly veer away from technical considerations and get deeply mired in some very heavy international political and economic considerations.

While datacenter networking and WAN networking are both networking, and both have a number of similar issues to address, they are completely different problem spaces.  This concept of a problem space is very important to any discussion about a writer’s attempt at objectivity.

Subject matter expertise

As a technology writer, even knowing enough about the topic to define the problem space as separate from the various adjacent ones puts you ahead of the pack.  You’re significantly less likely to be subject to bias due to a single vendor’s briefing, and you probably won’t do silly things like write scaremongering pieces about robot apocalypse just because Facebook’s chatbots invented their own language.

Many writers are assigned to a “beat”.  If you’re taking a skilled practitioner and teaching them to write, they come with pre-canned expertise on specific problem spaces.  A network engineer that can write in a coherent fashion becomes a pretty obvious choice to be assigned to the networking beat.

Coalface experience isn’t the only way to earn a reputation for objectivity on a given beat.  Many folks are old school journalists; they overcome the knowledge barrier through constant exposure to a single problem space, or to a set of intimately interlinked problem spaces.

I am more of an edge case.  I am a small business systems administrator.  By necessity, I learned a great deal about a great many problem spaces in IT.  I spent fifteen years as a generalist until, about five years ago, I had to make a choice between writing and full time systems administration.

In my case, the breadth of IT simply became too large for any one individual to learn it all, especially whilst actively putting out fires every day.  Being a generalist is something I enjoy.  I crave knowledge, so I decided to become a technology writer instead.

Most of the time, there is reasonable money to be made writing commercial content (blogs, whitepapers, etc).  It’s highly variable (2016 was an awful year), but in general a living can be made at it.

More importantly, a living can be made writing commercial content without having to write 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.  In fact, one can usually get away with writing only about 10% of the work week.  The rest is spent – by me at least – learning.

I do briefings with vendors.  I test products in my lab.  I administer client networks; not because of the money they bring in (which isn’t much), but because they offer me legitimacy as a practitioner, and a place to hone my skills.

This puts me in a different position than many technology journalists.  Instead of being a practitioner who writes on the side, or a full time journalist dedicated to a specific beat I am closer to a professional student moonlighting as a tech writer.

Instead of waiting tables I write commercial content for vendors to pay the bills.  Instead of painting or sculpting as an art, I write opinion pieces and analyses for tech magazines.

And now you understand why I’m such a disappointment to my parents.

Thought leadership

Of course, knowledge’s power in helping the attempt at objectivity isn’t limited to subject matter expertise.  Understanding how the business side of things works is hugely important too.  Being someone who writes for technology magazines as well as directly for vendors makes this doubly important for me, because I am constantly on the razor’s edge of bias towards vendors I work closely with.

As discussed above, getting access to an audience in order to impart knowledge is a key part of getting whatever it is you want accomplished.  This isn’t only true when talking about politics or influencing journalists, its critical when we talk about marketing to end customers.

One needn’t lie to customers in order to sell one’s products, and doing so is almost always a terrible plan.  Telling the truth is far easier in the long run, and more importantly it is usually all that’s required to sell one’s product.  If your product solves a real world need then defining that problem space and demonstrating that your product answers the problems of that problem space is more than enough to keep you in shoes.

This is increasingly the province of thought leadership, which is a specific subset of content marketing.  The short version of thought leadership is that it involves getting subject matter experts – the more well-known and well respected, the better – to write about the problem space in question.

Thought leadership drives market education.  Once the potential customer base is educated about the problem space vendors can move on to the product differentiation stage which is more about sales and less about marketing.

In tech, marketing educates, sales differentiates.

Editorial versus commercial content

Commercial content isn’t limited to writing content directly for vendors. Thought leadership programs can be (and are) run through tech magazines themselves, but there is nowhere near the level of deep process engagement provided by a commercial content writer directly contracted to the vendor.

Going through the internal sales processes of the technology magazines, with their highly firewalled editorial/commercial divide, is the only way vendor can get any sort of content posted to their sites.  Vendors regularly try to bribe writers directly, but we are both ethically and contractually obligated not to do this.  (Additional reading: my page on the Editorial Firewall.)

What’s important to note, however, is that pursuing engagements with the tech magazines directly doesn’t present the vendor with much say over the content.  Let’s look at a generic version of how this works in practice, with the understand that the exact details vary from publishing house to publishing house and that this doesn’t represent any particular organization’s individual approach.

1) Vendor engages with publisher’s sales team and asks for a thought leadership program

2) Publisher tells editor “we are looking for 6 pieces based broadly on topic Y”

3) Editor creates and returns a list of topic ideas, or asks a subject matter expert writer to do so

4) Topics are selected and then writers for each topic are assigned by the editor

5) Writers do research, write whatever they want on the topic and hand it in

Right about here individual publications start to diverge widely.  Some magazines don’t allow vendors to reject articles, others do.

If an article is rejected okay, then the publisher will (usually) pay the writer anyways and a new writer will be selected to write a replacement piece, though some publishers will instead choose to arrange a briefing with the writer so that the writer can correct any misunderstandings they have.

Generally, rewrites because the writer is “off message” but factually correct aren’t allowed.

It is useful to call out the importance of the editor here.  Editors I have worked with are grumpy, distrustful of commercial content in general and paranoid about objectivity.  They don’t get paid to make vendors happy, they get paid to the readership happy.

Also, if something ends up being factually incorrect, they’re the ones who have to spend days in meetings with the lawyers.  Editors don’t care about your marketing message, and that’s a truly excellent thing for everyone involved.

Some examples

Another constraint on thought leadership through tech magazines is that tech magazines don’t allow blatantly commercial content to be placed directly into published content.  Some examples are helpful here:

A thought leadership content run could, for example, contain 6 pieces on why 100 gigabit Ethernet is important to practitioners and businesses alike.  Here is what a sample thought leadership run might look like:

1) Converged Ethernet: what it is and why you care?

2) Now that NVMe is a thing, networking is a hard bottleneck for virtualized systems

3) An analysis of network utilization rates in the modern datacenter

4) Advantages of hyperconvergence and why 10GbE is no longer enough

5) Poll + analysis of results: Who is deploying 100GbE, where and why?

6) 100GbE cabling: it’s not as scary as you think

At most publishers, none of these articles would mention the commissioning vendor unless the writer had a really good reason to include them.  Examples of a good reason would be that the writer is doing a comparative analysis of the whole of the problem space, or the only vendor in the problem space at the moment is the commissioning vendor.

As a general rule, editors will not allow the commissioned thought leadership pieces contain a discussion of how the vendor solves the problems inherent to the problem space in question.  There is some fudge factor allowed: a general discussion of how the problems could be solved would be allowed.  Specific looks at how a specific vendor solves a problem would not be.

Where this might get confusing for some is that it isn’t unusual for subject matter experts to write deep dives into a particular vendor’s approach to a technology, but when they do so it is not usually part of any paid program.  It’s because the writer, on their own initiative, decided to do so as a regular piece of editorial content, and they’ll usually have a good reason for it.  For example, because a given vendor solves a problem in a particularly interesting way.

Sticking to our networking theme, one might have run across a number of editorial pieces on how the use of RDMA in networking and specifically how Microsoft implemented it.  The press this implementation received was because Microsoft’s market share at the time was overwhelming, RDMA was relatively new, the numbers achieved were impressive and the numbers without RDMA were significantly less so.  Microsoft didn’t have to pay people to write about the awesomeness of their specific RDMA implementation: the tech press did it with minimal prompting.

Product differentiation isn’t news.  It’s not analysis.  It’s not education.  It’s not even opinion.  Product differentiation is pure sales.  It gives editors gas, and rightly so.

Advertising

This doesn’t mean that tech magazines don’t do vendor awareness or placement.  Some tech magazines might run display advertising along with the thought leadership pieces.  They may run blatant content marketing, but with a “sponsored content” warning on it.

Some publishers even offer the ability to bundle up editorially published thought leadership pieces along with some connective text into an ebook that the vendor can distribute, adding an “insert” at the end that contains a much more sales focused “here is how our products solve all the problems outlined in the ebook”.  Note that the insert would never be circulated by the tech magazine as editorial content and would be called out explicitly as sponsored content in the ebook version.  That editorial firewall thing again.

Many tech magazines offer “lead gen” programs in one form or another.  These are attached to webinars, newsletters/e-mail blasts, surveys or other forms of mixed media engagement.  People who sign up for these events get their information given to the vendor, and the vendor’s sales teams follow up.  This is more typical when the driving force is not market education (marketing) but product differentiation (sales).

Even here, however, tech magazines can separate editorial content from commercial content.  For example, the vendor might get the contact info of everyone signing up for a webinar, but may not have control over the content in the webinar.  The content may be left to a “panel of experts” recruited by the tech magazine.  Similarly, while surveys may net leads for the vendor, the analysis based on the survey results may be completely under editorial control, and the vendor may not get much (if any) input into that.

Vendor involvement in these forms of advertising is much clearer than vendor involvement in thought leadership programs, which is probably why there is so much FUD surrounding thought leadership.  Thought leadership can be – and is – done badly, or even deceitfully by unethical publications.  Fortunately, in tech at least, most of the magazines seem to be utterly paranoid about strict editorial firewalls, as do a great many of the writers and the blogging community at large.

The utility of content marketing

Thought leadership, both as seen in tech magazines and when the content is written for and distributed by vendors, is usually about market education.  It works on the assumption that one’s product is good enough that anyone who fully understands the problems they are facing and the potential solutions will leap at the chance to buy the vendor’s product.

Readers get utility from this sort of writing because they get to “peek around the corner”.  It’s great to be able to get a look at problems experienced by enough organizations that startups are beginning to appear and larger vendors are taking note – before they impact you.  Today, for example, 100GbE is only just starting to take off, and there is lots of room to write some articles about the triggers for considering 100GbE, and the real world considerations of deploying it in established datacenters.

Direct engagement with tech magazines are something of a gamble for vendors, but they usually pay off.  If the editor approves the piece, and it is factually correct, the writer gets paid no matter what the piece says.  The writer’s duty is to the truth, not to the vendor.

For many vendors looking to engage in content marketing this isn’t a particularly big issue.  They want thought leadership specifically because defining the problem space is the hardest part of marketing.  It requires subject matter experts, preferably those who have experience as practitioners, and who can write about a topic in an engaging manner.

This then is how and why I make money.  I get paid not to bamboozle or to shill, not to obfuscate or confuse.  I get paid to learn, and to pass that knowledge on to others.  Not all vendors think this is valuable, but even those vendors who prefer more classical approaches to marketing help me get paid.

We are all lucky – writers, vendors and especially readers – that there are still magazines and news outlets for every aspect of life that put the time and effort into establishing and maintaining an editorial firewall.  The more that “alternate facts” are the norm (in marketing, and society in general), the higher the value ascribed to the truth, and our first duty must always be to the truth.

Reflections on VMworld

Tags: , , ,

It’s been over a year since I’ve posted a blog here.  The last time I posted, VMworld was just over and the feeling of community with the various people I’ve met was strong.  Now that almost a year has passed it’s time to look back on what VMworld actually meant to me.

What a year it’s been!  On the one hand, I haven’t written nearly as much – here, or anywhere else – as I would ideally like.  On the other hand, I’ve made a lot of headway getting various business-related arrangements dealt with.

In many ways my world now revolves around VMworld.  Before one VMworld is over I’m already working with clients to plan for the next.  Everything in tech marketing seems a sprint from one major conference to the next, but VMworld is the big one.

Looking back on VMworld

I spent an awful lot of time analyzing VMworld 2013 from an intellectual standpoint.  “What does it mean to your career” or “what does it mean in terms of making connections with vendors/the community/etc.”  I think I’ve been asked to write that schtick at least a dozen times since then.  It has been analysed and reanalyzed so many times that I think to rehash that from an intellectual level is pointless.

So instead, I want to analyse VMworld from an emotional standpoint.  Without allowing myself to head too deep into things, what are the surface memories?  The bright, sharp emotional moments that float to the surface?

My clearest memory of VMworld 2013 is vBeers.  It was a tweetup held in this hot, cramped bar called the Chieftain.  I remember sweltering.  I remember ordering too much to drink…and I remember encountering some of the best people I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.

The counterpoint to this would be a vendor party I attended that was absolutely flaccid.  There were very few attendees, a lot of marketing and chest-thumping by one of the company founders…and not a lot of prominent community members.

The entire event was basically some hoary old executives who all used work together way back when pretending they didn’t despise each other.  They managed it just long enough to see whose  social status had changed in the interim since the last phallus measuring contest, then it was back to trading pointed barbs and a quick evacuation of the premises.

I remember the worn, harried look on the faces of Matt Stephenson and Rick Vanover.  Normally possessed of boundless energy, the event sucked the life out of them and by the end they were mere shells so obviously needing a good vacation that I wished I could do something to help.

I remember certain influential individuals engaging in name calling on Twitter, where they attacked a startup full of good people for no better reason than that this startup had the termidity to compete with a startup their friend worked at.  I remember the sinking feeling of losing respect for those individuals who – until then – I had held in the highest of esteem.  It felt like having your childhood heroes die.

There were booths; so many that they blurred into insignificance and there were interviews and food that I wasn’t sure was food.

Above all, I remember the friends I made.  For all the exhaustion and the heat, the too many parties and the overdoing it on multiple fronts, I made some great friends at VMworld 2013, and that made every moment worth it.

How to succeed at throwing VMworld 2014 Parties

If you are running a VMworld party, let me give you some free advice: nobody cares about your product or your company.  What they care about is meeting and greeting the people they know, or have only “met” on social media.  They want to meet their friends’ friends.  They want to talk, and socialise and that has some very real consequences for how to design your party:

Make sure you have some “key influencers” going. I don’t mean “key influencers” in terms of “these people have highly read blogs.”  I mean “people that other people actually want to spend time with.”

You can have one of the top read blogs of all time but still be an arrogant, egotistical douchecanoe.  Don’t invite these people.  They probably feel they’re too good for you anyways and so you’ll just expend innumerable resources trying to get them, only to have nobody show up because – in truth – nobody can stand being in the same room as these guys.

Instead, troll the vExpert pages and do some research on twitter.  Who are people that other people seem to be eager to meet up with?  If you’re in a bind, reach out to other marketing types who know the VMworld scene for who the charismatic friendly types are.  The community is great, you will get helped.

Don’t try to talk about your product at the party. If your party is bumping, people will remember who you are.  Make sure you give away a bit of swag to all attendees that helps them remember who you are, maybe with a little “thanks for coming” note by your CEO and a very brief blurb about what you do and why people should care.  Give them a link to follow what will contain some nice short intro videos and your various whitepapers.

Don’t crank the music up to 11.  People don’t go to these parties to be deafened.  They want to talk to their friends.  To you.  To everyone.  They want to socialise, and they can’t do that if they can’t hear themselves think.

Don’t cram the place so full that people can’t move.  You want people to move, to mingle.  You want them to make friends and to associate your party with positive emotions a year down the line.  Those positive emotions will become associated with your company, and that right there is the holy grail of marketing.

Consider adding a panel discussion or two to your party.  You are at an event full of nerds.  Believe it or not, inviting a bunch of them to a place where you will give them intellectual stimulation in their chosen profession, food and tasty beverages pretty much guarantees they will like you.

Parting thoughts

People are tired, harried and stressed out at VMworld.  It is their natural state.  Try to work around the other parties going on during the event, and the major items at the event itself.  Many people will want to attend both your party and those of other vendors…even your competitors!  Consider pre-arranging transport not only to and from the event but also to and from other major parties.

Special needs should be taken into account.  Someone with a wheelchair might not be able to take a regular taxi (though a towncar or most of the vans will generally work.)  Someone with special food considerations might be a little upset if the only food on offer is yummy, yummy bacon.

What will really set you apart from the hundreds of other companies that blur into insignificance – either at an after party or in the event itself – is to make the people you are reaching out to feel special.  Virtually every vendor treats attendees like so much chaff to be sorted in the desperate search for wheat.

In the age of social media, remember that even that “chaff” that you dismiss and discard as not relevant to your short term tactical requirements can have far more influence than you suspect.

The goal of VMworld should not be sales.  Very few people attending VMworld are in a state of mind conducive to making rational purchasing decisions.  Your goal should be to raise awareness of your company amongst those who attend, and amongst those who don’t, by means of social media amplification.

Focus your resources on one singular question: “how can I make the lives of the people attending this conference less stressful?”  Succeed, and you will have turn a random bit of “chaff” into a staunch evangelist for your company.

Pull that trick off enough times and, instead of leaving this spectacularly expensive industry event with a handful of new customers and a few thousand e-mail “leads”, you’ll walk away with an unstoppable army of believers.

Addendum

Chris Dearden has a dissenting view to offer:

Its a great Article & I agree with many of the points in it – working for a vendor that I believe does VMworld pretty well ! It all comes down to knowing your audience-being able to staff a booth with smart people to talk technical, to providing something a little higher level for the less technical but influential people – many delegates will have come along with their boss, who ultimatly may hold the purse strings. If you can sucessfully connect at both levels that you have a really sucessfull event.

Panel sessions at a Vendor party ? possibly a little far for me ( personally ) There is a lot of info to take in at these things, so I’d personally want a little bit of time to let my mind rest.

I absolutely agree that “knowing your audience” is the key to victory, be it in love, a military campaign or in technology marketing.  My personal experiences and understanding of the VMworld event state that “non-technical individuals” are in the distinct minority at these events.  That said, I could be wrong.  Alternately, you could be desiring to target “non-technical individuals” instead of – or in addition to – technical ones.

In my opinion, there is no party or booth design, no marketing campaign, no sales pitch that is universally effective.  It is a statistics game.  Who are you targeting?  Why are you targeting them?

Are you targeting the exact same people or companies that every other startup – and all of the majors – are targeting?  Are you irrelevant in the face of overwhelming competition, or have you found a niche where you can be profitable, and expand outwards from there?

There is an old Native American saying that goes “if you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both.”  No individual or company can please everyone.  You must decide whose affections you need to draw.

Where my advice differs from traditional marketing, sales and the established mantra of extant vendors and startups is that I honestly and earnestly do not believe that targeting the CIOs of the Fortune 2000 at conferences with slavish obedience is going to net you victory.

Every single vendor, sales geek and marketing nerd at every single conference wants a piece of those same individuals.  If you blur into insignificance for me, a nobody, imagine how antlike you appear to them.  How many times have they had the same pitch? Seen the same fevered desperation in someone’s eyes?

How likely, really, are they to leave their established “preferred vendors” and pick you…and do you honestly and truly believe in your heart of heart that it is the hurried pawing at them during a conference that will win the day?

The above reasoning is why I recommend a different, more community focused path.  It will help you reach out to more than just the same Fortune 2000 companies that everyone else is targeting.

This could well help you find a profitable niche.  But also because it could well help you create trust and respect amongst a community of vocal evangelists that could translate into a grassroots movement around your product…or even your community managers.  (See; Veeam, Unitrends and even VMware itself.)

I respect Mr. Dearden’s opinion in this matter, and I respect him as well.  He has a great deal of experience and knowledge, and – quite frankly – he plays in richer waters than I do.  For all my florid prose, I am still small time, and still a Silicon Valley outsider.

Consider both opinions.  Consider the evidence of your own experience.  Discuss with your coworkers and even your competitors.  Choose for yourselves the best path, and good luck to all of you.

Enjoy VMworld 2014!

© 2009 drink the sweet feeling of the colour zero. All Rights Reserved.

This blog is powered by the Wordpress platform and beach rentals.