Conference 7.286::digital

>    A significant part of the branding work now in progress is to create a
>    system by which Digital will name its products and services.  Currently
>    Digital has no formal naming strategy or system.  Having unrelated
>    product names causes confusion for customers and prospects and does
>    little to support the Digital name.


	What really confuses the customers is our habbit of changing
	product names of existing products.

	(Polycenter series and VMS/OpenVMS are high on the confusion
	list).

		Pekka

re: .1

It also seems as if people get the most focused on names when they're
feeling overwhelmed by all the real problems that aren't being solved.
So whenever i hear people solemnly saying we need a new naming convention
or standard or identity or whatever, i figure the ship must be going down
fast.

								- paul

re: .0

If these are the same folks that re-did our logo and launched the imagination
campaign, we are wasting our time and money.  We also should demand our  money
back for the logo and advertising campaign.

Bob

    
    and please tell them about the motorcycles ads about Alpha, these
    are bad ads, the little tiny chart about alpha comparing it to pentium is
    in dark gray color while the background is also dark grey burble, it dont
    make sense, people can't read it, they have to squirt their eyes, please
    tell them to do better ads about alpha.

    plus, i dont understand something, DEC was born in 1957, if my math is
    correct this is 36 years ago, and only now, 36 years later, we suddenly
    finding out that the names of our products are not consistant?

    i think we in DEC seem to have an identity crisis. that what i think.

    may be we all need to go see a sycharactric or something because we dont 
    know who we are any more.

    \nasser

I sure hope this "top Marketing/Communications" firm isn't the same one that
came up with the inspired name MONDO for the Alpha systems.

Here's an idea (which isn't original to me)...  if Gael's group wants to change
the name of our products, we should be allowed to change the name of their
group.  Here's a couple of ideas to get things started - what do you think?

	Ministry of Silly Names (apologies to Monty Python)
	DECfrobisher POLYmorphously Perverse 157-XYZZY-Plus-3

My opinion is that changing the names of existing products has already proven
to be extremely detrimental to Digital; expanding the practice to cover all
of our products is industrial sabotage of the worst kind.

I would urge Gael and any others of similar inclination to expend their
energies (and corporate funds) on:

	1)  Promoting the products we have
and
	2)  Making it easier for our customers to buy them

Neither of which we are currently doing; instead we're wasting our time and
confusing our customers further by this constant jingle-jangle of name (and
logo) changes.  (How many Alpha logos have we gone through?  Is it four or
five?)

If it comes down to confusion in the marketplace between "Digital" and "DEC",
let's choose "DEC"; it's what the majority of people call us anyway.  And
we already have it trademarked.

				Steve

    
    What is most disappointing about a note like this (.0) is the
    implication that a branding campaign will be some bulwark fix
    for a company which is losing millions of dollars a month.
    Why can't these marketing/communications consultants who I am
    sure are being paid some of those millions explain how all this
    brand name nonsense can be converted into profits.
    How can they solicit our support for a process they insist we
    must be kept in the dark about?  I'm becoming damn annoyed about
    issues with no follow-up; campaigns which just seem to evaporate.
    What happened to that "Digital" trademark thing with the customer
    letters to the patent office?
    
    

    The w hole idea of a Grand High Corporate Naming Scheme is to re-impose
    a centralization that other  management initiatives have removed.
    
    Supposedly, the IBUs (PC, chips, etc.) are self-managed business units
    with their own P&L.  Various other DECosaur products are nominally
    controlled by the collective CBUs, which is to say Ed Lucente.  Now
    do Pesatori, Christ and Caldwell have to rename successful product
    lines in order to have common identity with minicomputers and their
    derivative workstations?
    
    Sounds like a bunch of 'ARA to me.

I have seen occasional attempts from the MEMIT:: people to communicate in the
MARKETING conference--usually they seem to just go away because of the negative
character of the responses.  I'm wondering if they genuinely want to initiate
some two-way communication with people in other parts of Digital.

Since we all have a stake in Marketing being successful (and are all probably
tired of reading about how "Marketing-challenged" we are in the trade press),
it would be nice if there was some way for us to contribute something to
making that happen.  Do the MEMIT:: folks already "know" that they know so much
more than non-Marketing folks that two-way communication is a waste of time?
Or is there an opportunity to get some meaningful feedback started?

									- paul

    	I wouldn't object to having some coherent naming scheme for future
    products, but these people should realise that trying to rename
    existing products doesn't work.  There are two possibilities:
    
    1) People know it's the same product, and just ignore the new official
    name. That has happened with a restaurant near here. A couple of years
    ago they put up a new name board, but nobody can remember what it says
    - they still use the previous name. Look back through the notes in this
    string and compare the number of mentions of "Alpha" to the number of
    mentions of "AXP". Or the fad of calling St. Petersburg by a different
    name for the last 70 years when everyone knew it's real name, or...
     - a lot of people can still tell you where Cape Canaveral is.
    
    2) People don't know it's the same product. HP are telling our
    customers that it is easier to convert from VMS to an HP system than
    from VMS to OpenVMS. There was a fairly popular chocolate ber company
    here in France that was taken over by another company. The new owners
    tried (apparently) to change the name. It may have been their intention
    to kill the product because that was certainly the effect. After a
    few weeks of TV adverts telling us of the name change the product has
    been forgotten. Someone going into a shop can no longer buy by the name
    that they knew, so they probably buy at random.
    
    
    	Either you *can't* change a name, even if you spend money and
    effort trying, or you *do* change a name, and from my observation the
    second possibility is the most disasterous.

    
    Let's stick with DEC, plain and simple.  
    
    "jackin' the house", Bob

    What better way for this company to show that it is
    listening to its customers than to call itself "DEC" 
    and then make a big announcement about it.
    
    Malcolm 

    That this topic exists is upsetting at best.
    
    re .0, I can't believe you started this.
    
          

>     - a lot of people can still tell you where Cape Canaveral is.

FYI - Cape Canaveral is where it's always been and it's officially called
Cape Canaveral. After being renamed to Cape Kennedy (1965?), it was renamed
back to Cape Canaveral....when, late '70s?

    
    I agree with some of the previous responses.  Let's listen to our
    customers' needs and then promote our products accordingly.  I don't
    understand why we need a new naming convention for our products anyway,
    most companies do not.  Ford does not call all of it's
    cars "Taurus", Gibson does not call all of it's guitars "Les Paul", and
    IBM certainly does not call all of its systems "AS400" (a pretty bland
    name that has an installed base of over 250,000 systems by the way).  I'll
    give you a little hint, a new naming convention is not going to make this
    company profitable.  Listening to our customers, communicating to them
    honestly and consistently, and delivering products that meet their
    needs will.
    
    Al
         

    This is all somewhat fascinating.  We've got resources working
    diligently on naming conventions, logos, campaigns to say 'Digital'
    instead of 'DEC' (I've been faithful on this, and everyone I meet now
    thinks I work for Digital Switch).
    
    At the same time, we're mothballing products and outsourcing new
    development.  What's the new name for VAX Document?  Or DecWrite? (Who
    cares, both are headed for storage).  We'll eventually have nothing
    left to sell, but the niftiest names for it in the business.  
    
    How about selling *what we have* under whatever it's currently called?
    Add my opinion to -.1s...PDP 11, AS400, CICS, UNIX, DecForms...all
    non-homogenous (mainly ugly) names that sold a ton.  Maybe the fault is
    with the marketing, not the naming?  Go figure...

    Marketing needs to look at the history of COKE and NEW COKE to see
    what happens...study history first before running off to new ventures
    of renaming existing products.

    at this time i thought i like to share this quote with fellow DECeees:
    
      " a rose but by any other name will smell O' so sweat "
    
    original quote by Willliam Henry Shakspspears .
    
    \nasser

   If you're going to quote Shakespeare, at least get it right:
   
   "What's in a name?  That which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet."
   
   				Romeo and Juliet, II,ii 43-44
   
   His name is William Shakespeare, not William Henry Shakspsears.
   I won't comment on the rest of the spelling and grammatical errors.
   
   					andrew

Re: .15

DECwrite is still in business.  DECpresent is dead.

Not to worry - we'll have Digital Flexible Flyer Dura-underware Fortran
to sell.  That is, if the customers can stop laughing long enough...

				Steve

    
    
    Lots of comments...good ones....what do you think .0?
    
    
    J

    >This is important work for Digital and we have a communications plan
    >that will assure that employees understand the Branding work and its
    >implications as soon as possible.  But, because of the nature of the
    >work, communication can begin only after testing has been completed and
    >decisions finalized.
    
    Question:  How can "employees understand the Branding work and its
    implications as soon as possible" if "communication can begin only
    AFTER testing has been completed and decisions finalized?"
    
    Based on the paragraph above, it seems to me that employee opinions and
    (possible) input are deemed worthless and beneath consideration.
    
    I don't know about anybody else, but I find this attitude both arrogant
    and condescending.  YMMV.

    
    If you name it, they will come.
    

    re .0
    
    Gael, are you out there?
    
    We at Digital have already seen the impact of our "...Works" naming
    convention.  By forcing every product we introduce to end with "works",
    we have the first high-tech sausage--"Linkworks".  By grouping a
    collection of largely unrelated products (some running on unrelated
    platforms) under the "POLYcenter" umbrella, we have caused some of our
    customers to be annoyed that they attended seminars that turned out to
    be mostly unrelated to what they were looking for.  By beginning many
    of our software products with "DEC...", we created a perception of
    proprietary, closed applications.
    
    Enough "links", "works", "DECpolyAXPworks".  All you need to do is to
    read independent reviews of products like "TEAMlinks" to understand why
    they do not sell.  Digital needs to FOCUS on what the market wants to
    buy, to focus on why other competitors' products sell (or don't sell). 
    I think the PC and Storage groups get the drift.
    
    Who every thought that a car named for a bull would be the best selling
    car in the U.S.?  Who cares what COMPAQ names their machines?  They all
    sell, regardless of the label.  It's quality, it's producing what
    people want to buy at a price people want to pay.
    
    At least, that's what people outside this company tell me.

I believe people buy a software product because of what it does, not what it is
called.  The company it comes from is becoming less important.  Isn't that what
all this "open" and "client/server" stuff means?

Let's get some good names for our new products and leave the old ones alone. 
Let's forget the urge to preface everything with the same initials or words. 

It's scary to think that HP is telling people that there is a "conversion" from
VMS to OpenVMS.  There's a marketing decision that has confused customers and
hurt us.

Talk to customers.  Give them what they want.  Forget the grandiose name
schemes.

Paul

re .-1

>It's scary to think that HP is telling people that there is a "conversion" from
>VMS to OpenVMS.  There's a marketing decision that has confused customers and
>hurt us.

I've been asked (more than a few times) by _DECcies_ about "what's
involved in migrating from VMS to OpenVMS?"; the recent EISG
fire-drill caused more confusion along these lines (ie, "Does this
patch need to be applied to just VMS, or openVMS as well?").

/harley

    
    re .23
    
>    Enough "links", "works", "DECpolyAXPworks".  All you need to do is to
>    read independent reviews of products like "TEAMlinks" to understand why
>    they do not sell.  Digital needs to FOCUS on what the market wants to
>    buy, to focus on why other competitors' products sell (or don't sell). 
>    I think the PC and Storage groups get the drift.
    
    
    But changing our product names is sooo much easier. (I was
    going to put a smiley face on the end, but I then realized that
    this is not funny)
    
    						Ed
    
    

Re: .21

    As far as the paragraph you cited from .0 is concerned, my mileage
    seems to be identical to yours.  Thanks for pointing it out.

    	Gee, I hope I didn't screw up the flexware thing by leaking it out
    in this conference! I could tell it was going to be our key to future
    success and profits. I had even started lifting weights to audition for
    the Digital FLEXware poster child. I was really looking forward to that
    ad campaign...sweaty, scantily-clad bodies pounding on the keys of
    Digital equipment...Actually, you see that a lot here in ZKO!

>    ad campaign...sweaty, scantily-clad bodies pounding on the keys of
>    Digital equipment...Actually, you see that a lot here in ZKO!
    
    OK, where's the Transfer Request Authorization Form (soon to be renamed
    to DigPers EmpMvmnt AuthForm).
    
    Well, .0 should have a pretty good grasp on how the troops feel about
    this "great innovation".  (I'd put tape over the name on my badge for
    awhile).
    
    Sometimes I'm not sure if stuff like .0 is a dry joke or if it actually
    *is* a funded project someone is taking seriously (herein referred to
    as the "fundee").  Very serious.  Are we *sure* this wasn't a gag?
    
    Any ideas for other worthwhile projects we could submit to the powers
    that be?  The Committee to Standardize Pocket Pen Protectors?  The
    Organization for Elimination and Deletion of Redundant Organizational
    Identifier Names?  How about a Push to Rename Products We Can't Sell
    Because We Never Learned What They Did in the First Place?
    
    (Whoops.  Think the latter's duties might overlap with this topic's
    intent.)  28 negative replies, and I'll bet $10 it's done anyway,
    horses change midstream, and the end result shelved unread.

    .28:
    
    Is that what I'm missing by not joining the Wellness Center?
    
    Dick

re: .21

The attitude seems to at least run counter to all the Quality talk i've heard
about involving your stakeholders.  In my expansive view we're all stakeholders
in the success of Marketing.  Even a conservative view would indicate that many
sales, support, logistics and engineering folk should be sanity-checking this
whole scheme for impact on their contributory activities.

									- paul

    re: .25
>I've been asked (more than a few times) by _DECcies_ about "what's
>involved in migrating from VMS to OpenVMS?"; the recent EISG
>fire-drill caused more confusion along these lines (ie, "Does this
>patch need to be applied to just VMS, or openVMS as well?").
    
    	If even the DECcies (or should that be Digitalies?) don't
    understand what we did, then it is hardly surprising that HP sounds
    convincing to our customers!

I've seen lots of replies in this string about "Well, how about a response?"
or "They should really know what we think now".

I don't think so.

I do not believe they care.

Reread .0; It was NOT meant to start two-way communication and feedback.
It was meant to disseminate information (i.e. ONE-way).  I do not believe
that Gael has any interest in listening.  The entire tone of the note was
"Just be quite and don't talk about it.  We'll tell you when it's final."
There was no hint of desire for dialog or critique.

I do believe that we all have a stake in marketing's success, and a duty to
sanity-check them when necessary.

Does anybody have any ideas on how to get them to listen?

Maybe mail directly to Gael would be read?

Kevin

    
    Yah, Farlee!  Extract 2829.* and mail it, then post the response (if
    any) here.  I'd like to see a good defense of this whole thing from
    Gael.  I've got my Corporate-Speak/English, English/Corporate-Speak
    dictionary out and ready to go.

    What is the Digital's problem # 1 ? 

    The one that is present in every bigger sale and contract and that can
    kill this company independently of what it actually does ?

    This is credibility as a long term supplier, in other words "will DEC
    survive next few years "? 

    How does any new grand name/branding campaign help us convince our
    customers that we are serious, listening vendor that uses money in
    efficient way ?

    We have had several name changes and branding campaigns over last 2-3
    years. Did it improve company's business situation ? No it did not.
    I don't think there is simply a room for any news in this space from 
    DEC . It will be taken as a sign of on going freewheeling internal
    process not adding value to DECs business.

    Does my customer want any more branding or name changes ? No, what he
    **screams** about is difficulty in making business with DEC , lack of
    consistency , delivery problems/errors/delays.

    My customer is willing to pay a premium price for our products and
    consulting because we do quality products and services. They know that
    we need to make nice profits to provide new products, have competent
    and well educated personnel. But I just wonder what they think seeing
    their dollars spent on "Imagine ", "Digital" and colour changes.

    OK, when Bob Palmer took over and made his mark, people were willing to
    accept it, but it has to stop now. We have to focus on solving customer
    problems, adding value and stop spend money on projects for which
    window is closed now.

    Another often overlooked factor is the DEC's personnel support for
    these changes. DEC to Digital , Polycenter and Works are not supported
    with enthusiasm. It really does not matter how much pep talk we will
    get about new schemes, most people feel that there are more important
    things this corporation has right now. Not having true support of the
    troops is a big risk with yet another naming scheme.


    				Wlodek 
    			( network consultant with subsidiary of a major US bank )
    				

Maybe .0 is trying to help Q2's results by taking vacation during the holidays.

Let's give him 'til Tuesday, then ... we'll stop being polite and tell him 
what we really think of all this!

During the DECUS session where customer got the chance to vent to six of our 
Vice Presidents, not one mentioned anything about Digital's bland, er, I mean 
brand image or product names. They were concenred about things that really 
affect their bottom-line, like getting us to answer the phone, take their 
money when they are eager to give it, deliver the product capabilities they
need when they need it, and provide service in a timely and professional 
manner.

I suggest someone poll our customers to see how important they think all this 
DEC/DIGITAL, Blue/Burgundy, FLEXthis&that crap actually is. For the corporate 
account I support it don't mean squat.

regards,

Jim

re .-1

Why poll?  You found your answer in the customer's response.  I have never 
heard a customer complain about our brand EXCEPT in the commodities market 
where its highly competitive and name branding IS what you sell.  Since Digital 
has said they will be a major vendor in the PC market, branding is key.

jb

    The Dead Horse Department, regarding name recognition, and branding:
    
    New England Telephone has changed its name to NYNEX -- not a big
    change, it has been known as a NYNEX company for years.  However,
    the company obviously feels it is important to inform customers
    of the fact.
    
    How do I know this?  Well, since the beginning of the year (that's
    two days of TV) I've seen ELEVEN ads announcing this fact; four
    different versions, conveying the same basic message.
    
    To whom it may concern: THIS is the way to define and brand Digital in
    the marketplace.
    

    yep, I saw the NYNEX ads too and I wondered what they spent?  We all
    know that they want to offer more than just telephone services, so it
    makes alot of sense to make the name more generic.
    
    Mark

    Nope, NYNEX didn't change brands to become more generic.
    
    The acronym NYNEX was composed of New York and New England, the two
    Bell Telephone companies.  NYNEX maintained each as an autonomous
    subsidiary, along with other common operations (Information Resources,
    publishing phone books, etc.).  Lately, NYNEX brass in White Plains has
    been disempowering New England Telephone's management, with power
    accreting towards New York.  So by de-emphasizing the New England
    Telephone name, they're in effect reminding New England Telephone
    customers that they're now just a provincial outback for New York
    Telephone's management.
    
    The NETel and NYTel names remain legally intact, largely to protect
    them as trademarks.  And NYNEX is after all a unique trademark too.
    Digital, on the other hand, is a common word meaning, "pertaining to
    fingers and toes".  So there's little analogy.

If all we're pushing in the commodity PC market is boxes, then advertising on
price similar to AST, Gateway, Dell, etc., is probably enough to get our name
known.  What are our customers' specific complaints in this "brand" area?

Other than networked PC middleware, do we sell anything besides boxes in the
PC space?  If we were to get into end-user PC software, then i'd agree it
would be nice to have consistent naming.  But mostly consistently short and
punchy names, not DECfoo XXX/nnn-foo on IBM Netview for Blah-bla.

								- paul

    Come on, please back off a little.  Yes, .0 was sort of written in a
    "one way" fashion, but the underlying re-branding/re-naming idea is a
    good one.
    
    .0 did not say that re-branding was the only answer, or even the main
    answer.  He did not say that all our products should be re-named
    immediately.  He did not say that re-naming would divert attention from
    product deficiencies or service inadequacies.  He did not say that we
    should rely on rebranding as an alternative to fixing all the
    shortcomings in our offerrings.
    
    As one piece of improving ourselves, I see nothing wrong with trying to
    develop a better brand image.  Yes, the most recent effort can be
    criticized -- but at least someone is working on making it better,
    right?
    
    As a matter of fact, I applaud the effort to do a better job of naming
    our products.  I am tired of the jokes about our product names.  I am
    tired of long mouthfulls of syllables in our product names, designed by
    engineers, that make our products hard to remember and hard for me to
    explain and hard for me to sell.  
    

Well, now I am really confused!!!!

The center fold of the first section of today's WSJ has a good sized 
DEC/digital add. 

BUT, which way are we going?

Within 2 inches there is:

        "Our brand-new DECpc(tm) XL line boasts the fastest PC's of
         their class and each is broadly expandable;..........
         
along side in the next column:

        "When we speak of Digital PC's, we're talking about.........
        
Is this gonna continue to confuse the potential customer or educate them??

Fred

>    The acronym NYNEX was composed of New York and New England, the two
>    Bell Telephone companies.  NYNEX maintained each as an autonomous
>    subsidiary, along with other common operations (Information Resources,
>    publishing phone books, etc.).  Lately, NYNEX brass in White Plains has
>    been disempowering New England Telephone's management, with power
>    accreting towards New York.  So by de-emphasizing the New England
>    Telephone name, they're in effect reminding New England Telephone
>   customers that they're now just a provincial outback for New York
>  Telephone's management.

Fred,

I don't know what the internal politics are at NYNEX, but the name change is not
an attempt to de-emphasize the New England Telephone name to remind you that you
are provincial :-}. They are also changing the name here in Manhattan (and I
would assume in the rest of this area) from New York Telephone to NYNEX.

This appears, instead, to be part of a corporate branding campaign.

    re .43 
    
    I think most folks would applaud adopting naming conventions that make
    sense...I don't think *anyone* applauds being forced to adopt one that
    they had no input into.  .0 was basically making an announcement, not
    looking for input, and we've all seen the result of these simply
    mahvelous campaigns here at DEC...er, Digital.
    
    Let me test .0's method on my userbase real quick..."Hello, Mr. User! 
    I'm designing your next system and will tell you when I'm done because
    the nature of my design doesn't allow your input...hello?  Hel-loooo?"
    Huh.  Musta been accidentally disconnected...

>    I think most folks would applaud adopting naming conventions that make
>    sense...I don't think *anyone* applauds being forced to adopt one that
>    they had no input into.

	Look, we're not the ones that the naming conventions, branding
	effort, etc., are for. These are supposed to be aimed at our
	customers.

	In theory, all of these efforts would have been thoroughly
	researched by a competent corporate marketing team (or hired
	agency), and the decisions would have made in such a way as to place
	us in a better position in the marketplace.

	The problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority of engineers in
	this company have absolutely no faith that out marketing arms are
	competent and will conduct the studies or make the decisions
	properly.

	Roy

    re -.1
    
    Part of the research might include, possibly, the people that write,
    support, work with, and sell the tools?  I've seen several replies from
    noters detailing stories of customer confusion over names, so I assume
    some Deccies might have valuable input.
    
>	The problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority of engineers in
>	this company have absolutely no faith that out marketing arms are
>	competent and will conduct the studies or make the decisions
>	properly.
    
    The problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority might be correct?

    
.48>  The problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority might be correct?

    Well said!
    

    re: .43  As Lou Reed once sang "the He is a She"
    
             And thanks for blowing the Personal Foul whistle - flaming on
    does not help.  While not everyone was consulted/interviewed in 
    Sales and Marketing, well over 100 DIGITS were...Perhaps the
    expectation of SoapBox type discussion and debate means work in process
    updates should only be made through the official 'one way' mechanisms -
    but in the interest of straightening out premature discussions of concepts
    vs. decisions on areas like calling key brands 'flex', I thimk it was
    the right thing to do.
    
     

    Here in France we are runnig an "identify with your customer " poster
    campaign. 
    
    On public display is one poster which (I guess) is supposed to show
    how closely we identify with them.
    
    The subject? A cartoon of an enthusiastic hedgehog attempting sexual
    intercourse with a hairbrush.
    
    The poster fails (in my view) for the following reasons:
                
    1) It suggests we screw our customers
    2) It suggests we say "F**K the customer"
    3) It suggests we (the hedgehog) cannot correctly identify a customer;
    we confuse hedgehogs with hairbrushes.
    
    I've escalated this. I can't see that its very appropriate. 
    
    Mod please excuse the bluntmess and change the language if you deem it
    necessary. I don't.
    
    ciao, martin

    Apologies to Gael.
    
    Regards,
    Larry

	Just noticed on the Internet that Digital now has a machine that
	anyone can access for pricing, ordering, and product information.
	The name of this node is advertised as orders.sales.DIGITAL.com. 

	Is this also part of branding that we start using digital.com 
	domain for Internet addresses rather than dec.com?

This has been discussed in depth in UPSAR::GATEWAYS in topic 2054.

    Re: .51-
    
    	No, I don't believe it. Our logo on an animal sex ;-) poster?
    
    	Also suggests that we are "for hire" which is true....but not
    indiscriminately.
    
    Phil