[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

3725.0. "Thank you, PCWEEK..." by POBOX::CORSON (Higher, and a bit more to the right) Fri Mar 03 1995 17:54

    
    	Normally I like to comment on our "core compentencies" ability
    	to spend lots of Digital money without really creating
    	*incremental* advantage; but this is one time I have to give
    	somebody, somewhere credit, because credit is due.
    
    	In the Feb. 27th issue of PCWEEK, Digital is mentioned often
    	and very well.
    
    	Our PC unit is commended for the notebook line, and its excellence
    	in quality and market focus. The Alpha folks get nice PR on the new
    	400 line, including pictures and a "teaser" on the Contents page.
    
    	Our company is THE highlight of PCWEEK Inside section with a
    	terrific article on Enrico and another on Charlie Christ and
    	the components group.
    
    	We even get a positive spin in the Business section on Who's hot
    	and Who's not (comment is "DEC, knocking on the Top 10 door. Cool
    	notebooks, too"). The same section then gives a good preview of
    	LinkWorks V3.0 with more ink than IBM, HyperDesk and CE Software
    	The others being "major" groupware competitors.)
    
    	So find this issue, read it - and enjoy.
    
    		the Greyhawk
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
3725.1Need more support...!CSC32::SCHIMPFFri Mar 03 1995 19:357
    Greyhawk,
    
    I only wish that there was the 7 x 24 hour support for allot of that
    equipment.
    
    
    Jeff
3725.2more good inkWRKSYS::WEISSFri Mar 03 1995 20:022
    Also check out the March '95 issue of Byte magazine, the "Fastest NT
    Workstations" article has some more positive press on Digital/Alpha.
3725.3but, $$GEMVAX::FRIEDMANMon Mar 06 1995 01:284
    It's nice that we have great product. But does it matter if we can't
    make any money off it?
    
    M
3725.41 million + units per yearMKOTS1::PAPPALARDOPCBU Mfg/LogisticsMon Mar 06 1995 14:345
    
    We'll make money...Just need sales to sell in volume...
    
    RP
    
3725.5Common sense is not our forte....POBOX::CORSONHigher, and a bit more to the rightMon Mar 06 1995 14:4010
    
    re: -1
    
    	Which is a very interesting comment considering that a significant
    percentage of the sales force is *not allowed* to sell PCs.
    
    	Go figure....
    
    
    		the Greyhawk
3725.6You're _both_ right!PARVAX::SCHUSTAKMy clients are mostly Martians!Mon Mar 06 1995 16:497
    Greyhawk, I didn't see any reference exclusively to *Digital* sales
    Must also mean a reference to all thos "Red Shirts" at the local
    CompUSA!
    
    :-)
    
    SteveS
3725.7Not selling for success...GLDOA::WERNERTue Mar 07 1995 12:207
    Based on a recent senior managers presentation, we lose money (he said
    18% of the sale price) on EVERY PC SOLD through the direct sales force.
    As he put it "that's hard to make up with volume". Given that fact, I'm
    glad that I have contibuted to the company's profitability by not
    selling any PC's. Have anything else you want me to not sell?
    
    	-OFWAMI-
3725.8...ASABET::PACHECORONTue Mar 07 1995 12:51152
Note that this is for Digital Internal Use Only

============================================================================
SUBJECT:  DIGITAL REPROGRAMS THE WAY IT DOES BUSINESS/ IRON-FISTED VP TURNS
          COMPUTER MAKER FROM A NO-SHOW IN PCS INTO A MARKET-SHARE
          CONTENDER.
SOURCE:   Southam via First! by Individual, Inc.
DATE:     March 2, 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The Financial Post via First! : When Enrico Pesatori joined Digital
Equipment Corp. two years ago to take over its fledgling personal-computer
business, he saw a no-brainer: Digital's best PC prospects were its current
big-systems customers.

  So he targeted those customers, telling salespeople to pitch the virtues
of Digital's small but powerful new products that could be integrated into
the customers' current mainframe systems. He worked with manufacturing
executives to crank out more PCs. He hired his own advertising agency, Young
& Rubicam, to look for new ways to promote Digital's brand name and the
user-friendliness of its products.

  And he refused to have anything to do with Digital's idiosyncratic
''matrix'' management style of making decisions by consensus. He set up firm
lines of authority and responsibility, and walled off his business from the
rest of the company, even moving the PC unit to another Massachusetts town,
farther away from the parent in Maynard.

  Digital's ''functional (management) model wasn't in tune with the speed
and the changes of the marketplace of the 1990s,'' says Pesatori, vice
president and general manager of the company's computer systems division.

  That's putting it mildly. A lot about Digital had been out of tune, a
sorry legacy of its founder and guiding light, Kenneth  Olsen, who believed
in matrix management and didn't believe in personal computers. His
apocryphal remark about PCs being destined for closet-clutter status in
homes and offices serves as a painful reminder about how disadvantaged he
left Digital by the time he was ousted in 1992.

  Pesatori and a cadre of other senior executives under president and chief
executive Robert Palmer have undertaken a complete revamping of the way
Digital does business, particularly in marketing. It sharply cut its in-
house sales staff and farmed out smaller business accounts to resellers,
while focusing on its 1,000 largest customers, such as General Electric Co.
and Ford Motor Co.

  The effort is starting to pay off. PCs now account for about a quarter of
all product sales, and Digital recently posted its first quarterly profit
since July 1993, and only its second profitable quarter in the last three
years. The company had posted losses totalling $6 billion over the last four
fiscal years.

  And Digital's stock has started to climb out of the cellar, giving
shareholders encouragement. It's been trading recently above $30, after
hitting a historical low of 18 1/4 last April, and was near $38 in mid-
January - good, but cold comfort for anyone who has held Digital shares
since 1987, when they reached $190. Digital hasn't paid a dividend since
late 1989, when it gave shareholders rights to buy new shares - at $400
each.

  Analyst Richard S. Chu at Cowen & Co. was among the first on Wall Street
to revisit the stock, raising his recommendation last fall to a ''strong
buy'' from a ''neutral'' on signs that demand for the company's Alpha AXP
computer line was strong and profit margins were stabilizing. By the end of
the year, even Prudential Securities' Laura Conigliaro, who had been among
the most bearish analysts about Digital, moved the stock up to a ''buy''
from a ''hold.''

  Pesatori, with his PC background, says the entire computer industry is
becoming like the PC segment, with profit margins razor-thin and the need
for ever speedier delivery of new products to beat the competition.

  ''The dynamics of the marketplace are so violent that in just two years,
what was good enough to make a PC company successful is now what's needed to
make a (big-computer) company successful,'' he said.  Pesatori said he knew
he'd have to act so unilaterally that he demanded freedom from Digital's
matrix management as a ''necessary condition'' for taking the job. His iron-
fisted style has turned Digital from a no-show in PCs into a market-share
contender.

  ''In PCs, there was no question about who was boss - it was Enrico,'' said
Franc Romano, an independent high-technology analyst in Littleton, Mass.

  The Italian-born Pesatori, 54, joined Digital in early 1993 after leaving
Zenith Data Systems, a supplier of desktop and notebook personal computers
owned by Groupe Bull of France. Since last spring, he has been responsible
for all of Digital's computer businesses, including PCs, midrange computers
and large systems,  which reaped more than half of Digital's $13.45 billion
in annual sales.

  In the 1980s, Digital thrived while many business customers were still
buying full front-to-back computer systems from single suppliers, which made
hefty profits on the systems. Then the industry changed fundamentally, as
proprietary systems such as Digital's VAX and Wang Laboratories Inc.'s VS
gave way to ''open architecture,'' or common standards, in the industry.
Customers were free to piece together computer networks with equipment from
a variety of suppliers, so competition intensified and industry profit
margins dwindled.

  Several of Digital's businesses were performing according to plan,
including its semiconductor, storage devices, components and peripherals
businesses, as well as its new servers, or host computers, for the nascent
home-video market.

  But its traditional large-systems unit was bleeding so much red ink it was
washing the whole company in losses.

  As Digital relied less on big systems and more on lower-margin PCs and
workstations, it needed to get its sales costs down. So Pesatori has been
paring the in-house sales staff to target its 1,000 biggest customers for
new business. Resellers and other third-party distributors will handle
smaller accounts.

  To woo the distributors, he cut the prices Digital charged to assure them
enough profit margin. ''We've made sure our partners have all of the
opportunity to be profitable,'' he said. Digital got 58% of product sales
through third parties at the end of the second quarter, up from 43% a year
ago.

  Pesatori couldn't afford to take half-measures if he wanted to succeed.
Last July, Palmer announced a major restructuring of the nation's third-
largest computer maker that would entail a $1.2-billion charge and 20,000
more job cuts, leaving its workforce less than half the size it was four
years ago. Most of those job cuts, 14,000, would come from Pesatori's side
of the business, primarily in sales and marketing.

  Palmer, already criticized for taking too long to act on Digital's
problems, was under severe pressure to do something.

  And he was blindsided by the company's $183.3 million loss in its third
quarter ended April 3, four times worse than analysts expected.

  Once he moved up to take charge of Digital's entire computer line,
Pesatori named German-born Bernhard Auer to succeed him as manager of the PC
business.

  Pesatori still has a long way to go, and not everyone is impressed by
Palmer's right-hand man. Analyst Romano noted that morale is still at a low
ebb among Digital employees, and customers are quietly ''showing up at the
doorsteps of competitors.''

  He says Pesatori underestimates the difficulty of solving even basic
problems and isn't forthcoming about specific solutions.

  Steven Schur, an industry analyst at Productive Methods Inc. in San Mateo,
Calif., says he isn't convinced that customers should again buy from
Digital, and advises his Fortune 1000 clients  to have a backup computer
supplier if Digital goes under.

[03-02-95 at 17:52 EST, 1995, Southam Electronic Publishing, File:
j0302021.721]

3725.9NOTIME::SACKSGerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085Tue Mar 07 1995 13:295
>                                    Digital hasn't paid a dividend since
>late 1989, when it gave shareholders rights to buy new shares - at $400
>each.

Huh?
3725.10No surprise to me...POBOX::CORSONHigher, and a bit more to the rightTue Mar 07 1995 14:038
    
    re: .7
    
    	Can't sell terminals, or printers, or Multia, or StorageWorks, or
    my house. And people *wonder?* why channels sales are down? Are we
    getting stupid during all this reorganizations?
    
    		the Greyhawk
3725.11And the list keeps growing....ANGLIN::BJAMESI feel the need, the need for SPEEDTue Mar 07 1995 15:367
    ...and you forgot Networks soon.  It looks like the only thing we are
    going to be able to sell and receive credit for are Alpha's and Alpha's
    and more Alpha's.  I guess all that add-ona nd upgrade business is
    something they (RE: Senior Management) doesn't want us to focus on for
    the long term.
    
    Mav
3725.12It just keeps getting better...GLDOA::WERNERWed Mar 08 1995 17:417
    RE:.11 Maybe we need a VP to focus on that! Of course that Vp would
    have to appoint a staff and then study the problem on the way to
    announcing a strategy sometime near the end of FY96. Maybe we could get
    a quota for things that we not sell, but then we probably wouldn't get
    that quota until late Q3 FY96. Sigh!
    
    	-OFWAMI- 
3725.13WMOIS::HORNE_CHORNET-THE FALL GUYWed Mar 08 1995 17:495
    ...re12....make that 2 VP's plus full staff's and you got a deal!!!!
    
    
    horNET
    
3725.14A PC salesman works from a store.GENRAL::INDERMUEHLEStonehenge Alignment ServiceFri Mar 10 1995 12:188
Someone stated it earlier and a few either missed it or ignored it.

A direct sales force is too expensive when it come to PC's.

Actually, what was stated earlier was that it costs the company 18% for 
each PC that sales moves. I just turned it around. 

John I
3725.15Econ 101MPGS::ROMANSat Mar 11 1995 01:0743
   
>   Based on a recent senior managers presentation, we lose money (he said
>   18% of the sale price) on EVERY PC SOLD through the direct sales force.
>   As he put it "that's hard to make up with volume".
    
    Whoever says this kind of stuff needs to take a basic course in
    Economics.  And the old joke aside, it *is* possible to make it up on
    volume.
    
    It sounds to me like someone calculated costs and revenues of PC sales
    at some point in time and came up with the fact that we lost 18% on
    each PC sold.  That was the average loss for each unit IN THAT SAMPLE
    data.  The erroneous jump was then made that every PC we sell in the
    future through the direct sales force will have the same loss.  That's
    nonsense.
    
    Cost of goods sold is made up of direct and indirect costs (read "cost
    of selling" and "overhead").  The overhead number is the same no matter
    how many units sold (unless you build another plant to build more,
    etc.)  As sales volume goes up, the percent of overhead per unit goes
    down.  That means the average cost of each unit goes down, which leads
    to increased profit per unit (or reduced loss per unit).  See how you
    can "make it up on volume"?
    
    Profit per unit can also be increased by reducing the direct costs.  If
    you can spend less money getting Sam's Club to sell your PC's than it
    costs for your own sales force, then your profit goes up.  One the
    other hand, there is a potential risk here ...
    
    ... if the resellers don't push your product like a dedicated force
    would, then sales volume might drop.  That would cause overhead to be
    distributed over fewer units = higher overhead per unit = less profit
    per unit (or more loss per unit).  You get the picture.
    
    The other laugh is how costs are calculated (or pulled from thin air)
    in this company - like justifying the elimination of something
    because of the expense of each item or transaction.  What gets
    overlooked is that the fixed cost doesn't go away when the thing is
    eliminated.  What people don't seem to get is the cost is really the
    direct cost (unless you get rid of the overhead as well).  But that's
    another story.
    
    Mike