[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::digital

Title:The Digital way of working
Moderator:QUARK::LIONELON
Created:Fri Feb 14 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:5321
Total number of notes:139771

3064.0. "HELP needed from:MKT/SALES/????" by CONSLT::CHAMBERLAIN () Wed May 11 1994 18:35

To whom it may concern,

The Design Group has established a packaging design that keeps all 
Windows NT software product packages looking consistent (as if we were 
one company) instead of broken identities, which is ever so common.

The box, Documentation cover(s), CD labels and Diskette label all have
a consistent design. The only difference from product to product is the
product name printed on the box.

For product that need some sort of product specific design/descriptor,
their is a Back-ad sheet. A panel shrink wrapped to the back of the box 
containing product specific design and descriptor/features. The packages 
look alike on the shelf, a consistent design, yet product specific when 
the back is read/viewed.

A Business Reply Card is contained in the software package. BRC retrieves
customer data and is mailed postage-paid to Data Entry House.

            PROBLEM 1: Product Managers (for each software don't feel
                       that they should be paying for this, therefore
                       increasing their product cost. PM's are/have
                       actually considering creating their
                       own card, with there own address, and keeping their
                       own log to find out who buys their products (This
                       can cause disaster with transitions, and lack of
                       corporate sharing info of `WHO IS BUYING OUR
                       SOFTWARE'.  BTW: The cards that are being returned
                       today, are just sitting, collecting dust at the Data
                       Entry House because their is no Marketing Campaign
                       Code on them due to no one wanting to absorb the
                       cost.
                       
                       I would think that Marketing and/or Sales should
                       be responsible for this cost, but I can't find the
                       RIGHT person to contact.. I have gone in circles for
                       over a month now.
                       
                       
            PROBLEM 2: I have gone in circles to find out WHO should
                       support this... 
                       
                       If you CAN help me, please contact me a 223-2619 or
                       via E-mail at CONSLT::CHAMBERLAIN
                       

Also, in the software package is a Z-fold. A 5 panel folding card, 
that has a description of different products. This is placed in 
product family packages.

For example, presently, Printserver, eXcursion, DECFortran and DECtalk
make one Z-fold. The Z-fold goes into each of their software boxes. If 
the customer buys DECtalk, this falls out, they read it and see that "WOW!
Reading the Printserver descriptor looks like we'd be able to utilize this, 
let's call 1-800-DIGITAL and inquire about it". The Z-fold is an advertising 
type tool to cross sell our products.

            PROBLEM 1: Product Managers would like to pay, but their
                       budgets are limited. Shouldn't Marketing absorb 
                       these costs so we don't have in increase product
                       cost?
                       
            PROBLEM 2: I have gone in circles to find out WHO should
                       support this... 
                       
                       If you CAN help me, please contact me a 223-2619 or
                       via E-mail at CONSLT::CHAMBERLAIN
                       
                        
                     
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
3064.1ICS::BEANAttila the Hun was a LIBERAL!Wed May 11 1994 20:5214
    re: .0
    
    at the risk of being jumped on:
    
    isn't 
    >                   If you CAN help me, please contact me a 223-2619 or
    >                   via E-mail at CONSLT::CHAMBERLAIN
    
    
    a direct "solicitation"... which seems verbotten in this conference!
    
    tony
    (who is only partially kidding!)
    
3064.2?ANGLIN::ROGERSSometimes you just gotta play hurtWed May 11 1994 23:456
    Tony,
    
    Not to jump on you at all, but what's the problem?  The base noter just
    seemed to be looking for a pointer to some help.
    
    Larry
3064.3no harm intendedICS::BEANAttila the Hun was a LIBERAL!Thu May 12 1994 15:4010
    In a moment of relative weakness, amid all the hoopla with edp's saga,
    I facetiously pointed out the apparent inconsistency with which this
    conference is being moderated: one solicitation (for help) is allowed
    while one solicitation (for agreement) is disallowed... for *being* a
    solicitation.
    
    In no way was I trying to stifle any response to the basenoter's
    request.
    
    tony
3064.4Benefits to packaging strategyCONSLT::CHAMBERLAINFri May 13 1994 16:1482
                                  NT Pilot Summary

          What Do I Get For My $6K Investment?
                 - packaging graphic design
                 - CD-ROM label graphic
                 - documentation cover graphic
                 - diskette label
                 - product warranty card
                         benefits:
                         - know your customer by collecting names
                         - merchandise complimentary NT products
                         - after market sales potential
                         - captive audience for product upgrades/sales
                 - back ad sheet
                         benefits:
                         - product specific
                         - increase product exposure
                 - z-fold
                         benefits:
                         - cross sell complimentary products
                         - increase product exposure to potential
	                   customer
                         - include in hardware and software packaging
          		   (ex; Alpha, NT OS)


          Old Process                    New Process

          TOTAL COST: $40K                       TOTAL COST: $6K (<85%)

          - long lead time, 14 weeks          	- short lead time, 6
            					  weeks (<57%)
          - point product "look & feel"         - consistent line "look &
          					  feel"
          - fragmented                          - streamlined processes
                                         	- channel ready
                                         	- cross sell products

          package design/engineering: $29K    	package design:  $1.5K
	  lead time: 12-14 wks                  lead time: 4 wks

          CD-ROM graphic: $4K              	CD-ROM label graphic: $1K
          lead time: 6 wks                      lead time: 4 wks

          documentation cover graphic: $5K      document. cover graphic: $.5K
          lead time: 6 wks                      lead time: 4 wks

          warranty card: $1K                    warranty card: $0K
          lead time: 6 wks                      lead time: 0

          diskette label: $1K                   diskette label: $0K
          lead time: 2 wks                      lead time: 0 wks

						back ad sheet: $2K
						lead time: 6 wks

						z-fold: $1K
						Lead time: 6 wks



Additionally, when NT was first announced, there were 40 software products. 
Based on those 40 products, here are some financial's:

DESIGN ENGINEERING FINANCIALS:

For 40 products utilizing strategy:

Old Model - Functional style 		40 x $40,000	=	$1.6M
New Model - Collaborative strategy	40 x $6,000	=	$240,000

NT Pilot Cost Reduction Opportunity				$1.3M

SOFTWARE MANUFACTURING FINANCIALS:

	PROJECTED COST SAVINGS
	- Eliminate WW material and labor costs 	$700K
	- Reduce obsolete inventory write=offs		$100K
	- Three year SW product cost savings 		$2.4M
	- Improves SW competive cost and margins

3064.5wrong emphasisCARAFE::GOLDSTEINGlobal Village IdiotSat May 14 1994 04:1916
    This is being discussed more appropriately in MARKETING.
    
    But the point is that to the Product Manager, this is probably NOT a
    win.  They didn't ask for it and probably don't want it.
    
    Having consistent packaging for NT software is, IMHO, silly.  Better to
    have consistent packaging for a multi-OS product, REGARDLESS of waht OS
    it's on.  So if we sold eXcursion for Windows 3.1, eXcursion for
    Windows NT and eXcursion for Mac and eXcursion for anything else, the
    box should look like eXcursion's box, not a generic-Mac box, a generic
    Win3.1 box, a generic NT box, etc.  Users care about the application
    first, not the OS!  Only OS-specific products (say, NT utilities) need
    to go into an NT-consistent package.
    
    I suspect Word Perfect, Microsoft, Novell and other successful software
    houses would not do it the way .0 proposes.
3064.6reply to .5CONSLT::CHAMBERLAINMon May 16 1994 16:3423
    I guess if anyone could confess to being marketing and call me, 
    I could work WITH them and have them decide what is best.
    
    BTW: Product managers seem to like the concept and are using and/or
    	 planning on using it.
    
    What you are exampling regarding eXcursion (In reply .5) maybe so,
    I would like to know for sure if I could find MARKETING support
    somewhere. They would/should know best.  For now, spending $40k
    for a package design, for a software, that may not be
    advertised/marketed and/or may not sell, and is also not market
    tested (most our software designs I don't believe (I could be
    wrong) are not market researched/tested). We design them (or 
    a Product Manager has a CAD operator or external Designer) design
    it, then they print, pack and sell.
    
    Our design is not market tested either, and that is another reason 
    that I am searching for market support.
    
    Lis
    
    
    
3064.7Signing offCONSLT::CHAMBERLAINMon May 16 1994 16:3717
    
    Thank you everyone!
    
    I appreciate all points of view, comment, concerns and support.
    
    I am leaving this note for now. When/if I get results from it,
    I'll update status. 
    
    For now, I want the note to work for me, to find me a CONTACT.
    
    Please don't be offended if I dont' reply.. I have other projects
    to attend to and this one needs to take the back burner until
    I can find support.
    
    Thanx
    Lisa
    
3064.8I'm all confusedKLAP::portersave the alesMon May 16 1994 17:123
I don't understand this note.  Did "The Design Group" do
thw work without first finding out whether anyone wanted
it done?
3064.9FORTY2::SHIPMANMOGTue May 17 1994 10:5644
Since it looks like this conversation is closing, I will summarise my
reactions.

Most importantly:

	If you are a product manager, and you are thinking
	of buying into this scheme, please get cross-quotes!

Because I was so shocked by the figures presented, I did this.  I
found that it does NOT cost $40,000 to get your own packaging design,
it costs less than $1,000.

It also does not take fourteen weeks to get the results, it takes
three weeks, with twelve hours of work from a production controller
(the person who runs the project), from briefing the designer to
taking delivery of a run of 5000 packages.

I tried to make sure there were no differences between the $40000
deliverable and the one I got a quote for.  Even if there are, it
can't matter: the purpose of both is to package a kit.


If you want to cross-quote, and you don't know where to start, call a
local small publishing company and ask to speak to the production
manager.  Offer them lunch in return for picking their brains about
how to make packages to hold software kits.  They'll tell you the
things you need to know and put you in touch with designers.  When you
call a designer, don't say you work for Digital or the price will
double.  But even if it does, I don't think you can do worse than
going with this proposal.

I can forward to interested parties the names and numbers of two or
three good designers in the Reading, UK area who do this kind of work. 
But I suggest you use local designers; it's important to meet
face-to-face.


I've cross-posted this reply because it seems relevant to the forum
(given that the base note exists).  The remainder of my comments are
in MR4SRV::MARKETING note 212.*.  Finally, if anyone can see any
problems with my argument, please post or mail a response - I'm not
pursuing this for fun, it's relevant to my current project.

Nick
3064.10ELWOOD::LANETue May 17 1994 12:059
re: Did "The Design Group" do thw work without first finding out whether
    anyone wanted it done?

It wouldn't surprise me one bit. There are a lot of support groups around who
feel a need to migrate into something more layoff-proof by inventing something
that everyone needs. The best way of convincing people that they need this
new widget is to promote it as a new "standard."  Since rumor has it that
standards must be adhered to, no matter what the cost, the group that manages
to pull off this stunt has a new funding source.
3064.11I'm back! ;')CONSLT::CHAMBERLAINTue May 17 1994 15:2172
Well, looks like I can't stop replying after all....	;')

I discussed these comments with my Product Manager, who agrees they are 
all valid points. 

A few notes to make, though...

The $40k quoted for the NT packaging process is estimated for the Win NT 
software products. NOT all products cost that in packaging design.

For the Win NT packaging, the $40K would of covered, if each product
went with a Product specific design:
	
	Package engineering - spec'ing out a box for the product, part
                              number, engineering drawing, etc.
	Graphic Designing   - for the box, back ad sheet, CD graphics
		              and Z-fold ... also Photography, if/when needed
	Documentation covers and text
	diskette label is generic
	
	This was also based on a 4 color process, for:
	
	Films for the printer(s)
	Fuji's/cromolin for the printers (an addition to utilizing these is
                                          also a cost avoidance having
                                          someone at a press run)
	part numbers 
	Design time
	Comprehensives for approvals (includes color mock ups)
	
Our responsibility is to package a product as efficiently 
as possible. Meaning: the way to package EACH product as sensible
and cost efficient as possible for the product, channels, PRODUCT
bottom line cost and Digital; ensuring cost avoidances. We also
ensure brand identity, which is currently very important to Digital..

We also offer alternatives, depending on what channels a product will
take.  Using software, for example... if it will be shipping with hardware,
could it be shipped in a bag with graphic design on the just the cd and 
documentation, and the documentation cover will be placed on top so the
graphics are visable.. therefore avoiding a box?  Will it be bought 
through retail or VAR's or Catalogues? We are not doing the work just 
for the sake of work..

We work with the Product Managers to meet their needs and costs, as well
as keep brand identity amongst our products.  We do NOT have a 
set price for any job, they are all priced per their needs and product
bottoms line cost.

The purpose for the Win NT packaging strategy, (my base note), was so that Win 
NT products would not all be spending a lot of money. They could piggy back
off one design, saving time and money, show consistency but yet have the ability 
to have their own "personality" via the back ad sheet. The Win NT 
Product Manager was involved with the idea and pilot. 

Please do NOT think that $40K is the average/minimum/maximum
price range for a product pkg design. That was the
estimate for the Win NT product.  This new 
process is now only $6K and Win NT software product managers LIKE it and 
are using it. The Product managers who do not apply to using it, we are
working a different theme for them, with a TOUCH of the Win NT design tied in 
to show a relationship.

In conclusion, before this pilot ran, there was an open house. We invited ALL 
those PM's who would be interested, and it was a VERY POSITIVE feedback, 
therefore encouraging us to go forth with this, which we did and everyone
seems to agree to the simplicity and low cost. The only problem which arises,
is the MARKETING issues which was the purpose of this base note.

Have a good day,
Lisa