Conference 7.286::digital

    
    It doesn't matter whether we are based on commission or budget.
    If on commission, it's pressure you put on yourself to maximize
    your income.  If budget, it's sell or sink.  It's still pressure.
    
    As long as our sales reps are measured relative to revenue,
    we are going to have this problem.  Some companies are wising up
    and starting to measure relative so customer satisfaction.
    
    Let me relate an anecdote.  A DEC manager was at a dinner where
    there were representatives from Xerox.  On his left was the Xerox
    account manager for the Digital account. He asked this Xerox rep.
    what happens if he doesn't make budget.  The Xerox rep. replied
    that that question doesn't make sense at Xerox.  In his last
    job before the DEC account, he only made 50% of his projected
    revenue, but still got a bonus and was promoted to the position
    as the account manager for DEC.  Why?  Sitting on the left of the
    Xerox account manager was a Xerox VP who then spoke up and said:
    
    	We do a yearly survey of all customers.  Topic of the survey:
    	customer satisfaction.  This rep. now handling the DEC account,
    	although making only 50% of "budget", won in the customer
    	satisfaction survey running away.  At Xerox, we've found that
    	how satisfied you are with how we handle your needs, is the
    	best indicator for measuring how well we are doing.  If you're
    	satisfied, we know that when you need what we sell, you'll
    	spend your money with us.
    
    I think that the sooner Digital starts moving in this direction,
    the better and not just for the sales force.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
      

	(SET SARCASM ON HIGH)
>                of pressure to meet your sales budget, but I am aware of NO ONE
>                suggesting that we sell a customer something just to make
>                budget.

	I work at the Atlanta Customer Support Center and I help support
	workstations (mostly VMS).  I stopped counting the number of
	calls from customers who bought VS3100's with the SPX module
	and wanted to run VWS.   "But my sales rep told me that..."  We
	end up calling the sales rep and 'informing' them of their mistake.

        One sales rep (who had sold "OHMYGOD" many systems) that I talked
	to said "I don't have time to read all those SPD's".  You'd better
	or call Remote Sales to do it for you if you are going to sell
	"OHMYGOD" many systems...

	Another sales rep sold a customer with GPX another VCB02 and
	told him that VWS supported a dual-headed machine.  When I called
	him on it, the sales rep said that he would take care of it. I
	closed the call, thinking that was the end of it - two weeks later
	the customer called, incensed - no one had ever contacted him.
	It took an LR1 to get the sales reps attention...

	Now, tell me that these things weren't due to:

		- ignorance
		- greed
		- lack of ethics

	True - these were probably aberrations, but what is being done
	about them?  Did these people get reprimanded for this? I hope
	so, but having worked for DEC for 7 years, I don't think so...

	(SET SARCASM OFF)

	Rick Beldin
	Graphics and Applications Support

    RE: -1
    
    I think the way you're looking at the "Sales" is quite unique.  You
    expect a "Sales" rep to know technical items like that, and also know
    everything else...
    	VMS, ULTRIX, MOTIF, DECW, VWS, RDB, DECWRITE, MS-DOS, DECNET,
        TCP/IP, DECWRITE, IBM connect products, HPPI, FDDI, VAXclusters,
        storage systems, tape products, 3rd-party vendors, the competition,
        LSE, VUIT, AVS, POSIX, etc, etc, etc....
    
    Now being technical... I'm sure you know all of these things, BUT YOU
    EXPECT A SALES REP TO KNOW ALL OF THIS!
    
    GaryB
    

	... the Sales Rep being RESPONSIBLE for knowing when they
DON'T know all about these things, and getting sales support!

	The Sales Rep IS responsible for the customer, when all is
said and done!

    re .3
    
    This is *not* PEACHES::BELDIN, this is AGOUTL::BELDIN (somewhat blinded
    by parental pride).  
    
    <flame on>
    
    Selling in this business *is* very technical.  We have special
    organizations set up to help the sales force to keep up.  They are
    there to be used, not ignored.
    
    I have heard stories (which I used to discount heavily) about our
    preferring salesmen experienced with home appliances to engineers who
    know our products.  
    
    The purpose of a sales force is to satisfy customers, as described in
    .1, not to just meet financial quotas or budgets.  Any salesperson who
    doesn't believe this is hurting Digital *and all of the rest of its
    employees*.
    
    I will repeat,
    
    Selling computers is technical.  There is not much need for salespeople
    who can't/won't make an effort to understand the technology.  
    
    Nobody said it was easy, it isn't.  But it comes with the territory!
    
    
    <flame off>
    
    Have a good day,
    
    Dick
    

    Amen to .1.
    
    In this time of "opening" systems the real competitive differential
    will be customer satisfaction.  Companies will be compared on the basis
    of quality and providing the best customer satisfaction.
    
    Xerox won the Baldridge Award a few years ago for its commitment to
    quality.  In grad school I'm taking a course in Operation Management
    concentrating on quality in the service sectors.  I happen to sit next
    to a marketing representative from IBM... who (one division) won the
    Baldridge Award this year.  They want to apply for the award on a
    company basis.  A manager from HP is also in the class.  The sentiments
    are pretty much echoed... sales are very important... but nothing
    "outranks" quality concerns and customer satisfaction.  The "new" way to 
    succeed is that quality is number one.  Not just lip service but 
    honest-to-god applications of that philosophy.  The kind of commitment 
    that says that it's OK to come in below your numbers if it was in the 
    name of quality or customer satisfaction.  In the long run it wins.
    
    IMHP: Planning sales figures is needed... but the emphasis needs to be
    on quality.  Sales is "where the buck stops".  I would think that it
    would be better to either tell a customer that you would check the
    details (AND get back to them QUICKLY) or have support set up ahead of
    time that could provide the technical expertise.  I sympathize with the
    pressure of dealing with the entire Digital product set... but sales
    are the "Embassadors of Digital" (a little grandiose) to the customers
    and with that role comes a large responsibility.

    
    I've never worked in the field or in sales in this industry
    so I won't pretend to tell them how to do their jobs under
    the rules used to measure them now.
    
    What I said in .1 has been echoed.  CHANGE THE RULES!  The
    old ones no longer work.  Yes, this is a technical business and
    the sales reps should have some technical knowledge, but my
    guess is that the majority, let's say 80% or more, of the job
    of customer satisfaction has NOTHING to do with bits and bytes.
    It has to do with the basics of listening, being clear on what
    the customer wants and fixing what is broken not what isn't
    broken simply because that is all you know how to fix!
    
    For example, one of the MAJOR complaints of customers has nothing
    to do with our products.  They complain about not being able
    to get information, sales reps who don't return calls, screwed 
    up orders, etc.  In short customer satisfaction says: "Give the
    highest priority to what your customer is upset about and get it
    fixed."  How often does a customer call with a problem and end
    up more p***** off about the call not being returned than about
    the problem that s/he called about in the first place or rather
    being passed around from one person to another each claiming it
    isn't their area.  Then we have TWO things the customer is unhappy
    about not one!  
    
    This is the way to success today, folks.  Xerox, HP, IBM, Motorola,
    Florida Power and Light, Harley-Davidson, Milliken, ... These
    companies have learned this lesson.  If we don't learn it fast,
    we won't be around to lament it.
    
    Steve
    

    I have come to the conclusion recently that since this company is
    changing the way we do business then we should also change the way we
    sell and who does the selling.  In the past when we were a sales based
    company we produced product and sales tried to sell what we had.  Well
    at least we got past producing the product and waiting for the customer
    to buy it.  We found out that sales had to sell.  But today that isn't
    good enough, because sales can't sell what the customer doesn't want.

    More often than not today we're finding that the customer wants
    solutions to large problems.  These require large projects to acquire
    the technology, form the solution, and deliver the solution.  In many
    companies with a history of doing large projects the person who is
    entrusted with the job to do this is a project manager.  They go to the
    customer, analyze the customer's business needs and wants, design the
    solution, sell the solution, build the solution, and deliver the
    solution.  Sales gets the room, makes sure the people, coffee, and
    doughnuts are there, and makes sure customer relations is at its
    highest level possible by watching out for potential problems within
    the customer environment.  Its something they can be good at.

    The project manager owns the solution, has the budget, is accountable
    for the revenue/profit, and directs the project.  They contract for the
    resources that they need who then report to them directly, or purchases
    what they need from wherever they need it, or have people working
    directly for the project paid with money from the project.  No one but
    a VP or higher tells a project manager what to do.  They are then some
    of the most powerful people in the company.  They are experts in their
    field and/or have experts working for them.  

    And the more successful their projects are the stronger the company
    becomes,  because they only build what the customer wants and needs. 
    Not what some engineer thinks they need or what some salesperson thinks
    they need.

    The company becomes a marketing company.  Delivering what the customer
    wants.

    Oh yeah, you still need account managers.  They do the add-on, 
    upgrade, and order taking type business.  And most importantly on-going
    customer relations.  Problem solving.  Not problem making. :)

    tear it apart.  Its only an idea.  I just think its time to change the
    sales model for the future way we're going to do business.

    I have been in field service now for 10 years and it doesn't take a
    rocket scientist to see so many problems incurred by some "sales reps".
    Notice I said some "sales reps", some do their "homework" before making
    a proposal and some don't. I am invovled with 2 very large national
    accounts but large or small every customer out there should receive the
    same treatment ie:
    	1. When a customer receives a callback the next day not 2 weeks
    	   later.
    	2. When a customer knows who his sales rep is.
    	3. When a sales rep takes time to find out what the customer
    	   really wants or needs.
    	4. Trying to work within the customer's allocated budget and not
    	   coming up with a assinine proposal.
    	5. Trying to offer viable alternatives rather than "here it is
    	   take it or leave it".
    	6. Being a good listener not just babbling on.
    	7. Treating the customer as if the tables were reversed.
    These are some of the "grumblings" right from the customer's own mouth.
    
    
    FWIW as if some of them will ever get the message...
    
    
    

    Being in Remote Sales Support I read this topic with mixed 
    emotions.......there are two sides to the coin.
    
    For anyone who has been in field sales for *years* and is still
    making the same mistakes over and over.....someone needs to take
    a stand (I used to work the Customer Assistance _read_ complaint
    desk)......I'd be frustrated if I had to put up with some of the
    stuff that customers do.
    
    Right now though, we have a lot of people who have made the 
    decision to move into sales.....C.O.D. etc......these people aren't
    stupid, there is a LOT to remember.....I handle just the SW services
    and licensing piece and it is a nightmare for many......
    
    I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the gal who called and asked
    me why her customer had only received these packets that looked
    like parchment for Fortran and C.  When I asked her what she quoted,
    it was QL-100A9-JJ & QL-015A9-JJ.  As diplomatically as possible I
    asked if she had quoted the H-kits....ya'll know her response.....
    "what's an H-kit".
    
    Not a day goes by that I don't hear one of my counterparts telling
    someone......"the QL numbers are licenses, the QA numbers are
    binary media & documentation kits....and the QT numbers are SW
    services".
    
    Karen
    

    yea, well why should they be interested in SW?  Isn't that just
    something you give away?

The technical competence of Sales People is quite variable. Some are very good 
and others are not. I demand that the Sales people I support pass everything 
by me (I'm their Sales Support resource) BEFORE they present it to the 
customer. I also insist that during customer meetings, they defer all 
technical questions to me and I'll defer all pricing and administration issues 
to them. It is a rare individual who can know all of the technical answers in 
this day and age, and I'm not the least bit embarassed to tell a customer 
that I don't have the answer to a particular question. I do try to anticipate 
what the customer will want to know before a meeting, but there are times when 
I have to follow-up. And making sure that I do follow-up is very important...

Although the achievement of my reps' budget accounts for 40% of my performance 
review, my main goal is and will continue to be customer satisfaction.

Jim

    Jim -
    
    I commend you for your thoroughness in handling your accounts.  
    Unfortunately, for many sales reps.....the sales rep are new....
    but their sales support (or account support) people have even less
    experience than the reps....
    
    At RSS, we are supposed to deal (for what should seem obvious
    reasons) with the standard issues; but not a day goes by that I
    don't have someone asking me for assistance with a licensing or
    service issue that doesn't fall within the realm of "standard".
    They rep wants to handle a licensing issue in a non-standard way;
    same for SW services.....  My team has lists of the Licensing BPSs
    and we refer reps to their account support people if it's clear
    they are going to need approval for a non-standard (I.A.T. etc.);
    you'd be amazed at the number of reps who've never heard of a BPS
    or what a BPS does......or the reps who don't know their account
    support people.....or aren't aware of how to handle a non-standard
    issue...even when it's evident that it would make good business sense to
    perhaps work on an exception.  I usually tell them that I can quote
    the licensing policy book or quote new portfolio of services until
    the cows come home; but if they are asking me to say it's OK to do
    something the deviates from policy.....then apparently they have
    confused me with someone who has the authority to make an exception.
    
    I don't know where you are located, but in so many of the large
    metro areas, there just aren't enough sales support people to go
    around.  At one time, I knew most of the SW account support people
    in Southern area......some of the sharpest folks one could ever
    hope to meet....but so few of them are left.  They've been spread
    too thin, burned out.....and far too many have left the company....
    long before TFSO became something to deal with.
    
    I wish we could reinforce with some people that it makes better
    business sense to admit that we don't know an answer off the top
    of our heads and would prefer to research it and make sure the
    answer is accurate.  I've never had a rep get annoyed at me for
    such an admission.....I try to get the time frame we have to get
    the answer....and then do my darndest to get back to the rep with
    an answer.
    
    I had a rep the other day calling me for assistance; trying to
    line up info as a result of a message the customer had left with the
    sales secretary on a pink message slip.   The message was very
    cryptic.....the rep didn't even know what type of CPU the customer
    was calling about. I explained to her that she really didn't have
    enough information; she should call the customer back and I gave
    her a list of 4/5 pieces of information she needed to get.  The rep
    didn't want to call the customer, she was afraid the customer would
    think (and these were her words) "that I'm dumb".  I told her as
    kindly as I could that she and I could sit and "whatif"  or play
    20 questions all afternoon, but the fact remained that I couldn't
    give her a quality answer unless I had more information.
    
    I don't think this rep was dumb.....but she obviously was new and
    somehow,  and I don't know who is responsible, but we're giving the
    message to new people that if they ask too many questions then they
    are putting themselves in jeopardy......  What frightens me the 
    most, is that for every rep such as the one I just described, there
    might be quite  a few more who won't call RSS or won't get account
    support involved.......so they shoot from the hip and guess.
    
    We have some VERY sharp sales people......they know their jobs  and
    they know their resources.....and they don't call RSS too often, but
    when they do, the question is a real humdinger!!
    
    Karen
    

    Re: .8
    
    Project managers!  Right on the money!  The model you describe
    is long overdue.
    
    Re: .9
    
    >	1. When a customer receives a callback the next day not 2 weeks
    >	   later.
    >	2. When a customer knows who his sales rep is.
    >	3. When a sales rep takes time to find out what the customer
    >	   really wants or needs.
    >	4. Trying to work within the customer's allocated budget and not
    >	   coming up with a assinine proposal.
    >	5. Trying to offer viable alternatives rather than "here it is
    >	   take it or leave it".
    >	6. Being a good listener not just babbling on.
    >	7. Treating the customer as if the tables were reversed.
    
    Again on the money!  What, for example, do any of these have to
    do with bits and bytes?  Seems this list shows that just a good
    dose of common sense is a missing ingredient.
    
    Re: .10
    
    >I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the gal who called and asked
    >me why her customer had only received these packets that looked
    >like parchment for Fortran and C.  When I asked her what she quoted,
    >it was QL-100A9-JJ & QL-015A9-JJ.  As diplomatically as possible I
    >asked if she had quoted the H-kits....ya'll know her response.....
    >"what's an H-kit".
    
    A facet of how we do business.  Nothing technical about this.  How
    can a sales rep survive if they don't know such basic stuff as this?
    
    Re: .11
    
    > ...my main goal is and will continue to be customer satisfaction.

    Someone out there is learning from his experience.
    
    
    Re: .13
    
    >I wish we could reinforce with some people that it makes better
    >business sense to admit that we don't know an answer off the top
    >of our heads and would prefer to research it and make sure the
    >answer is accurate.  
    
    Just plain old business sense.
    
    These replies are screaming out the problem.  Digital does
    not have a technical problem!  We have lost sight of the simple
    fact that regardless of our business we are dealing with people
    first.  Common sense, courtesy, follow-up, flexibility,
    reliability, credibility, ...  I could go on.  That is what we
    need!   You get that by focusing on the customer first!
    
    When I hear the horror stories of some of the stupid things
    that have been done in dealing with customers or making business
    decisions, I wonder whether the persons involved were involved
    in sabotaging us or from outer space somewhere.
    
    Reading these replies is encouraging.  Thank you, all!  I know
    that I'm not alone and I'm not nuts.
    
    Steve
    

    RE: .ALOT
    
    Sorry, but I have to disagree with what alot of what is said.  Customer
    satisfaction may be the most important thing, but why is it so poor.
    
    The polls tell us that our Sales Reps don't know very much.  Some of
    this is true, but I think ALOT OF THE PROBLEM IS THE SYSTEM.
    
    For example:
    
    -  Why do we have seperate licenses and H-kits?  If you want to do the
       "right" thing from a customer perspective there should be a combined
       number that includes both.  A customer won't be as mad if he gets
       an extra H-kit, as opposed to not getting one at all.
    
    -  Why don't we have Sales Reps that sell along product lines.  If you
       only have to be knowledgeable in a (relative) few areas, you're
       going to be more knowledgeable in those areas.
    
    -  Why do we keep shuffling reps around between accounts (i.e. at the
       1st of every fiscal year at least 25% of all reps seem to take one
       step to the right -- account wise).  IBM Reps stay on accounts
       forever -- or until they let a DEC system into their virgin account.
    
    I guess my overall complaint isn't that Sales Reps aren't trained...
    but rather that the "system" we tend to make them sell in is just toooo
    complex.
    
    ----------
    
    BTW -- I use to manage a combined IBM/DEC facility.  When it came to
    ordering new IBM equipment the IBM Sales Reps weren't all knowing,
    they just hid their internal strife from customers better.
    
    GaryB
    

    
    Re: .15
    
    >Sorry, but I have to disagree with what alot of what is said.  Customer
    >satisfaction may be the most important thing, but why is it so poor.
    > 
    >The polls tell us that our Sales Reps don't know very much.  Some of
    >this is true, but I think ALOT OF THE PROBLEM IS THE SYSTEM.
    
    I don't think that you do disagree.  I see "alot of what's been
    said" as saying the same thing that you are but perhaps from a 
    different perspective.
    
    You agree that customer satisfaction is most important.   If making
    the system simpler contributes to that, then we should be doing it.
    
    Steve
    

    Re .15 --- I'd be very upset if I got another H-Kit..at prices anywhere
    from a thousand bucks and up.  The system is very easy, but I think a
    lot of reps simply can't be bothered.
    
    I used to hear it said that the big difference between IBM and DEC is
    that we are very good at the big things.....IBM is very good at the
    little things.  As a former IBM'er and IBM customer I can absolutely
    verify this.
    
    When I worked for an Aerospace company in Colorado Springs as a
    documentation manager, I put out a feeler for word-processing systems
    for my organization.  In a three month period prior to making a
    decision the NBI guy from Boulder was down every week, the Wang guy
    was immediately accessible at any time, and IBM, my God.......They
    were all over me!!  I even was invited to attend a full-day seminar
    at the branch office on their systems.  DEC???? No one EVER returned
    my many calls.  (As a former DECies I was pre-disposed to buy DEC.)

    I agree with .15 . I've been working in Manufacturing Engineering for
    19 years. Not all of that time has been with DEC, so I understand the
    different directions manufacturing plants use to achieve there goals.
    Believe me there all different.  Whether your on the manufacturing
    floor or in NPSU Engineering you hire the individual with the
    background that best suits the position you have open. Manufacturing
    Engineering isn't as cut and dry as many people believe. Some groups
    expect you to be well versed in many different facets from process design
    to process control. In some cases M.E.'s specialize in a specific
    area and work within teams to reach the end goal. The computer industry
    has grown to be overly complex due to the incredible amount of
    companies started to address everything from Communication to number
    crunching. There are some standards that are followed to the letter
    that make systems compatable, but there are so many different flavors
    of equipment that due the same thing. Our sales force (it seems to me)
    not only has to know about our offerings, but must also understand the
    differences of our equipment vs our competetors. This is impossible.
    To create, maybe restructure our salesforce into organizations
    specializing in specific equipment would allow them to become experts
    in well defined areas. Each organizations expertize would be well
    publicized within DEC so that expert teams could be formulated to solve
    our customer needs. Just like in engineering. No one person can be
    expected to know all, and the team experience would be beneficial to
    all involved. Each expert would learn alittle something from the next
    person that maybe would benefit the company in the long.
    
    Lot of talking without comming up for air I know. But I just had to 
    enter my .02.
    
    

    Re .15:
    
>>    You agree that customer satisfaction is most important.   If making
>>    the system simpler contributes to that, then we should be doing it.
    
    Or, from a wider angle...
    
    If customer satisfaction is most important, then "making budget" should
    not be the primary measurement criterion for *anyone*.
    

re: .8,

    	This is a brilliant idea!  A project team devoted to the
    development of products that customers help to define!  This is
    *exactly* how quality is supposed to be engineered into products,
    but unfortunately is not what we currently do.

    	As mentioned in reply #.8, we are currently in the business
    of creating widgets like so many elves isolated off in Santa's
    kingdom, while our marketing and sales forces must later try to
    figure out how to force-fit some of the more promising widgets
    to meet actual customer needs in the field.  Once in a while, a
    customer's needs and our existing product line miraculously line-up
    in unison, but this is less often that it could be otherwise, and
    as a result, EIS teams are typically brought in to try and customize
    existing products in hopes of meeting customer needs.  This is
    *not* the way to engineer quality into products!

    	Using the business model described in reply #.8, instead of
    creating widgets in isolation, the "elves" of the company (i.e.
    the development and support engineers), together with the help of
    the existing sales force, would instead go out and create the
    business!  A project team would then consist of a project leader
    who would be in charge of the following duties:

    1.	Obtaining customer needs from the customer via the sales force.

    2.	Translating those needs into a quality requirements document.

    3.	Managing the engineering design, prototyping, and development
    	of the product.

    4.	Delivering, installing, and providing ongoing support for the product.
    
    	Contrast this model to our existing model in which we provide
    a multiple-choice menu of existing products, and force the customer
    to choose something that might meet their needs and might not
    (buyer beware).

    				  -davo

p.s.	You should enter this idea in the AGOUTL::BUSINESS_MODEL notesfile!

        As I  read  through  .0-.18 I considered our Sales force and what
        they should and shouldn't know.  I immediately thought of the two
        ASIC  vendors  I am  currently  negotiating  with  and  how  they
        interface with me.
        
        Both companies are at the top of the high-performance ASIC field,
        in  different  technologies.   Both companies  have  local  sales
        offices and local applications engineers;  in one case, they also
        have a local design site for application development.
        
        The  primary  interface  with  these  companies  is  their  local
        salesperson.     In  both  cases  this  person  has  a  technical
        background and knows  the basics of their product line.  They can
        answer the typical initial sales call type  questions.  They know
        the quotation process _cery_ well.  But they  readily  admit that
        they don't have all the answers, and they are "joined at the hip"
        to the local applications engineer for additional support.
        
        These  ASICs  (a  total  of  four)  I'm  doing  will  push  their
        technologies, and all four will go to one vendor or the other ---
        NRE's totalling, like, $1 million.  So they are very attentive to
        my questions, admit when they have to do further analysis, pick a
        date (if I  don't) for getting me the answers, and then _deliver_
        the answers.  In  most cases they have to go back to the factory,
        and in one case on  of  the  vendors sat me down with the product
        line manager, so that my questions could get answered.
        
        I don't think any less of  the  salespeople for not answering the
        question themselves.  On the contrary, I  respect them to no end!
        Whichever vendor I go with, I _know_ it will be a great match.
        
        It really upsets me that some of our  customers are not receiving
        what they thought they were buying, and that apparently  some  of
        this is due to our salepeople not asking questions.  YIKES!  This
        is  something  I would expect of some dinky little systems house,
        not the second largest computer corporation!
        
        One person mentioned how IBM's division in Minnesota recently won
        the Malcolm Baldridge  award.    This was the result of that site
        turning themselves upside down,  from  ~1985-present,  to  better
        orient their entire business to  customer  satisfaction.    A big
        part of this was radically reducing  product  development  times,
        an  emphasis on quality, and customer-driven product  development
        strategy.    Easy  for  a  division,  but harder  for  an  entire
        corporation.    But  having  been  inside IBM for a while,  I  am
        convinced that they are capable of the same transformation across
        the board. We had better make the same committment!
        
        Remember the  Gandhi  quote:    "Each of us must be the change we
        want to see  in  the  world." Each of us must commit ourselves to
        the changes we want to see in Digital!
        
        Have a GREAT one!
        
        John

    Let me clarify some things about all of us incompenent salespeople at
    Digital.
    
    We are goaled on customer satisfaction. The last page attached to our
    review is the last customer satisfaction survey.
    
    We are a Quasi-commissioned sales force. After reaching 100% of your
    yearly budget, SP2 bonus kicks in.
    
    Concerning support of us: I don't need to call 1-800-DEChold, wait
    10 minutes for someone to read to me info from the latest systems
    and options catalog. 
    
    Regarding specialized product saleman: Not in my account! I am
    responsible for my customer. I don't need 8 different people
    calling into one account confusing the hell out of them.
    
    Competent salespeople working along with competent support people
    should never have customer satisfaction issues. It galls me when
    I read the nonsense in the trade rags saying DEC has great products
    and engineers and S****y salespeople! We do have alot a sales folk
    who do ask such difficult questions such as "What's an HSC?" But
    this is not do to the info being available to us. VTX does work.
    These people will never have a clue, no matter how much training
    they go to.
    
    We have alot of stuff to know, but it's that difficult for a salesrep
    to know most of it. If you can't be semi-technical, you should be
    working in marketing, not selling for DEC. 
    

    For my seven years at DEC, I have been in sales. Here are a few
    observations...

    1- I have not observed a desire on the part of sales management to hire
       or train sales reps to be "technical". Those sales people who do
       become "technical" do so out of their own interest and initiative.
       They are not given the tools or training for this. Even so, it is
       almost impossible for the sales rep to "know it all". The product
       line is much too broad, too complex and changes too rapidly.

    2- Sales people have "sales support" people to help with the technical
       aspects of the products. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of them
       to go around. So, the job only gets done part way.

    3- Sales people get far too bogged down working the internal aspects of
       the sale. All of the administrative "gotcha's"  and chasing down the
       details  take a huge toll in terms of productivity. This also
       impacts their ability to be responsive to customers. 

    4- The pressure to achieve ever increasing budgets is phenomenal.
       Smaller (but important) customers are too often relegated to the
       back burner. Once DEC even came out with a policy that sales people
       would receive no sales credit for a sale under $10K. Eventually,
       that policy bit the dust, but it demonstrates part of the problem.

    5- Personally, I believe that it is important for DEC sales people to
       be a bit "technical". However, I'm not convinced that we should have
       "specialized" sales people that sell only part of the product line.
       That makes it tough for the customer that has to deal with different
       DEC sales people for different products.

    The solution? 

    In a nutshell, we've got to make things simpler for our customers and
    our sales people. We've got to streamline things and make them
    consistent. I agree with Jack Smith that the "stovepipes" are killings
    us. 

    In the meantime, we've got to add (a lot) more sales support personnel
    to support the sales process and administrative support to work the
    details. I think a ratio of 1:1 for sales support would be about right.
    Unfortunately, to add support resources, sales management usually wants
    to increase the sales budgets proportionately. In many ways, that
    further aggravates some of the problems we already have.

    Rich Kotter
    Sales Executive

    Re: 22
    
    I couldn't resist......since I thought I had presented some fairly
    good scenarios that were causing problems for field sales people;
    I WAS NOT criticizing the majority of the sales people because I
    agree with you.....no one is super-human and that seems to be what we
    are expecting of our sales reps.
    
    SET FLAME MODERATELY HIGH:
    
    When is the last time you called DEC-HOLD or DEC-DEAD or whatever
    ya'll used to call Remote Sales Support?  In those days we had
    13 people to answer hardware, software, networks, services and
    licensing questions......in others words not enough people to
    go around.  Once we got new people thru All Hands On DEC and now
    C.O.D.....there is a ramp-up time involved.....read the other notes
    in this conference about placing existing DEC employees in other
    jobs and cross-training them (it takes times.....even you were new
    to this once).
    
    When I joined the group in the fall of '89 the average wait time
    in the RSS queue was 45 minutes......these days our *average* speed
    of answer from the time the call comes in until it gets to the
    specialist is about 10 seconds.  True, we still don't have all the
    answers and must often escalate a problem to the product manager;
    but we can't provide timely on-the-spot answers every time when we
    must leave messages on a product manager's answering machine....then
    hope he/she will be in town and respond quickly.
    
    FLAME OFF:
    
    I think if you go back and re-read many of the entries you will
    see that this was not a sales bashing note......may folks were
    trying to understand what they could do to help improve the sit-
    uation.  When I mention a new C.O.D. person in the field who was
    basically thrown to the wolves and did NOT have SW licensing and
    services explained to her.......I was not criticizing her....but
    the system that allowed that to happen and keeps allowing it to
    happen.
    
    Karen Reese
    1-800-DEC-SALE
    

    
    Re: .23
    
    You've said a lot of good things here.
    
    >In a nutshell, we've got to make things simpler for our customers and
    >our sales people. We've got to streamline things and make them
    >consistent. I agree with Jack Smith that the "stovepipes" are killings
    >us. 

    Yes!  Streamline and make things simpler.
    
    >In the meantime, we've got to add (a lot) more sales support personnel
    >to support the sales process and administrative support to work the
    >details. I think a ratio of 1:1 for sales support would be about right.
    >Unfortunately, to add support resources, sales management usually wants
    >to increase the sales budgets proportionately. In many ways, that
    >further aggravates some of the problems we already have.
    
    We might not need to do this, if we do what you suggested above.
    We may already have all the resources we need if we get rid of
    administrivia that doesn't help us or the customer, but just remains
    around because no one takes a hard look at it.

    Steve
    
    

We unfortunately seem to have two conflicting views of the Sales Support
function.  One view sees these folks as a team of specialists, ready to
make their expertise available where needed.  The other view sees the Sales 
Support specialist as a more or less permanent member of the account team.
A product or technology specialist in this role is only of limited use to 
other account teams and, in fact, tends to become a generalist.

There is also (most unfortunately) a third point of view which sees the
Sales Support specialist as a sort of junior sales rep or gofer.

We can't know what an appropriate "sales support ratio" might be until
we develop a bit of consensus on just what it is that a Sales Support 
specialist is supposed to do.

-dave

The new Account-based strategy where a large account (is it just corporate 
accounts?) will have all of the resources it needs to be successful is an 
encouraging sign. There is also a move to measure these account teams by 
profit and loss, not by certs. This is also good. Until recently (like we 
found out about it TODAY), we couldn't find out what the profit on a 
particular sale was. This was a negotiation between the District Operations
person and the Sales Rep, sometimes requiring more negotiation skills than the
sale to the customer! Now there are profit and loss models that are available
through District Operations to let you know if you are making any money. 

On our account team (corporate account), we will know what the profit and loss 
of each sale is and we know the buck stops at the CAM (Corporate Account 
Manager).

I'm looking forward to this new way of doing things and I believe its going to 
mean great success where its implemented.

Jim
Sales Support
Rochester, NY

p.s. This profit and loss scheme is, I predict, going to put much more 
     pressure on Product Management, Engineering, Marketing and other 
     corporate groups to reduce product cost and corporate overhead.

    yes it would be nice if we could simplify everything.  I used to hear
    it all the time when I was out doing SW licensing reconciliations.  And
    I would ask who is going to tell the customers that they need to
    simplify their problems so we can simplify the solutions.  No one had a
    answer.  Back a dozen years ago the problems were simple.  Even a PC
    could solve the problem.  Now I work in Imaging.  Try to solve that
    with a simple solution.  Or automate a shop floor with a simple
    solution.  How can you when the complexity of the problem is so great
    that even the customer doesn't understand it and half the consultants
    in the world can't decide how to define it.

    And increasing field expenses without a greater increase in profits is not
    going to help things at all.  It hasn't helped in the last three years,
    and it isn't going to do anything in the future.  Sales may think this
    problem is going to be solved by giving them more, but it is only going
    to be solved when we are no longer a sales based company.

    But not in our lifetime.

    Too bad, cause there are a lot of good people here.  But they will find
    a good company to work for.

>p.s. This profit and loss scheme is, I predict, going to put much more 
>     pressure on Product Management, Engineering, Marketing and other 
>     corporate groups to reduce product cost and corporate overhead.

    Years ago I had P/L for an area in a product line.  It was fun.  And by
    seeing the whole picture I could decide where to invest in futures and
    where to cut losses.  Maybe now the field will find out what is the
    profitable business and what isn't.  Its going to take a long time to
    gain the business skills to do this properly.  And one thing they are
    going to learn is just how high (and growing all the time) GS&A is. :)

    And maybe now they will stop giving away hundreds of millions in
    software licensing revenues every year.

    but its hard to change things.

    
    Re: .28
    
    The call to simplify is not about the customer problem that
    we are trying to solve.  The customer problem will define how
    complex the solution must be.  We have no control over that.
    
    The call is to simplify the process of solving that problem.
    Clinging rigidly to ways of doing business and of working with
    each other which hinder our ability to solve the complex problems
    that you describe is killing us.  This is where we need the
    simplification.
    
    Steve
    

    Regarding Sales to Sales-Support Ratios  (back a few notes)
    
    I remember 2-3 years ago when they said the ratio was about 3.5 Sales
    people for every Sales Support specialist.  They said we were going to
    add Support people until the ratio got down to 2.3 Sales people for
    every Sales-support person.
    
    The ratio got down to about 2.8 to 1 -- and the management woke up
    and said "Hey, we've got to many support people.  Let's start having
    these people sell part of their time (20%) so that the ratio looks
    better".  In essence saying -- we can't have all of these support
    people around!
    
    I guess my question is -- how far ahead does Management look into the
    future around here?   (and)
    
    Where do they come up with these ratios in the 1st place?
    
    GaryB		(yes, I'm a virtual Andy Rooney)
    

    Re -1....it should be 1:1:1, i.e., One salesperson:one support person;
    one administrative "gofer", and damn the metrics....Oh, and each one
    should have a car phone.

    Oh please....no more car phones......it's very hard on a support
    person's nervous system when a rep calls via car phone on route to
    customer site.....wanting all part numbers and variations for 
    VAXNotes on a 5 node cluster......when all of a sudden "oh sh*t",
    then the line goes dead.
    
    That same rep call back in 2 hours later....proceeds to tell me
    he had a "minor" fender bender....but could I please hurry up,
    his UM gets upset if the calls using car phone are too lengthy.....
    
    Karen
    
    PS:  Might make a good disaster movie.....sales rep talking on
    	 car phone while driving on San Diego freeway trying to take
    	 notes, drive car and talk on phone at same time :-}
    
    

    An idea I heard (from K.O. in a Tucson visit) and liked lately is this:  
    
    Take ALL budget responsibility away from Sales Management - UM & DM.. 
    leave it squarely on the Account Team.  This way, instead of
    obsessively watching the 'numbers' on a weekly/daily basis, their
    responsibilites would be entirely supportive.
    
    karl

    Being a Digital salesperson, I found the comments here to be
    interesting.  If nothing else, the comments indicate that we're not
    perceived very well internally.
    
    I believe our salesforce is as competent as if not more than our 
    competitors'.  We know how to sell, and most of us are even fairly
    technical.  There's been many comments on how we should focus on
    customer satisfaction.  I think you're preaching to the choir.  We know
    it's important.
    
    What no one has said yet, is salespeople satisfaction.  How about keeping
    salespeople satisfy?  Aren't we Digital's internal customers?  How 
    about making sure we get the support we need to do our jobs?  I can go 
    through a laundry list of how I'm consistently hampered from doing my 
    job the way I want to do it by the complex, incomprehensible, and 
    uncooperative system which we call Digital.  
    
    Selling to the customer is the easiest and most enjoyable part of my
    job.  Selling to Digital is neither easy nor fun.  
    
    As the customer's pipeline into Digital, we can only be as responsive
    as the rest of Digital is to us.  I suggest that before you find more
    faults with the salesforce, you examine what you've done lately to make
    it easier for us to sell.
                                        

    re: last
    
    Agreed 200%! (and I'm not even a salesperson)
    
    The sales people I talk to are intelligent and understand their customer's 
    needs.  I look at things such as the price catalog and get an instant
    headache.  I can't even begin to imagine how anyone could understand
    it. Add to that the volumes of other kinds of information they have to
    wade through--hardcopy, on-line, vtx, etc.--and I'm totally
    overwhelmed.  Consider the number of products & services they have to
    know, obsoleted products & services they have to forget, new products &
    services they have to learn, changes & upgrades they have to keep up
    with.
    
    Add to that the search for support & resources, through the constant 
    reorganizing, new groups, old groups with new names, new groups with old 
    names, etc., well think about it.
    
    Add to that the metrics and the reward systems.
    
    And what do you get?
    

    And don't forget the political, noncommunications they have to
    interpret and conflicting messages from executives (just what business 
    are you in?) they have to explain to customers.  
    
    In a sense, the sales person is where the rubber meets the road.  They
    make a real easy target, but because the target's easy doesn't make it
    legit.

    
    Re: the last several
    
    I think you're missing the point.  For sure there are individuals
    out there in sales who should wake up and smell the coffee.
    
    For the most part, however, I think the comments placed here have
    been saying the same thing you are, but from another perspective.
    I don't see them as criticizing the individuals who are trying
    to deal with what you describe.
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    how about if .35 puts in some ideas about how non-sales people can
    help? I may get in Sales way without even realising, or Sales people
    may love to know of some resource, and perhaps a reader manages said
    resource etc etc.
    
    Gives folks some ideas, there's a lot of talent reading the notesfile
    
    Simon

    Re: all
    
    One of the sales reps I work with knows as much as I do when it comes to 
    pitching our product overview,  other sales reps I know couldn't find 
    their way into this notes conference if their life depended on it.    
    
    Someday our products will be either so simple that you can buy them at
    Radio Shack and we'll all be out of jobs, OR they will be so complicated 
    that we will need 1 networking specialist, 1 software specialist, 
    1 hardware specialist, 1 integration/NAS specialist, and 1 team manager 
    for each sales rep on the street.
    
    It's a zoo.
    
    -Keith
                                           

re: last several

While "traditionally" sales people may have been order takers in days past,
our product set is sufficiently complex and order process sufficiently
convoluted that it's a full time job just top figure out how to fill out
an order.

For example: if you order X CPU, Y interface, and Z disk drive, shouldn't the
cable come along with everything else? It's like selling toasters without
power cords. It's selling cars and needing to make sure the order includes
the wire harness for the tail lights.

I've got an idea for displaced manufacturing people -- re-start the facility
that used to assemble customers' systems to verify they work, at least for
large systems. What's the cost to the field in time and dollars when delivered
equipment can't be assembled?

Oh well, too expensive, I'm sure. :-(

/Peters

    MHO on salespeople in DEC?   Useless......but, I'll tell you why:
    
    My husband contacted Dec to come in & quote on a system they
    need.  Salesperson shows up, takes down the info, says s/he
    will get back to him with a quote in two weeks.
    You guessed it, he never heard back from Dec.  3-4 months later,
    he gets a call from another Dec salesperson.  (I *suppose* this
    can be considered a follow-up).  Same thing happens, and he is
    now still waiting for the quote from Salesperson #2. (it's been
    a month or so, now).                                           
    
    IBM, however, follows up on the quote *they* submitted at least
    once a week.
    
    Makes you think, doesn't it?
    
    
    
    

    re .-1

    Ah, I don't want to tell you what a SINGULARLY PAINFUL experience it has
    been being married to a Digital customer. Same scenario. I don't know
    about you, but when the person I'm married to tells me the company I
    work for is stocked with goom-bahs, I worry!

    Plus, I love this, here I was, a Software Services manager, and one of
    my fellow managers (same district) wants to put someone on her account
    that's ON WARNING to see if they sink or swim, and if they f___ up the
    account, they're out of Digital!

    I _STILL_ get adrenaline surges when I think about it!

    We NEVER discuss any Digital-related topic anymore because:

    	- there is NOTHING I can accomplish personally to rectify the
    	  situation even though I work for Digital

    	- I can't be in a position where I have to work with someone who
    	  I know is screwing up something for my wife -- it's best I DON'T
    	  KNOW

    	- it just makes us both CRAZY!!

    We've improved since, but we have SUCH a long way to go, I can only hope
    we get there!

    You know the old saying,

    	"Do it once, shame on you! Do it twice, shame on me!"


    Sorry, but that last response just hit the chord. :-(

    /Petes

    re: .42
    
    Ah, but did you notice that the "follow on" that came months later was
    from a different rep?  In other words, it's very possible that rep #1
    was pulled off the account (could be even the day after the call) and 
    replaced some time later by rep #2.  So who's fault is it?  Sales rep 1, 
    who has been reassigned to some new accounts & is struggling to get 
    those rolling, or Rep #2, who inherited the situation.
    
    My experience with Sales is that reps are shifted from one account to
    another entirely too often.  When I was gathering & maintaining customer
    reference account material, it seemed like easily 50% of the accounts
    I was updating (every 6 months) had a new rep.  I heard 3+ years ago that 
    this was finally being understood to be detrimental to building customer
    relationships (not to mention motivation) by the managers that kept 
    moving the reps around and that steps had been taken to address this.  
    It's only in the last year or so, however, that I've noticed a significant
    slowdown in rep churnover. 

    re: -2 & 1
    
    Did anyone consider making contact internally to the sales organization
    in question when the incident occurred (rather than report it internaly
    here months later)?
    
    I don't think our sales force can be everything to everybody but, when
    I've seen this sort of thing happening to one of DEC's customers, I've
    searched out and notified the appropriate sales mgmt team. There may
    have been many causes for the reported incident(s) but we should all
    take the effort to fix within each of our ability to do so.
    
    After the fact comments help no one.

RE: .46

You are trying to fix the symptom not the disease.  What the earlier replies are
saying is that the process is broke.  Sure, you as an individual can fix a
single problem but only until the next breakdown.  That is not the answer; the
answer is not a simple fix.  It will take time and effort but more importantly
it will take leadership!

IMHO,
Lee G.

Sure the system is a primary reason for the bad rep our Sales people get...

However, each and every Sales person needs to:

	o Know how to manage their time

	o Be willing to bust their ass

	o Make sure each and every selling opportunity is followed up on, no 
	  matter how small

	o Know how and when to utilize the resources they have at their 
	  disposal


Here is a situation I was involved in and what I did. I provide Sales Support 
to two Sales people on a large corporate account as well as being a general 
District resource, so my time is at a premium.

One of the Sales reps I support said that there was someone down in the lobby 
from the corporate account we sell to. The sales rep and I went down and
talked to the customer and found out that the guy wanted a workstation for his
own personal use. We discussed his needs (basic Unix box). We have a number of
rotational workstations in the District we're trying to get rid of so I spent
a few hours tracking down what we had available that matched what the guy
wanted. I spoke to our District Workstation SUM and provided the information
to the Sales Rep. Haven't heard what came of it (writing this reminds me to 
check with the Sales Rep on monday). Sure, the time I spent meant I'd have to
work late or spend a few hours at home to catch up... but that's no problem! 

I don't think we should avoid ANY opportunity to sell. If you don't have the 
time, get someone else to follow up. I'm sick and tired of hearing how 
unresponsive Digital is to its customers (both my mother and brother have had 
fairly negative experiences). Now that I'm in the Field, I'm going to do 
everything I possibly can to change the reputation our sales force has. A good 
deal of the problem has to do with Sales people not managing their time and 
resources well or just not caring about the "little" opportunities.

Regards,

Jim
Sales Support

    I once had a friend experiencing problems with DEC sales folks,
    I called our company PR folks and instance gratification.
    
    It worked for me - Lloyd
    

>    I once had a friend experiencing problems with DEC sales folks,
>    I called our company PR folks and instance gratification.

I know a few people who've left the company and are now experiencing life from
the other side. Their comments about this company are not exactly flattering,
even though they left on very good terms, because of the attitudes shown by
people who, in theory, are there to help them; Field Service and Sales.

Two examples: 

First, whenever a Field Service call is placed, one group backs everything
up and leaves for the day. They know that even a simple task such as adding
a new workstation will take that long. When IBM folks turn up, they continue
working... It took three visits by three separate people to get the station up
and running; one guy delivered it, one guy installed the hardware and one guy
installed various bits of software. But not all on the same day. This group is
thinking of dumping Digital and moving to Apple.

Second, a customer with offices in two continents installed VAX DOCUMENT. They
were surprised to find that Digital did not supply a graphics editor with it.
Calls to their Sales reps produced nothing; their calls were not returned by
those people paid to create sales for this company. They sent Faxes and letters
and still got nowhere. They wanted a copy of UTOX. It's in the ASSETS library.
Nobody they actually managed to talk to knew what this was... They, too, are
thinking of moving to Apple.

Draw your own conclusions.

I may call the PR guys, too.

Gavin

    Re .-1
    
    When things like this happen it's time to name names and send a mail
    message to sales management. If you find a high enough Salex VP s/he
    will have a staff in their office to get this sort of thing dealt with.
    
    Dave

    
    	Re: .49, .50, et al
    
    	I am a PR guy.  I used to be in sales.  I'd tell you some
    	war stories but I've run out of Maalox.  I like some individual
    	sales people, but ...
    
    
    	I was supposed to work on a project for a trade show and three
    	sales execs were to participate also.  I sent information to
    	them in December.  Detailed.  Important.  Automatic receipts
    	and read notices requested.
    
    	Yesterday (3/8/91) I received my first reply that one of them
    	had read my package.  I still have no idea about the other
    	two.  All three are friends of mine.  We sold together.  They
    	never returned my telephone calls.
    
    	Let's see -- Info sent in December.  Only one out of three
    	responded by mid-March.
    
    	Did I happen to mention that the event took place in February??

RE: .52

>        They
>    	never returned my telephone calls.

They must have mistaken you for a customer.
    

>    	Let's see -- Info sent in December.  Only one out of three
>    	responded by mid-March.
>    
>    	Did I happen to mention that the event took place in February??

If their participation was important, you should have been asking their
manager (and manager's manager, etc. until you get action) why they have not
read/returned the material yet.

--PSW

    Yeah, did you camp out at their desks?  I've done that on occasion when
    my mail and phone calls weren't answered.  I've been told that I didn't
    need to do that, but I got results.  That's how they can tell you
    aren't a regular customer.  It's because you don't go away.
    
    Steve

>    Yeah, did you camp out at their desks?  I've done that on occasion when
>    my mail and phone calls weren't answered.  I've been told that I didn't
>    need to do that, but I got results.  That's how they can tell you
>    aren't a regular customer.  It's because you don't go away.
>    
>    Steve


Steve, Steve, Steve,

If this is a typical field situation, I am sure the sales reps of interest 
are all in cities and probably different time zones...  I agree when the 
parties involved are co-located, the sit on the desk option is fine, but I don't
often find this an option (short of purchasing planes tickets!!)

/mike

    Hi, Mike!  We miss you out here!
    
    I should have put a smiley face on my reply.  I HAVE had to camp out at
    desks to get results.  But, nobody has ever had to camp out at my desk.
    It's a shame when customers just keep quiet when messages and phone
    calls go unanswered.  I suspect most of them just go elsewhere.
    
    Steve

    Re. .56   Why Customers quit (or keep quiet)
    
    From a survey a couple of years ago on why Customers are lost
    
    	REASON		%
    
    	Die				1%
    
    	Move away			3%
    
    	Develop other 'friendships'	5%
    
    	Leave for competitive reasons	9%
    
    	Dissatisfied with Product	14%
    
    	Indifferent attitude toward
    	Customer by employee		68%
    
    Now calibrate the above against your reasons why you haven't
    returned to that car sales place/shoe shop/choose any other.
    Now why should our customers be any different than us?
    
    Calvin
    

    >    It's a shame when customers just keep quiet when messages and phone
    >    calls go unanswered.  I suspect most of them just go elsewhere.
    
    In fact, surveys show that if a customer will take the time to
    complain, he is more likely to COME BACK than if he simply walked away.
    This is why restaurants scream for you to fill out their survey card,
    and the cashier asks, "was everything acceptable?"  If you tell her,
    "no the food was terrible," you are actually more likely to come back
    than if you felt the food was terrible but just left without saying
    anything about it. 
    
    This is why we survey our customers. Some businesses will do ANYTHING to
    get some, any, feedback from the customer, including free gifts/prizes
    for returned surveys. 

    .57 is quaint and sentimental and irrelevant.  The sales reps of 1987
    didn't take obnoxious pills and take the stock from 200 to 45 in 1991.
    They are for the most part the same people with the same interpersonal
    skills or lack thereof.

    The enormous growth of Digital at the expense of IBM and its
    minicomputer competitors happened because Digital had it then: the
    right strategy and the right product mix for then.
      The good sales reps of IBM could not by themselves save IBM.

    In 1991 we face the most despised sales reps that the world has ever
    seen, Sun.  Yet this is not making a dent in Sun's market share growth
    at DEC's expense.

    
    Re: .59
    
    > .57 is quaint and sentimental and irrelevant.
    
    I think you are wrong on this one.  .57 says plainly and simply that
    more customers will stop doing business with you because  you don't
    treat them right than for any other reason.  This does not mean that
    you don't need the right solutions or that you can sell them junk,
    but it does mean that with or without "the right stuff", you can
    shoot yourself in the foot much more often by abusing your customers
    than for any other reason.
    
    The Japanese have known this for a long time.
    
    An analogous point is one that the medical and legal professions
    have known for awhile.  Most malpractice lawsuits are spawned not
    by mistakes, but by ticking off the client or patient in the
    process.
    
    Steve
    
    

    ENOUGH!  Just because salesreps are "responsible" for customer
    relationships doesn't mean salesreps are at fault for poor customer
    perception of Digital.  Salesreps are merely the point man for the rest
    of Digital.  A salesrep can only be as responsive to the customer as
    the rest of Digital is responsive to the rep.  Don't shoot the
    messengers!
    
    It's amazing to me that we, as salespeople, have so much
    "responsibility" for keeping our customers satisfied, yet so little
    "authority" to do something without prior approval.
    
    I agree 100% that we must take excellent care of our customers, but
    it's a real challenge when your support organizations aren't lined up to
    support you in that mission. 
    
    One "little" example of the system at work:
    
    A customer asks a technical question, you ask your software specialist
    to get an answer as well as pursue it yourself.  Ten manuals and 10
    phone calls later (most unanswered because they're in "important
    meetings"), you and your s/w guy comes up zip.  A week goes by.  You've
    been calling the customer daily to keep him informed of your progress. 
    By some divine intervention, you run into someone in the bathroom who
    happens to have the answer you're looking for.  You call your customer
    with joy and he says, "thanks, but what took you so long?  IBM usually
    gets an answer within a day or two."  Salesrep's fault?
    
    
    
    

 
>     In 1991 we face the most despised sales reps that the world has ever
>     seen, Sun.  Yet this is not making a dent in Sun's market share growth
>     at Dec's expense.
 
Someone told me that Digital had bought out Sun, but kept their people...  Can
someone please confirm or deny this?  
 
Thanks,
 
John K.

---------
I think, therefore it is!

    Re: .61

    As a fellow sales rep, I agree completely!

    Rich Kotter

    
    
                    Words of wisdom I heard many years ago......
    
    
    
    		"Samson slew a thousand Philastines with the
    		jaw bone of an ass."
    
    		Similar number of sales are lost the same way......
    
    		                    

RE: .62 (DEC buying out SUN but keeping the people)

I think somebody was joking with you.


RE: .61 (Sales reps not to blame; don't shoot the messenger)

The sales reps may not be to blame, but the sales *organization* is.

The key thing is not placement of blame.  It is to solve the problem by
(1) recognizing that the current situation is wrong and not to be tolerated,
(2) determining what it is about the personnel, organizational, and procedural
climate in which sales reps operate fosters this sort of behavior,
(3) determining what must be changed to fix the situation, and (4) implementing
those changes.

Given that even the most blatantly obviously bad manifestation of the situation
(reps not returning phone calls) has been with us for all of the 11 years I've
been at DEC, I don't even think the sales organization has got past step (1)
yet.

--PSW

re: .62,

> Someone told me that Digital had bought out Sun, but kept their people...  Can
> someone please confirm or deny this?  
 
	News to me, but if it were true, it would be poetic justice!
    Especially after Bill Joy's (VP of Sun R&D) recent DEC-Bashing
    lecture at Texas Instruments on January 8th, 1991.  I have a copy
    of excerpts from the lecture, but I don't currently have the author's
    permission to post the stuff in here (and I'm not sure I'd want to
    anyway - it's pretty depressing).

				    -davo

    Re: 61
    
    I agree.  As someone who supports our sales force.....give them
    a few breaks please.  When I get a call and all the rep wants to
    do is quote All-IN-1 Mail for a wide area network....lessee....
    I just counted up all the part #'s for licenses, h-kits and 
    services.....etc.......
    
    
    30 minutes and 13 part numbers later......and the rep indicated
    she had spent the entire afternoon trying to pull all the pieces 
    for just the software licenses and services together........and if
    she had to expend that much time on the actual hardware and
    software also....
    
    
    And we were just talking VT's and PC's here folks......there has
    got to be an easier, softer and FASTER way!!
    
    When we make our ordering scheme so complex, we are forcing reps
    to spend inordinate amounts of time just to generate quotes.  I
    realize this doesn't address the issue of unreturned phone calls;
    but sales reps aren't the only people not returning phone calls.
    
    It's a bummer to call a product manager....get an answering machine,
    not voicemail.....so you can't even determine if the individual
    is even in town to pick up the message!!  I've made commitments to
    sales reps to research issues and then had to wait as long as 2 weeks
    to hear back from product management (when I don't get a prompt re-
    sponse to a phone call....I always follow that up with a mail message).
    Eventually I get an answer.....then usually find the sales rep had
    to pass on the opportunity because we couldn't get the answer in a
    more timely fashion.
    
    There are two sides to the coin.......the sales force is just a cross-
    section of the entire employee base.....to try and lay the blame 
    solely at their feet is most unfair.  I spend 7 hours a day talking
    to sales reps.....sure, there a few who could work a little harder
    at pulling their act together, but it seems most of them *know*
    what they want to sell, but are drowning in a sea of part numbers
    trying to quote the same.
    
    I sometimes wonder if we have to deliver some of our quotes on a
    flatbed truck!!
    
    Karen
    
    
    

    Karen,
    Well said. (I'm not a sales-rep)
    /fred

    Re .67
    
    Product Management has noted your comments. We are trying to simpify
    the ordering process. However, we are as much a victim of the DEC
    bureaucratic system as you are. We don't want 9K part numbers for each
    product but somebody somewhere decided we had to have them. There is
    now no relation between the MLP price Product Management sets and what
    appears in the Price List. Numerous faceless committees organizations
    have sprung up to "decide" these issues. 

    
re:           <<< Note 1371.69 by SMAUG::GUNN "MAILbus Conductor" >>>
    
>                              Numerous faceless committees organizations
>    have sprung up to "decide" these issues. 
    
    It's unfortunate, but "numerous faceless Salesreps" have been known to
    actively discourage customers from buying a multitude of DEC products
    that have incomprehensible ordering and licensing policies.  I can't
    say that I blame them.
    
    Geoff
    

    I have been on the market for a PC lately and as a DEC employee I was 
    shocked when I realized I didn't even THINK of DEC as a possible
    supplier until late in my selection process.  If someone like me as
    an employee didn't even think of DEC as being a PC supplier what does
    that say about the general publics' impression of DEC as a supplier.
    
    I walked into Lechmere to look at PC's a week ago.  I didn't see a
    THING about DEC PC's...... nothing!
    
    I guess I could buy a DEC PC if I could figure out HOW to buy one.
    Out of sight.... out of mind.
    
    If DEC expects to sell PC's to the general public market we have a
    thing or two learn about ADVERTISING.
    
    Why don't we get on the ball and do some ADVERTISING that the general
    public will actually SEE?  Places like PC NOVICE magazine, T|IME
    magazine, newspapers etc. etc.?  What happened to the general
    principals of sales advertising????????  DEC seems to advertise 
    conservatively in esoteric professional publications.  Thats fine
    (I guess) for the commercial market but not for the general public.
    
    And we 'wonder' why our sales have slipped?
    
    The above must be one of the reasons.
    
    Jeff
    

	There is plenty of advertising in the PC magazines. Sorry, I
	can't fault DEC there.. What irritates me is that Gateway
	and other top of the line systems have  more features
	for the same or LESS money and we, as employees can't purchase
	them at any sort of discount.

	DECpc's are good systems. They just cost too much for me.

							mike

>    If DEC expects to sell PC's to the general public market we have a
>    thing or two learn about ADVERTISING.

	I do not get the impression taht we want to sell PCs to the general
	public. It seems to me that we are positioned (based on price,
	configurations, and service) to sell to businesses who have a need
	for networking, service, warranties, etc. 

	I don't thinkt hat we ever had an intention to get into the
	price-cutting bloodbath of consumer PCs.

	Roy

    
    advertising in PC magazines is one way to limit sales.  What is the
    circulation of PC magazine and how many of those subscribers are buying
    new now?
    
    

    re: .last few, PCs
    
    Advertising in PC magazines must indeed be limiting.  Just ask Gateway
    2000, which uses this channel almost exclusively.  It seems to keep
    their growth from becoming uncontrollable.  :-)
    
    (More seriously, Gateway is still growing by leaps and bounds, IBM
    can't meet demand for Thinkpad laptops, and PC manufacturing is still
    very much a growth industry since the price collapse of summer 1992.)
    
    I would venture the opinion that Digital's PC line carries a price
    premium because of qualities that are largely irrelevant to individual
    purchasers like the participants in this note.
    
    Wes

    Those who sell advertising can cite umpteen studies, and customers who
    read those studies buy lots of advertising, supporting the increase of
    perceived product value.  And one key to perceived value is: the losers
    seldom buy it, but the winners always do.
    
    My reading is that KO was very uncomfortable with this.  "Winner" and
    "Loser" was anathema to a "Win-Win"-principled person.  As a result, we
    got few ads, and those we got, never played on win-lose attidudes.
    
    What do you think we should do now?  Should we enter the win-lose
    derby, go-for-the-jugular advertising to the fore?  "If it has to be
    the Best, it has to be Digital."  Or, should we continue with our
    principled win-win? "Digital people and products have what it takes for
    you to count upon them in your endeavors."  
    
    Rich
    
    

   Win-Lose is not the only purpose of Advertising. Some of the other 
   purposes are "Informing the Buyer" and soothing "Cognitive Dissonance"
   in the buyer. The first one very much applies to Digital. In a very crowded
   market you need to inform the buyer the advantages in buying your product
   over somebodyelse's. In some article I read that Digital was the
   only company that could provide networks that can support both PCs and MACs.
   Why aren't these widely advertised? Watch TV and you'll start to think
   that Pentium is the fastest, the latest CPU chip around.

   The second reason is that when somebody makes a purchase, they go through
   a period of self-doubt, a time when they think" Did I make the right
   decision?". This is the time they look for assurance that they really *DID* 
   make the right decision. Advertising helps a long way in making this
   happen. The customer is happy that they bought something that's quite
   visible in the public eye.

   So holding back on Advertising makes you a principled person *ONLY* if
   you have technologies that nobody else has. When the market is even,
   not advertising doesn't make you principled; just dumb.

   Nari

    
    just watching the TV advertising and you would realize the main stream
    consumers think "pentium" and "intel inside" are all that matters.
    
    They aren't going to read volumes of magazines looking for the obscure
    ad they don't even know exits.

Of course they're going to read the ads.

A significant chunk of the PC market buys mail order (not the largest
chunk, yet).  To buy mail order, you might ask a friend or a BBS, but most 
likely you buy Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, etc. to find the latest
info and phone numbers.  

And, by the way, many of the ads that we sell are selling "Intel Inside"
and Pentium-ready.  Every time Intel shows an Intel Inside ad, they are 
suporting vendors, including Digital, who use their logo and chips.

   Gary

    
>And, by the way, many of the ads that we sell are selling "Intel Inside"
>and Pentium-ready.  Every time Intel shows an Intel Inside ad, they are 
>suporting vendors, including Digital, who use their logo and chips.

>   Gary

	that's right!  digital is invisible to the consumer market. 
	

    
   >	that's right!  digital is invisible to the consumer market. 
    
    I would not give up on Digital yet. I have seen ads for Digital
    in the latest Computer Shopper plus ones in the last few
    PC Magazines. I also saw a brief story in the Boston Globe. To
    summarize - PC computer revenue for Digital will total just 
    short of 1 Billion dollars. Digital will also announce a "fairly
    dramatic" increase in indirect distribution of its PC's... In the
    near term, Digital plans to complement its PC line with a low-end
    PC offering.
    
    Peter

    Also if you looked at last Sundays New York Times there was a computer
    pull out section for PC Expo.  Page 2 was a full page Digital Add
    Touting:   Windows NT (tm) on the worlds most powerful PC!
    
    - Mike

    I was talking with a woman from L.A. the other day who was in Boston
    for business. She has been using PC's for years and is a little up
    tight because she can't upgrade to a 586 yet, Pentium. She had never
    heard of ALPHA nor did she even know that DEC, yes DEC that is what
    she knew us by, made PC's. She has no time to read PC rags, never
    opened one actually. 
    
    Very isolated case but it sure made me shake my head. When are we
    "really" going to advertise? I see some adds/sponsorship at night 
    on PBS but that's it.
    
    Jim C.
    
    

    RE: last few
    
    We are selling more PC's than we can make right now. Selling them 
    doesn't seem to be a problem... delivering them is a problem, but 
    once we get some new manufacturing facilities online, that should 
    get better.  That's when we should start "really" advertising.
    
    Greg 

RE: .84

	Exactly.. Good point.. There is no sense in advertising something 
	we will only have trouble providing..

	I heard that there is a newer, lower cost series of PC's from
	DEC coming in the near future.

							mike

    re: "no sense in advertising something we will only have trouble
    providing ..."
    
    ABSOLUTELY *NOT* TRUE!  Case in point is Intel and the '486 and
    Pentium.  The market for '486 chips is still not saturated.  And, they
    can't make enough Pentiums.  But, they realize the value of advertizing
    which is NOT just to create current demand (short term) but to ALSO
    create long-term demand.  The idea that we sell plenty now and only
    need to advertize when we are able to satisfy demand is ...  well, I
    don't mean to insult anyone.  Let's just say that if we are going to
    wait until demand slows down to advertize, we won't need to advertize
    because our competition will be picking it's teeth after having eaten
    our lunch.
    
    If we *really are* selling our boxes like hot cakes, we need to brag
    NOW about it -- while we can.  The entire target market MUST become 
    aware of where we are successful, not just our current customers.
    
    We need to turn Pentium demand into Pentup demand -- for Alpha!
    
    Steve

    re .86
    
    Bravo!  Clear thinking is such a refreshing thing.  You have to wonder
    why it is so rarely demonstrated here at DEC, er, Digital.
    
    Marv
    

Heard on the radio this morning an ad for Saturn. It basically said we're sorry that there may not be many cars 
in our showroom, and if you order a car from us you may have to wait awhile to get it, but isn't it worth the
wait to get what you want? To me this means that these cars must be pretty good because they are selling more
than they can make. I agree with .86, we should advertise more, not less. Just my $0.02 worth.
tr

re: .86

Yes, but they can make enough 486's.  This is a fine line to tread.
Advertising vaporware creates ill-will.  The amount of advertising must be 
in synch with our ability to deliver, and must match the growth curve, 
though preceding it by a reasonable amount.  I think we're doing ok.

Consider this, from an on-line ZiffNet survey with 249 responses, prepared 
by Alyson Preston, and published in the 28 June PC Week, special report on 
Next Generation PC's (page 104):

Are you considering the purchase of?
	Pentium			64.7%	said yes
	R4000 based machines	13.3%
	PowerPC "	"	17.7%
	Alpha   "	"	22.5%
	Not Considering		30.9%

Chip of choice for a:
	Next Generation Server
		45.3%	Pentium
		40.7%	Not Considering
		7%	Alpha
		3.5%	PowerPC
		3.5%	R4000

	Next Generation Desktop
		73.8%	Pentium
		9.3%	Not Considering
		7.6%	Alpha
		7.6%	PowerPC
		1.7%	R4000

	Next Generation Portable
		64.5%	Not Considering
		24.4%	Pentium
		9.3%	PowerPC
		1.2%	Alpha
		0.6%	R4000

What this tells me (if you accept the validity of the survey, which is a 
separate debate) is that we're clearly number two in overall awareness and 
consideration, that our primary niche has been identified by customers as 
Servers, that we have enough credibility to slug it out on the desktop, and 
that we have little credibility for Alpha portables (which isn't 
surprising, given the power demands of the currently announced Alpha 
chips).

Being number 2 is a pretty good place to be.  Sure, we need to grow, but I 
think we're doing ok.

   Gary

    re: .89
    
> Being number 2 is a pretty good place to be.
    
    These numbers are actually very depressing, even if the survey is
    far from conclusive due to sample size and polling methods.
    If you look at the numbers you've quoted, we're not only number 2,
    but we're *far* back from the number 1 position.  And in desktop
    machines, the gap is overwhelming. Servers are nice and flashy, 
    but the desktop is where the volume comes from.
    
    The problem is revenue. If Intel ends up getting 73.8% of the desktop
    MPU revenue, and we get 7.6%, then we are out of business.
    
    I don't understand why our Alpha marketing is in the shape that it's
    in, but I have my suspicions.  To the outside world, Alpha seems to
    have two faces:  It's a really whiz-bang chip somehow, and Digital
    Equipment is hoping for lots of profits from Alpha to save the company.
    The latter message is good for the Wall Street types, but bad for the
    customers' eyes.  It implies that Alpha will be overly expensive
    and not price-competitive.  Both Intel and the PowerPC partners are
    doing a lot of advertising lately to capitalize on this perception.
    
    Geoff

    RE: .86
    
    I agree that long term advertising is absolutely essential, and that's
    the point of the branding campaign. BUT a 2 month lead time is forever 
    in PC land, and we're starting to build a reputation of taking forever
    to deliver. What I want to is to coordinate our production
    capabilities, our sales channels, and our advertising so that when the 
    new plant comes on line this fall, that's when you go agressively after 
    the mass market! So here's what I see: 
    
    Scenario 1: 
    
    Ad blitz now, lead times increase, we get a bad rep, in 6 months we
    correct the problems but retain the rep. PC sales start growing 
    again in Jan 94, by June of 94 we become the vendor of choice for 
    Personal Computers. 
    
    Scenario 2: 
    
    Keep ad budget where is is now, spend 3 months ramping up for the fall. 
    When September comes, huge ad blitz, sell thru mail order, CompUSA, 
    Computer City, Lechmere. By December, Digital logos are everywhere,
    and we are the vendor of choice for PC's, as well as for the consulting 
    expertise to integrate them.
     
    
    Both scenarios get us out of the morale-crushing layoff mode we've been 
    in for way too long, but I like the second one better.
    
    
    Greg

    Alpha is not vaporware.  Pentium is not vaporware.  Vaporware is
    technology that isn't being manufactured and sold yet (going by the 
    ads I've seen for vaporware before).  Both are being built and sold 
    right now.  People are willing to wait for the technology if they know 
    it's real, hear about it and know that it's just a matter of time before 
    the supplies are high enough.  They already wait for some PC makers that 
    are swamped with orders -- and who still advertize knowing that this is 
    the only way they can continue to attract such high volumes.  That's why 
    so many are waiting for Pentium -- and NOT for Alpha.
    
    Which draws attention to an even more sobering problem -- how many
    folks at Digital think Alpha is vaporware?  If we think so and we're
    inside the company, how many of our *customers* think Alpha is
    vaporware?
    
    Steve

    I would like us to actually create ads that mention both chips 
    in a positive light.
    
    If we are going to sell both Alpha PC's and Pentium PC's, I would
    think/hope, we have a game plan for when a customer asks about the
    differences.
    
    I'd work up a commercial that had the following in it
    
    There are 2 people talking ...
    
    guy 1: I heard you got the new pentium machine, what do you think
    
    guy 2:  it's great it ... (tells of benefits etc)
    
    guy 1: you running NT on it?
    
    guy 2: we thought about it, but for our nt machines 
    	   we decided to go with the alpha ...
    	  (talk about benefits)
    
    talk about why alpha is the obvious choose for nt 
    
    finally wrap up 
    
    guy 1: so where'd you get this stuff?
    
    guy 2: from digital
    
    
    	mike

    ..... one noter wondered if we should get into the price cutting PC
    computer bloodbath or words to that effect?  Why not?  If DEC is in
    so much trouble we should persue any reasonable avenue to sell our
    products?  Of course we wouldn't have to sell only to the PC market.
    I am glad to hear others HAVE seen DEC ads around.  I havn't.
    
    Ken O. is a remarkable man.... he had the insight to do the things
    to make DEC a great Co.  I wonder why he missed the miniturization
    thrust?  That is.... virtually every electronic item has been made
    more powerful, less espensive, and smaller over the years.  Why
    wouldn't computers follow the same trend?  They HAVE! Computers
    (UNIVAX) etc. starting out as big as a garage... now one can buy a
    desktop PC far more powerful than the UNIVAX. Why couldn't KEN
    SEE that it was only a matter of time before people would want and
    buy PC's to fit on their desktop for a fraction of the price of a
    mainframe?
    
    Mainframes have their place of course but for a small company who
    needs a mainframe nowadays?
    
    I guess others have seen that and it sure shows in DEC sales.
    
    Jeff

    Mike Shannon, that's nice ad copy.  It would work well.

    I like it, too.
    
    Steve

    I am reading this notes file from my home, using my PC, running Kermit
    on MS-DOS.
    
    Can ALPHA do this?
    
    NO.
    
    Can PENTIUM do this?
    
    Yes.
    
    CAn ALPHA run my DOS or WINDOWS apps (without buying TONS of memory and
    emulating DOS/WINDOWS inside of NT)?
    
    NO.
    
    Can PENTIUM do this?
    
    Yes.
    
    
    Users of DOS applications and WINDOWS applications are the vast
    majority of PC users on the planet.  Until and Unless the ALPHA (or any
    other chip) will performa as well under the same conditions, then the
    vast majority of those DOS /WINDOWS users will stay with the Intel
    architecture, (or with a clone of the Intel architecture).
    
    
    Sure the ALPHA is a better chip than PENTIUM.  And the PC100-B (Rainbow
    100+) was a better PC than the IBM PC, too. 
    
    BUT IT DOESN'T DO WHAT THE MAJORITY OF DOS/WINDOWS USERS WANT.
    
    tony

    Don't ignore the point that Intel's monopoly on hardware is on the face
    of erosion because technology will prevent them from continued binary
    compatibility with advanced performance. Microsoft's software monopoly
    is moving from binary dependence on the Intel architecture at the same
    time.
    
    You're not really using KEAterm, you're using VTxxx emulation and some
    standard xfer protocol. Same applies to your choice of word processor
    and spreadsheet in that Lotus is Lotus regardless of the OS and
    Hardware it's running on.
    
    I think Alpha (as well as Mips) can do all of this, do it a bit faster,
    and do a lot more that processor performance didn't allow before
    (can you imagine trying to run Windows on an 8088?). As for NT
    requiring more resources, why is that any different from when the world
    finally realized that 1MB of memory is not the maximum memory that a
    microcomputer would ever need (original DOS limitation)?
    
    PC users continually want access to the same applications previously
    only available on high end workstations but forget what the "norm" is
    for memory and disk storage on those systems. I think all this is/will
    change and that all those features and capabilities some of us thought
    we never would need will become our minimal expectations and we would
    never even consider going back to MS-DOS, Kermit, and 640K of memory
    torun applications (remember CP/M? remember the Osborne?).

    This issue is fundamental and if you haven't understood it yet, I
    wonder if there's hope.
    
    There is no full-service-IBM-like-Digital it's gone, it's history.
    
    There is no Alpha-Digital.  It's never was and never will be, although
    people seem to think it's here.
    
    There are multiple Digitals:
    
    There's Intel-like Digital that wants to sell Alpha technology.
    
    There's Compaq-like Digital that wants to sell computers using Intel,
    Alpha, or whatever sells, and storage, and components, etc.
    
    There's the Land's End-like Digital that wants to sell lots of stuff
    over the telephone, answer questions about hardware and software, etc.
    
    There's EDS-like Digital that wants to sell lots and lots of value-
    added.  This is why the end-user "customer business units" were formed.
    To go after this high-margin industry-focused business.
    
    Let me attempt to preempt the nit-pickers here: the alignment isn't
    exact but the basic point is that parts of Digital are going to go
    their own way in imitation of other company's successful business
    models.  With no single "strategy" beyond being profitable to guide
    them.
    
    The new new Digital has "focus".  To take what worked in 1978 with VAX
    and think it can be applied to 1993, makes as much sense as it would
    have if Digital looked at the market in 1978 with the strategies of
    1962.
    
    It's my hope that the new new Digital will have the insight and guts to
    actually leave unprofitable lines of business and enter new markets.
    
    The monolithic nature of Digital's approach to business was wrong, and
    leads to the sort of despair that one experiences when one sees that a
    six-year-old PC appears to be a better fit for the office, the largest
    PC market, than an Alpha in July 1993.

    .98:
    
>                                                         As for NT
>    requiring more resources, why is that any different from when the world
>    finally realized that 1MB of memory is not the maximum memory that a
>    microcomputer would ever need (original DOS limitation)?

    FWIW, back around '78 or so, I think VMS fit into 512K.
    
    Dick

    Re: .100
    
    256K for VAX-11/VMS V1.0.  The minimum was raised to 512K for V1.5.
    
    				Steve

	I could read my mail and notes at home from a DECmate III, up 'till
	a couple of months ago, I have recently bought my own PC 333, and I 
	can do the same with that.
	
	Why would I want to invest in this Alpha or Pentium stuff?

	Heather

>	Why would I want to invest in this Alpha or Pentium stuff?

	You might want to run Windows NT, or OSF/1. 

Richard.

>>	Why would I want to invest in this Alpha or Pentium stuff?

>	You might want to run Windows NT, or OSF/1. 

	I hope we don't ever tell customers this

	Heather

>I could read my mail and notes at home from a DECmate III

Well, come to that, I manage just fine with a VT220 at home,
at least for NOTES and MAIL purposes.

I don't suppose we'll sell many Alphas if our key applications
are NOTES and MAIL....

	

    Another undeniable truth of Digital:
    
    Digital's internal usage of computing distorts how Digital sees
    computing in general, and puts Digital employees out of touch with the
    real issues that customers face with computing.
    
    The slogan was once "use what we sell", which was hardly ever true, but
    now, more than ever, it should be, "use what customers use".

    A while back (in .93), I put a "commercial" that i thought might 
    be something that we should do as a company commercial.
    
    I saw a couple replies in here that liked it, and got some mail
    saying the same. So I decided to send it the right person.
    
    I started at the top, bill johnson, and was directed to send to another 
    person ... etc etc.
    
    I heard from advertising today, and they liked parts of it.
    
    In my reasoning, as to what the real message I was trying to come
    across with vs the actual words I wrote, I coame up with a slogan I
    kinda liked.
    
    I wanted to it to be the closing line of my commercial, and thought you
    might like to hear it - get your opinion.
    
    "The solution for X is Digital"
    
    In my "commercial" I would say - well have one of the guys say is
    
    "Well I guess then the solution for computers is digital then."
    
    But replace computers with the appropriate business area.
    
    I wanted to thank those of you who sent me mail, and in here. I don't
    know if they will take the ad, or get anything from it, but I felt good
    trying to get it heard. 
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    There is 1 small thing wrong with your sentence.  You have 2 "then's"
    in the same sentence.
    
    I think it would sound better (MHO), if you replaced the first then 
    with....maybe....today.
    

    yup you're right!
    
    but do you like the slogan?
    
    "The solution for X is Digital" ??
    
    m

    	Well, remember you ASKED for opinions. So I hope you don't mind a
    little constructive criticism. Personally, I think the slogan is boring
    and one I wouldn't remember 10 seconds after the commercial...not that
    I have a better one. You want something that will stick in peoples'
    heads, even if it's somewhat silly or obnoxious.

	Alpha vs. Pentium


	You can easily read your E-Mail at home with an Alpha.  It comes with
	a VT100 emulator built in.

	Secondly the Pentium and Aplha are not made for people who want
	to read their E-mail from home, it is ment for people who want
	to do animation, desktop publishing, apps development, visualization
	and other high powered apps.  It is meant as a low cost high powered 
	server.  Servers need only one peice of software!

	Intel is in HUGE trouble!!!

	AMD is attacking their 486 and Pentium lines, so much so that
	when they took on their 386 lines Intel went out of that business.

	PowerPC from Motorolla is attacking the pentum head on - same 	
	performance lower price.

	Alpha and R4000 are attacking the high end - same price higher
	performance.

	All this for a company that is used to operating in a monopoly market!

	I just came back from COMDEX Canada, all the buzz was Alpha -
	Pentium was only talked about untill they saw what Alpha could do.

	There is gold in them there hills, lets get focused and go after it!

	Nadeem

>	Intel is in HUGE trouble!!!

    They have a near monopoly on the x86 architecture, the gov't just
    absolved them of any monopolistic lawsuits, they've got billions in the
    bank with little debt, and are about to post record profits for the nth
    straight quarter.  We should be in such trouble.
    
>    	AMD is attacking their 486 and Pentium lines, so much so that
>	when they took on their 386 lines Intel went out of that business.

    AMD has lost the copyright battle, and will soon have to pay Intel for
    patent infringement.  It will probably cost AMD several hundred million
    dollars.  The reason Intel got out of the 386 line is that there was
    more profit in 486's, they needed the mfg capacity for the 486, amd
    they knew they could elevate the playing field on AMD by pushing the
    486.  The 486 will outsell the 386 this year, by millions of chips.
    
    
>	PowerPC from Motorolla is attacking the pentum head on - same 	
>	performance lower price.

    Don't doubt that Intel won't meet that price when the time comes, and
    it is at least a year off.  No one will see a PowerPC until December,
    and there are still no applicatins that run on it yet.  PowerPC is not
    attacking Intel. 
    
>	Alpha and R4000 are attacking the high end - same price higher
>	performance.

    Until we get the applications, we won't be in te same ballpark.  Even
    then, we (nor MIPSCO) don't have near Intel's mfg capacity, and THAT is
    what drives down prices.
    
>	All this for a company that is used to operating in a monopoly market!

    This market has only recently been a near monopoly for Intel, and
    they've swallowed whatever competition they've had.  They've done well
    because they design great products that the customers like.  They do
    well in non-monopolistic markets, such as microcontrollers, video, and
    communications.
    
    Bruce

    I note that in IBMs ads for PowerPC they mention Pentium as THE
    competition.  Alpha is not mentioned in the ads I've seen.  This is not
    an oversight on IBMs part.  They think that their competition is
    Pentium, not Alpha.  In fact, you could replace "PowerPC" with "Alpha" 
    and get basically the same message in the ads that we (either did or 
    should have, I don't know which) put out, what, about a year ago?
    
    Steve

    Actually, I think AMD won the copyright suit.
    
    But their manufacturing capacity is a tiny fraction of Intel's.  They
    may serve to keep Intel honest, just a bit, but Intel's future seems
    golden for some time to come.
    
    Alpha AXP faces a tough world...

    AMD won but a higher court just overturned the decision last week...

>>	Intel is in HUGE trouble!!!
>
>    They have a near monopoly on the x86 architecture, the gov't just
>    absolved them of any monopolistic lawsuits, they've got billions in the
>    bank with little debt, and are about to post record profits for the nth
>    straight quarter.  We should be in such trouble.
    
    None of the above necessarily means that Intel isn't in big trouble.
    I remember a company doing so well that they rented the Queen Mary for
    a show to customers.  The company didn't realize that they were already
    in big trouble then.  
    
                                    August G. Reinig

	Actually, that company rented the Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen
	Mary is pretty much stuck in California..

						mike

    Bruce, try not to confuse the issue with facts.
    
    :^)
    
    Mark.

    Actually, they rented the Queen Mary for a company Christmas party.

    Brian

RE: .118

	Bruce???

						mike 
					(last time I checked)

    Mike, see .112.
    
    Mark.