Conference 7.286::digital

    If it's the memo I saw, a lot of heads should roll!  The abuses were
    outrageous.

    
    Let the HEADS roll..............
    
    Then we can get back to basics. (profit)

    The details of some of the abuses are simply shocking, and probably
    not appropriate to an open forum like this.
    
    The basic abuse was managers signing for some really outrageous
    expenses (cruises, limo's, roses, etc.) when they themselves were
    a participant in the activity.  This is supposed to be the ultimate
    no-no....so they tell me.

	The question cynics, such as myself, will ask is who will be punished?
	Those who have abused expense accounts or who ever leaked the memo?
	Granted the memo should not have been leaked but will the abusers be
	punished more then who ever brought their abuses to the media?

			Alfred

   Re:     <<< Note 1822.5 by CVG::THOMPSON "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>

I would like to believe that our reflexes are fast enough to
beat the leakers, that is, that the people were gone before
their sins became public.  But I'm not naive enough to believe
what I'd like.

:-(

Dick

    Well, the memo said something about them being "disciplined".  I
    didn't get the impression that anyone got canned.

    
     Woe is me today. I sit at a customer site in downtown D.C. I have
    ten (10) copies of the Washington Post article as of 2:15 EST. BTW,
    one copy was on my desk at the start of my day, 06:15 this am. My
    customer is having a great laugh at us today.
    
    "so Mike, 30 mill and I don't have any "donuts".."
    "so Mike, how come you never take me for a limo ride..."
    
    etc, etc... gosh WHAT a fun day.
    
     All I can do is smile and laugh with 'em. Inside it hurts. I see both
    sides too, Hey rent a tennis court and close a 115 million sale. But
    you see, some field types are accountable to the penny. Such abuse..
    
    -Later,
    
     Mike Z.

re: .7

>    Well, the memo said something about them being "disciplined".  I
>    didn't get the impression that anyone got canned.

Because I'm as much a cynic as Mr. Thompson, I suspect that the
discipline involved cutting heads from their respective organizations.

re .4:

>    The details of some of the abuses are simply shocking, and probably
>    not appropriate to an open forum like this.

It was in the Washington Post and the Boston Globe this morning, so I can't
see any reason not to post the news story.  If nobody does by tomorrow,
I'll volunteer.  I don't have time now -- my limo is waiting.

1) Abuse such as the memo referred to stinks - no two ways about it.
2) It was good to see the memo internally to know that such abuse is clearly
   inappropriate (and considered so by upper management). One can hope that
   the abusers were dealt with. One can hope a lot of things, I suppose.
3) Leaking it to the media was dumb and whoever did so oughta be shot. It
   did DEC a lot of harm, and no one any good.

-Jack

But if it hadn't been leaked, we engineers wouldn't have known
what we've been missing.  Where's that damn limo!?

    Well, at least we now know that many of our managers are fully
    qualified to serve in the congress.  Now, there's just that issue
    of bouncing checks at the DCU {:^).............

    if you guys think for one second that the much usurped "IVORY TOWER
    BOYS" are going to get " RIGHTSIZED" YOU'VE GOTTA BE NUTS.
    Them s*bs will get away with murder and 200 more grunts will hit hit
    the streets within the next 3 months, and "THEY"will sit back and have
    a good laugh about it. If I were them I would install some "metal
    detectors" they may need it.
    	regards
    	John

    Yes.  Name upon request since he now works for DEC again but not as
    a VP.

re: .15, Pat

Only the ones who clearly left of their own volition, e.g. Friedrich, recently.

-Jack

    Will someone please be so kind as to enter the post article in here, so
    that those people that do not get the paper, can be an informed
    audience. I would certainly appreciate it, and maybe a lot of other
    folks would also appreciate it.
    
    Thanks David
    

Here it is, from yesterday's Boston Globe.

Expense abuse is said to cost Digital $30m

By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post

Some employees at money-losing Digital Equipment Corp. have been slow to
get the message:  The days are gone when they could put limousines,
thousand-dollar bar bills and charter boats on their company expense accounts.

Expense-account abuse among Digital's US service and sales employees is
costing the Maynard-based computer company $30 million a year, according
to an internal memorandum obtained by the Washington Post.

Despite a crackdown on expense account violations last spring, profligate
spending on such things as football tickets and liquor is "getting worse,
not better," James A. Wallace, finance manager of Digital's domestic service
and sales organization, said in a memo to other senior managers.

"We have continued to violate and/or ignore company policy, exercise poor
business judgment and waste company funds," Wallace wrote in the Jan. 29
memo.  "Conservatively, this costs us $30M [million] a year."

The memo was part of a broad cost-cutting effort at Digital, which has laid
off 6,950 employees since January 1991.  Digital lost $617 million during
the fiscal year that ended last June and another $109.7 million during the
July-through-December period.  Digital officials said Wallace's memo, which
received wide circulation within the company, demonstrates Digital's
determination to control costs.

It also reflects a heightened sensitivity toward expense account charges
throughout much of corporate America during the recession.

Two senior Digital managers in Massachusetts passed Wallace's memo on to
their subordinates with the admonition: "Each and every one of us has an
obligation to our stockholders, customers and other employees to get this
problem under control.  There is no excuse for the blatant misuse of
company assets..."

While Digital managers wer cranking up the rhetoric, a company spokesman
put the issue in a different perspective.  Even if Digital succeeds in
reining in $30 million of tax-deductible expense account excesses, "it
does not make a dent in the total cost challenge that the company has,"
spokesman Mark Fredrickson said.  "I would never belittle a figure like
$30 million, but you have to ... understand the context."

>While Digital managers wer cranking up the rhetoric, a company spokesman
>put the issue in a different perspective.  Even if Digital succeeds in
>reining in $30 million of tax-deductible expense account excesses, "it
>does not make a dent in the total cost challenge that the company has,"
>spokesman Mark Fredrickson said.  "I would never belittle a figure like
>$30 million, but you have to ... understand the context."

	$30m here $30M there ... Pretty soon you're talking real money. :-)


				Alfred

    The Washington Post version was a little different. Here it is...
    
    "Digital Cites Expense Account Abuse Tab of $30 Million"
    by David S. Hilzenrath
    
    	While Digital Equipment Corp. was losing hundreds of millions of
    dollars over the past year, many of its employees were spending the
    company's money with undiminshed gusto.
    
    	They spent $1,024 on a bar bill, $3,180 on a dinner cruise and
    $1,300 on limousine service. They traveled to luxury resorts to meet
    with one another, and they paid a scalper $100 each for football
    tickets -- all at Digital's expense.
    
    	It added up.
    
    	In an internal Digital memorandum, an irate senior manager said
    expense account abuse among Digital's U.S. service and sales employees
    is costing the Massachusetts-based computer company $30 million a year.
    
    	"We have continued to violate and/or ignore company policy,
    exercise poor business judgement, and waste company funds," James A.
    Wallace, finance manager of Digital's domestic service and sales
    organization, wrote in the Jan. 29 memo to other senior managers, which
    was obtained by The Washington Post. "Conservatively, this costs us
    $30M [million] a year." Those expenses are partly tax deductible, so
    some of the cost is subsidized by taxpayers.
    
    	Despite a crackdown on expense account violations last spring,
    profligate spending on such things as chartered fishing boats is
    "getting worse, not better," Wallace wrote.
    
    	Digital declined to say how many of its 62,000 U.S. employees are
    grouped in the service and sales organization that was the subject of
    Wallace's memo.
    
    	Two senior Digital managers in Massachusetts passed Wallace's memo
    on to their subordinates with this admonition: "Each and every one of
    us has an obligation to our stockholders, customers and other employees
    to get this problem under control. There is no excuse for the blatant
    misuse of company assets..."
    
    	The memo was part of a broad cost-cutting effort at Digital, which
    has laid off 6,950 employees since January 1991. Digital last $617
    million during the fiscal year that ended last June and another $109.7
    million during the July through December period. Digital officials said
    Wallace's memo, widely circulated within the company, demonstrates its
    determination to cut costs.
    
    	It also reflects a heightened sensitivity toward expense account
    charges and throughout much of corporate America amid the recession.
    
    	Wallace's campaign to curb expense account bloat begain in earnest
    last year, when Digital was making the jarring transition from profits
    to losses. He called for greater discipline in May, after studying
    expense reimbursement claims submitted by employees. The study found "a
    number of serious business judgment and policy violations," according
    to the memo. Some employees were reprimanded or denied promotions as a
    result, Wallace said in an interview yesterday.
    
    	When he updated his study, examining expense accounts from the
    second half of last year, he found that "the corrective actions from
    the last review have had no impact" and that managers "are not
    exercising the control responsibilities we have placed on them,"
    Wallace said in the Jan. 29 memo.
    
    	Company officials often approved expense claims for food, drinks
    and entertainment that they themselves shared, in violation of company
    rules, Wallace said in the memo. One  employee approved a $1,024 bar
    bill for an internal Digital meeting the employee attended, Wallace
    wrote. Another unidentified employee approved $3,180 for a dinner
    cruise and business meeting "on the World Yacht," which one other
    Digital employee attended. From the memo, it's not clear how many
    guests Digital paid for.
    
    	"Notable and multiple trips have been taken by the same set of
    individuals, all coming from different parts of the country. These
    Digital-only meetings have been at luxury hotels in resort areas,"
    Wallace reported.
    
    	The list of expenses included flowers for secretaries and limousine
    service to drive a secretary to work.
    
    	When it comes to customer entertainment, Digital's rules rely on
    employees' discretion, but charges that did not meet Wallace's test
    included $125 tickets to the U.S. Open tennis tournament and a $115
    hourly charge for a racquetball court.
    
    	A Digital sales representative in the Northeast said the new
    attitude toward expenses could be penny-wise but pound-foolish in some
    cases. A $115 racquetball fee might seem exorbitant, she said, but if
    it helps land a multimillion-dollar sale, it could be well worth the
    price. Similarly, spending on internal meetings of Digital employees
    may be justified if the "morale boost" makes them "more productive" the
    sales representative said.
    
    	While Wallace and other Digital managers were cranking up the
    rhetoric on the issue, lest their point fail to register with
    employees, a company spokesman put the issue in a different
    perspective. Even if Digital succeeds in reining in the $30 million of
    expense account excesses, "it does not make a dent in the total cost
    challenge that the company has," spokesman Mark Frerickson said. "I
    would never belittle a figure like $30 million, but you have
    to...understand a context."
    
    	Wallace said he aims to solve the problem without clogging Digital
    with paperwork. "We're not going to institute a Big Brother
    approach..."
    
    	Wallace said he's received mostly encouragement from co-workers. He
    said he did get some angry messages:  They were from people who wanted
    the offenders punished.
    

    ..wonder how much we're spending on outside "consultants" for the
    valuing differences program??
    
    Anyhow, I also thought that off-site meetings were supposed to be an
    absolute no-no.  That's where a lot of this abuse starts.  I agree with
    .14 that there is a clique of senior and very senior managers in this
    company that, simply stated, do not believe the rules apply to them.
    They should be summarily fired....would do wonders for the poor morale
    all over the company.
    
    In 20 years of managing cost centers and trying to manage associated
    costs, I would say that the biggest single problem is that signature
    authority ALWAYS get delegated to the lowest possible level.  Roaring
    memos come out from senior VP's that you-will-not-by-god-do-this-any
    more under penalty of disembowelment........and three weeks later
    secretaries are signing expense vouchers again.  It's hopeless.
    
    ....of course, then there are the DCU Board of Directors meetings in
    Bermuda.....hmmmmmmm

    
    All this big expense account spending stoped when they took out the
    bottled water, and coffee and doughnuts at meetings got shut off.
    
    
    And on and on ......................

    As shocking as these abuses are, I'm not sure they are even the tip of
    the proverbial iceberg.  These abuses were strictly financial and
    ethical, but how many of us have seen or heard of abuses which effect
    the reputation of the corporation and cast a pall over basic business
    practice?
    
    Fer instance, consider the following examples:
    
    A DEC manager with purchasing power, or in a position to influence
    purchasing decisions, abuses a vendor relationship by:
    
    o soliciting and accepting free rounds of golf at pebble beach (~$200 -
      $300 per).
    
    o Ordering hundreds of dollars worth of wine or brandy at a dinner
      being paid for by the vendor
    
    o Constantly expects the vendor to provide "freebies" and
      entertainment, especially at conferences and conventions.
    
    There are others, but you get my drift.  These are also clearly against
    corp policy, but unless a vendor gets really upset and complaines, they
    will continue and continue.
    
    enuf said.

Hmm.

$30M out of a yearly loss of $600M sounds like 5%.  I'd say 5% constitutes a
"dent", but then again, I guess I just put it in the wrong context.

At my previous employer people who did crap like that described
in the memo got their a&&*& s*&t canned.  When I arrived at Digital I
got to witness the most blatent unprofessional abuse of office on the
part of a manager that I have ever seen.  Every employee and manager in
the building knew what was going on yet nothing was done.  People who
were major league screw ups got promoted into do nothing jobs.

The bottom line is there is no accountability within Digital.  The
people writing these memos should stop complaining and consider it lucky
that we are only losing $30 million a year.  

John

    In relation to the 30 million dollar blatant abuse of dec money;
    How about I send a letter to 750 former DEC employees and tell them
    they were "RIGHTSIZED" out of a much needed job so the "IVORY TOWER
    BOYS" could go out and have "FUN and GAMES" time while they are
    standing in a unemployment line wondering where their next paycheck will be
    coming from, or the mortgage payment or food shopping money. I
    sincerely wish the "mother of all plagues" descend on those who think
    that this is all a big joke...
    	regards
    	John

    Its enough to make you sick. Those who achieve power, abuse the
    privilege and are NEVER taken to task for it. The people who were laid
    off were crucified for excessive spending by others. 

    There isn't any justice. I am afraid to say from what I have seen, were
    I am now working. The $30 Million is not what we are really wasting. It
    is more like $130 Million. The $30 Million is way too low. The people
    in the glass tower would have a fit if they really knew what was going
    on out here in the field. There is so much waste, it is scary. If the
    investors, major stockholders ever found out how much we really waste,
    the stock would take a dive. This is what is really scary.
    
    Dave
    

What I just found interesting was the perception that the abuse was centered
"in the Ivory/Glass tower" (which I assume is the GMA - HQ.) When I originally
saw the abuse memo, I'd just naturally assumed it was centered in the field
with District Managers and the like who were involved with entertaining
customers, and thus had expense accounts in which to hide such stuff.

-Jack (who, in engineering "at HQ" has absolutely no expense allowance, and
       who doesn't, offhand, know anyone who does)

    Mind, you it cuts both ways. I have seen a team of people from sales
    software, and service, arrive at work at 6 am, work through the day,
    without even a lunch break, continue on into the night, because the
    work needed to be done, and when the Account rep, goes to spring for a
    couple of pizzas, or a taxi ride home for the secretary, because she
    worked past the last bus home, and he gets stomped on for spending so
    much money.
    
    While we are trying to downsize, (and as I have said elsewhere in this
    conference, I don't believe that to be the best solution for our
    current ills), we should remember that we are a Multi-billion dollar
    corporation, and not a mom and pop convenience and computer store, and
    need to project an image that makes a CEO feel comfortable, that we
    just out to take his money...
    
    q
    
    

    The lunatics are running the asylum, IMHO.
    

    
    
                 Would it help/work. Is it a good idea ?
    
                      IMOHO  it is.
    Dan
    

    
    Whoever signed off on these expenses knew what the policy is for the
    company and should be held accountable for their actions too.
    
    M
    

    
    re .30  "...the stock would take a dive...", or similar thoughts.
    
    From our viewpoint it has taken a dive, down about 5 points to 
    around 54 and some change, since the memo hit the Post.

   Re:                    <<< Note 1822.35 by PHAROS::FANTOZZI >>>

The "checkers" who are charged with catching these problems are
so slow that the guilty could have been relocated twice, taken
TFSO, and rehired into a different area where his/her sins would
never be found out, and finally taken SERP, before the problem
is identified.

fwiw,

Dick

re: .35, Mary

In the memo I saw several months ago, one of the major problems was that
the abuses were signed off by people who were partaking of the abuse.
(Yes - that is contrary to policy.)

-Jack

The abuse of the expense system is sickening. Why don't we assign financial 
responsibility to the folks who sign off on expenses that do not meet company
policy? 

If the bugger signs off on an inappropriate expense, charge the bugger for the
cost of the expense. Hell, garnish their wages if need be. Why does the company
have to suck up the cost?

You can't legislate responsibiliy, but you can make irresponsibility expensive
to the irresponsible person.

mike

    re: garnishing the b*******'s wages...
    
    It's a good idea except I think federal law prohibits that.
    
    Ken

    ....OK, so we won't "garnish".....but Federal Law can't do a thing
    if individual x suddenly had a significant pay cut.
    
    I agree strongly with .39.....they stole the money...take it back with
    interest, and then fire 'em.  But, then, we all know that won't happen.

    To play Devil's Advocate for a minute - how would you feel if that
    $1000 bar bill and $100 limousine leveraged a $2,000,000 sale??
    

>    To play Devil's Advocate for a minute - how would you feel if that
>    $1000 bar bill and $100 limousine leveraged a $2,000,000 sale??
    
Sorry Maxine, but that dog don't hunt!

As there is also the problem of managers signing their own expense voucher.
What you suggest would be a viable explanation if everything else appeared
above aboard, but, it doesn't. It appears that some managers wanted to
have a good time and to avoid embarrassing questions signed off on the
expense themselves. Now I'm not saying that is the case, just that it is
what appears to be the case.

And again, one must ask;

If it is okay for sales to spend that kind of money in the hope of making
a sale, and it is only in the hope of such. Then why cant I get bottled
water.

- George

    one - we shouldn't have to "buy" our business.
    
    two - we shouldn't be doing business that way.
    
    three - the rules say we can't.
    
    four - is there any profit in this two million dollar deal??
    
    Basically, I don't think this is the issue.   We had a bunch of party
    boys here having a damned good time at the corporate trough.  There is
    no excuse.
    
    I have no problem with buying a customer a business lunch.  When they
    want to party we should walk away.

    
    About that limo....understand that is for the secretary whose car won't
    start :-)
    

SET MODE/SOAPBOX

Ok gang...its back to the real world now...

>   one - we shouldn't have to "buy" our business.
>   two - we shouldn't be doing business that way.

Unless and until all of our competitors STOP doing business that way and/or all
of our customers STOP doing business that way, then we MUST continue to do 
business that way, or loose about 70% of our market.  It ain't a perfect world
out there, kids.

>   three - the rules say we can't.

The rules say we can't if the customer is the US Gov't, and/or Gov't Prime, 
and/or the customers company has a policy against it.

>   four - is there any profit in this two million dollar deal??

Profit and loss is the responsibility of the account manager.  The account 
manager decides if the return on investment is acceptable, and acts accordingly.
Don't forget that a big part of that account managers costs for this sale 
include the overhead of anyone not in direct sales!  (By the tone of most of
these replies, I'm talking about YOU!)   Compared to the cost of YOU, lunch is
cheap.   Maybe that's why more and more of our solutions are using third party
products.

   
>    Basically, I don't think this is the issue.   We had a bunch of party
>    boys here having a damned good time at the corporate trough.  There is
>    no excuse.
>
>    I have no problem with buying a customer a business lunch.  When they
>    want to party we should walk away.

Ok... I agree in principle.  Now, where do I draw the line.  Lunch is ok.  How 
about dinner?   Do I deny the customer a glass of wine with dinner?   What if
they want a BOTTLE of wine?   If we go to lunch, who pays for the cab?   If
the customer wants to discuss the deal over a round of golf, do I pay?

For those of you who do not deal with customers (during the buying cycle) on 
a daily basis, I'm sure this stuff seems like all fun and games.   But while it
may be fun and games for our customers (that's the intent) it is certainly not
fun and games for the Account Rep.  S/he has to be on their toes through the 
entire process... always walking a fine line between "conversing" and "probing 
for information."   Trying to get the customer to relax just enough to share
that critical piece of information that will give us a competitive advantage.

"Well our products give us our competitive advantage"  Its not quite that easy.
In the final analysis, most decision makers on multimillion dollar deals don't
understand the technology or the products. They build a relationship with a 
company (through the account rep), and buy based on that relationship. 
Products are just products.   People buy from people.

SET MODE/NOSOAPBOX

Bob

I got the impression that a lot of these expenses were not spent on customers.
I have much less of a problem with spending money on customers. We don't live
in a perfect world.

But some of these expenses seem to have been for employee outings, which are
different. Last I heard, in the US, Digital policy allowed liquor purchases
only when with customers.  I doubt most of these expenses were for legitimate
employee appreciation events. They sound like they for political rewards.

I don't mean that we shouldn't spend money on employees, either. But not buying
me drinks is fine; I'm glad to get food. The two product ship parties I've been
to were like this. Digital payed for the food and the room; we bought our own
drinks.

    
    To the comment that $1000 MIGHT bring in $2,000,000.  I hear the same
    thing about Las Vegas...
    
    Jim Morton

    What we spend on "customer relations" pales in comparison with what IBM
    has traditionally spent to acomplish the same thing. And even though
    they are having their problems, their attention to detail where
    customers are concerned will probably not change 1 iota.
    
    Starting with their very-customer-oriented branch offices, complete
    with Customer Centers for presentations and demos, and adding in regular 
    use of their Corporate jets to ferry customers to-from their plant-site 
    Customer Executive Centers, IBM portrays a very high level of
    professionalism and sophistication, and certainly doesn't back down when 
    it's an executive-level dinner during a customer visit to a reference 
    account. And it isn't taxis they use to-from the airport on those visits 
    either.
    
    Bottom line is that when selling at the highest customer levels, the
    customer typically expects a level of quality commensurate with their
    position in the business community and the importance of what they're
    commiting their company to. And that means not throwing $$$ around
    strictly to impress, but to maintain a certain image level.
    
    Every game has it's cost to enter, and the higher the stakes the higher
    the entrance fee. And we're in a VERY high stakes game against very
    well financed opponents....!
    
    No, I don't condone waste and internal boondoggles, but I certainly
    support Sales decisions on what it takes to sell their account. They're
    on the ground with the customer, and we can't second guess them or
    hamstring them by applying internal limits and controls that were
    developed under entirely different conditions for entirely different 
    circumstances.   
    
    My 1.2 cents worth...
    
    Fred
    

    Fred,
    	This is just my opinion, but it is not a game, it is a business.  I
    draw the line of spending money, when it appears to be a bribe, rather
    than a true expense.
    	If a sales person needs to conduct a meeting durring dinner, it
    doesn't have to be at the most expensive place in town.  I would expect
    that business does get conducted, not just eating and socializing.
    	I personally can't see how business can be conducted at a ball
    game.  Being professional to me means doing a professional job, not
    throwing money around.  I would rather win a customer by giving the
    best deal, not by providing the best meal.
    
    Just my 2 pennies.
    Jim Morton
    

    In business, salesfolk are expected to spend money to schmooze the
    customer.
    
    Digital's a tyro.  Some years ago, I was involved in the purchase
    evaluation for a major capital investment.  The vendor wanted a bunch
    of us to see their development labs.  They sent down a private jet.
    
    That was simply standard operating procedure.
    
    And unlike Digital's similar jet, theirs had an open bar with something
    stronger than coffee.
    
    If the money was spent on internal partying, that's one thing, but
    spending money to wine and dine a customer is a business investment. 
    Nobody should micro-manage it any more than they should micromanage
    a developer's decision to use one chip vs. another.

    i agree with the previuose caller about the schmoozing part, but i 
    think you need to be carful not to step the line and over schmooze.
    
    but you right, treating customer nice while closing a deal is important.
    
    i remember when i bought my buick car, the sale man was so nice to me that
    day, he kept offering me coffee and with cream , he was all smiles and
    so polite and nice , i bought the car that day and signed papers, i came 
    next day to complain about a small thing in car, the same guy whould not 
    even recognize me, he run away from me and would not talk to me, he said 
    he was busy and all, he was realy not nice, he kept looking at his
    watch when i talk to him. i could not beleive it, even my little nephew 
    who was with me chasing the sale man, could not beleive that this was the 
    same guy from yesterday.
    
    i really dont think it is good idea to schmooze customer just to close a 
    deal and then to stop schmoozing after that. if you want to schmooze,
    you keep doing it, or dont do at all.
    that what i think any way.
    just my 2 cents opinions.
    
    thank you,
    /nasser
     

    Nasser,
    	That was a good story for a reply.  I totally agree with you.  I
    just said if from a different side of the coin.  I believe not only,
    that you should treat the customer in a consistant way, but also let
    the product sell itself.  I firmly believe that a product if it's what a
    person wants, and is the right price, it will sell.
    
    	Schmoozing as you put it Nasser, is what I consider a crutch for
    the poor salesman.  In your case, it only hurt relations later on.  It
    is just like a lie.  It will someday trip the person spouting it.
    
    Of course this is all my opinion.  I guess I will never make it as a
    BIG COMPANY SALES PERSON.  I believe in selling what the customer wants
    in a product, not what fills his/her stomach at the time.  Call me old
    fashioned, call me stupid, at least I can sleep well at night.
    
    Jim Morton
    

    One thing that upsets me about this business of $30M is the way this
    type of thing hits the "field" under NMS.
    
    Did you know that some account groups are not send any, repeat, not one
    sales rep with customers attending DECWorld? Now I have attended
    DECWorld as both a customer and as a DECWorld worker bee, sending a
    customer without a sales rep, aka guide, is bad business.
    
    Do you know why whis is being done? NMS drive for profit! If we reduce
    expenses we make more profit, the customer and our long term interest
    be dammed.
    
    DECWorld is not only a customer event it is also a valuable sales
    training tool and motivator. But I guess we need to spend the $30M
    elsewhere!
    
    Frank
    

re .53

I wish I lived in the world where good product priced fairly would magically 
sell.  Unfortunately I do not, and I doubt you do either.  Schmoozing has a 
lot of negative conotations, but it is simply finding a way to have the customer
relax and build a relationship that is broader than one product.  It is a method
to find other problems that Digital may be able to address.  Often the solutions
we offer are suprises to the customer and we would have never heard about the 
problem because the customer may have never thought Digital "was in that 
business".

As one of the earlier replies stated, IBM does this, and they have built 
relationships that have led to them selling a lot of product our engineering 
groups would be embarrased to bring to market.  Sun does a lot of schmoozing and 
has been very well rewarded for it.

After all that, approving a function's expenses that you attended is a very poor
business practise, and should be rewarded with a rather low (high?) rating on the
next review.  Say a 4 or 5.  

With the NMS, how are we going to tell the "Managers" how to spend their money?
Should a manager with a high profit margin be punished if she uses practises that
Digital frowns on?  Is she wrong or the practises?  I wish I was as certain I 
knew all the answers as do many of you have replied up to now, but I do not.  I 
do know that some of the real world situations that are clear to a bean counter 
are not always clear to a field person.

Matt Haley

    Before we get too far afield here.  The expenses are alleged to have
    been made by employees for the sole benefit of the employees.
    
    You may want to argue that a nickel should never be spent on a meal for
    a customer, but that's not really relevant here.  We're going to buying
    quite a few meals for customers at DECworld.

    	Blatant missuse of company funds/resources relates to "STEALING"
    and according to the "orange" book a fireable offense. If blatant
    missuse can be proven then "all" those involved should be fired. I have
    seen employees fired because they missed too much from work, or miss
    reporting on their time cards, or not being on site when they are
    supposed to be. This kind of "STEALING" SHOULD BE DEALT HARSHLY and
    QUICKLY  from the person(s) who put it on their expenses to the
    person(s) who wrote it off to person(s) who approved up the ladder and
    didn't raise a "red flag" that something was amiss. It is so easy to
    say it is only 30 million abuse, I would like to have 1/10 of it.
    If "sales types" would build on total cutomer satisfaction/rapport then
    they wouldn't have to schmooze their way to try to get a sale. They
    should try and do it the old fashioned way and "EARN IT".
        I am a lowly field grunt "branded that way from the so called
    SALES types" but I have customers out here that won't sign a PO unless
    they run it past me just to be sure they aren't getting hosed on
    something that they can't use or need. What's it costs me my respect
    and integrity with a customer that I have spent years on grooming and
    not "dinners and drinks".When a customer can't get hold of a "SALES
    type" who does he call ME!! The "SALES types" are too busy schmoozing
    with their schmoozing buddies.I give customers answers not waiting
    for a "SALES type" to return a phone call after 2 WEEKS. Then they
    wonder why they are getting resistance when confonting a sale to a
    customer, the only time they have time if MR. Customer has buckeroos to
    spend if they don't them they don't have time for them(customers).
    I know it is a jungle out there but "SALES types" if you want respect/
    integrity then get out there and "EARN IT" 
    	regards
    	John
    				
    

    If you added up all the self-righteous "$0.02" worth in this and all
    other conferences, plus the time taken to enter notes and read the
    replies, you would probably save a whole lot of that $30m over a year.
    
    Name me a major sale that an employee-interest conference has closed.
    
    Wake up to the real world folks.  The days of the product-quality sell
    alone has long gone.  
    
    In many segments, whatever hype we spout,products are products 
    are products and don't sell themselves.  Even _very_ senior DEC people 
    recognise that you need sales ,marketing and services field people 
    nowadays; not just outstanding centralised engineers.
    
    Major sales take about 18 months hard work.  Much of that work is spent
    building the trust and relationships that give you a chance at being
    able to bid in the first place, and even more importantly to influence
    the nature of the Invitation to Tender before it hits the streets.  If
    you don't, one of your competitors will and you will lose.
     
    As the competing product lines converge, more and more sales are won
    on the customer;s level of trust that his chosen supplier can _actually_
    deliver an _overall_ solution to his problem. Building that personal trust
    takes a lot of sales time and, sometimes, expense.
    
    The saving grace is that the majority of reputable companies I have
    dealt with, recognise the need to build personal relationships with
    their vendors, but are very strict about the level of entertainment
    they will accept, and are rigorous in ensuring that the entertainment
    is repaid in equal measure.
    
    As a previous noter said, that is what Account Managers are paid to do
    and measured on their success/failure. The latter is more likely to
    result in an eventual dismissal than somebody frequently missing a
    planned launch date.
    
    Get used to it.  It will be a way of life.
    
    Nothing of the above supports _wasted_ expenditure, boondoggles for
    Digital people, or outright fraud.  What is does is to support the
    planned investment in our customers.
    
    John

    
    The issue of the expendatures being on only DEC people, or DEC
    staff and customers is unclear from the memo and discussions here.
    
    What is VERY CLEAR is there is a wide range of ETHICAL questions
    being asked. Will these and other financial/benefit issues hold
    the test of "our" Code of Ethics? Where is Digital's Code of Ethics
    published? What does Digital owe to our "owners", the SHAREHOLDERS.
    This is only another example of corporate politics and how/who
    interprets what is being done.
    
    				fred deady
    			

Does this company have any sort of "senior manager present pays" rule?  That
was how things worked at my last job and it was most effective at cutting out 
"buried" expenses.  How do you bury an expense?  You do a bit of entertaining
and then have one of your subordinates (whose expenses YOU approve) pay the tab.
Voila!  The subordinate submits it, you sign it and your boss is none the wiser
(unless he takes the time to look at his quarterly accounting detail).

-dave

    re:60
    
    Yes, there is a policy that senior manager pays and you can not sign
    for an affair that you attend.  The senerio that you describe should
    not exist, but it does.  And I agree that spending money on DEC
    employees and yourself that you sign for should be considered theft
    from the company and dealt with accordingly.
                                

    re: .62
    
    Good salespeople learn to "read" people's attitudes.  If you had been
    the kind of person who would have reacted favorably to inducements you
    might well have been offered them.  Since you aren't, you didn't.
        John Sauter

    Excellent article in Digital News relating to  this particular note.
    The blatant abuse was for schmoozing Deccies and what they could get
    away with. It was not for customers or for a megamillion buy/deal. What
    it boils down to felony robbery of Digital monies for a select group
    of schmoozers. Grant me a 24 hour day with the power to "rightsize"
    and I know what I would do, a lot of butts would hit the bricks. So all
    you defenders of the schmoozing tactic,what is your respnse to article
    in Digital News??? Any takers?????
    	regards
    	John

    Would someone mind summarizing what the article said in Digital News?
    

    FYI:
    
    This memo was sited when a collegue of mine put (the equivelant of) 4
    US-dollers on his/her expenses (he/she forgot to get a receipt) because
    he/she bought some coffee/biscuits for some customers.
    
    This is a good example of what will happen: The little people will get
    penalised and those who miss-spend will continue to miss-spend
    (steal?) because they can make the savings needed to protect themselves
    from investigation from us (little peope). I am sure that the abuses
    concerning "expenses" would make your hair stand on end if we knew about
    them. I would also suggest that it might run something like this...
    
    "I know you abuse the expenses system because I see you in expensive
    resturants etc. So I don't expect any hassle when I give you my expenses
    to sign"
    
    Getting back to basics: What can (should?) those (the majority?) of us
    who are honest do? 
    
    Paul
    

    It isn't necessary to spread the bucks to brings customers around,
    period.  We should walk away from any potential customer who feels
    that way.
    
    I remember the time I offered to buy an MIS manager lunch in the
    hospital cafeteria....she surprised me by turning even that down, and
    insisted on buying ME lunch.  That's real integrity!
    
    

    re: .51
    
    in certain parts of this country, when someone selling me a product
    feels they have to wine and dine me and all the other s* that goes
    along with it, people were brought to beware, cause there isn't any
    such thing as a free lunch and the company that's doing business that
    way USUALLY does not have the BEST product...
    
    that kinda scam has been around since before you and I, and if
    that's the way people "in the real world" do business then no
    wonder the courts are getting so bogged down...

    
    re .68 ---
    
    
    Afraid the real sales world is more commercial than you suggest. We're
    not in the business of turning customers away (I hope!), we're in the
    business of making profit (or reducing losses). 
    
    If some expense generates incremental profit, that's the name of the
    game. I well remember a great fuss in the UK when the then-largest
    car company was pilloried in the press for "unauthorised commissions" 
    in dealings in the Middle East. All that excitement exposed was the 
    commentators total lack of knowledge about beating the competition, 
    & matching current local business practice. 
    
    You're not talking ethics here -- you're talking business survival.
    Doesn't mean I like it, but I do want to know the sales force can
    earn money for the company without artificial constraint -- it's a 
    tough world today even when you have the full set of cards. 
    
    Before the legions attack, I'm not advocating backhanders & other
    creative practices. I am arguing that some comments in here attacking 
    sales are based on a surreal innocence. We have to match established 
    business practice, as used by our primary competitors. The strength of 
    the product as the sole (or even key) decision-criteria is less the 
    closer you are to your customer.
    
    (BTW, I absolutely do not agree with ripping off your employer on
          internal expense items, which I understand was the focus of
          the memo)
    
    Oh - BTW - fancy a trip to the ballet or to the air races with Digital?
    Fancy a trip to the Round the World Yacht race or a major golf
    tournament with Tandem? Want to attend a golf day at one of the
    countires best courses, or want to visit Henley Regatta as a guest of 
    a whole crowd of IT companies? Want to attend a private visit to the 
    Pompeii Collection with IBM? 
    
    All recent offers to our customers in the UK, & all about us or our
    competitors getting close to key influencers inside the customer.
    
    
    Colin
    

    -1- no one is attacking "SALES" if you would take time to read the
    article in "Digital News" you would find out that is for "DECCIES" only
    that the blatant abuse was cited. It was high rolling "DECCIES" trying
    to get way with "STEALING from the company" with many levels of 
    managers signing off on it. This a fireable offense according to the 
    "orange book" out right stealing from the company. This is what we are
    alluding to, Digital employees living high on the hog at the company's
    expense. These abusers should have been fired on the spot all the way
    up to all levels that signed off on the expenses. So once again folks
    it had nothing to do with any megamillion deal just some schmoozing
    "DECCIES" trying to "RIP OFF THE COMPANY!!!!!!!"
    	regards 	
    	John

    Re .70:
    
    > I am arguing that some comments in here attacking  sales are based on
    > a surreal innocence.
    
    Gee, if success without matching the "business practices" of other
    companies is not real, I wonder how Hershey's managed not only to
    survive for decades (longer than Digital's short life so far) but to
    succeed and grow so large without advertising?  I guess Hershey's is
    not real.
    
    Responses .68 and .69 have it right:  Success does not require stooping
    to the level of competitors or even to the level of some customers. 
    Customers who make decisions based upon kickbacks, even in the form of
    fancy lunches, are customers with inefficient decision-making
    procedures -- customers who are not likely to be greatly successful in
    the long run.  Accommodating such practices may win a sale in the short
    term, but it is a loss in the long term.  Successful long term
    practices mean making a great product, knowing that it is good enough
    to sell on its merits and not on bribes, and selling to customers who
    are smart enough to become strong in the marketplace and thus will
    become larger customers.
    
    
    				-- edp

    .72 is written by an individual who doesn't have a clue what the Sales
    organization does, how the end-user computer marketplace works or how
    buying decisions are made.  Remember also that this is an individual who 
    once, in this very conference, suggested that selling is not a task which
    requires very much intelligence and that pretty much any engineer could
    do an acceptable job at it.
    
    Mr. Postpichil has made a fundamentally unsound assumption in his
    little sermon, probably due to his aforementioned ignorance regarding 
    both customers and sales. Drawing a moral equivalence between
    mainstream selling activities and bribery illustrates the depth of the
    ignorance.  I don't want to end the fun too soon, but I will provide
    the following clue:
    
    If you think customers are buying computer hardware, software and
    services, you are wrong.  If you think that is what we (or any other
    major player) sell, we could do that job with about 1/10 th of the
    current sales force.  And probably without you as well.
    
    If you figure it out, you get 10 points.  Accumulate 100 and I'll buy
    you lunch.  On me, of course. 
    
    By the way, Hershey does advertise.
    
    Al
    

    Al,
    Re the following from .73;
    >If you think customers are buying computer hardware, software and
    >services, you are wrong.  If you think that is what we (or any other
    
    
    I think that we advertise that we sell solutions.  But what are
    solutions anyway?  They are the hardware/software/service's that the
    customer needs to do their business.
    
    All we do is package it in a way that it is personalized.  We try to
    know what the customer needs are, then provide the product that they
    need.  It still boils down to Hardware/software/service of some type.
    
    It looks like we have 2 views prevalent for this string.  Those who
    believe that we need to do what ever it takes to make a sale, and those
    who believe that the sale should be based on the product.
    
    >Drawing a moral equivalence between
    >mainstream selling activities and bribery illustrates the depth of the
    >ignorance.
    
    Al, no matter what you call it, "Mainstream selling" or "Bribery", it
    doesn't make it right.  This reminds me of what my mother used to say
    when I said, "But the other boys are doing it".  She said, "If the
    other boys were to jump off a cliff, would you?"  Just because other
    companies sell that way, doesn't mean that it is right.  Money is
    important to me, but some things are not worth doing for all the money
    in the world.  Maybe some people have no problems with
    schmoozing/bribery/mainstream selling, but I do.  I would also not
    trust anyone trying the above on me.
    
    It maybe popular to sell with perks for the customer (schmoozing or
    whatever), but that doesn't mean it is the best way or that it is
    right.  I am a support eng, and have sold several systems when I was in
    the field.  I sold them because I knew what my customers needed/wanted. 
    
    I still contend that if the products are what the customer wants/needs
    and they are priced properly, you don't need to schmooze.  It also
    helps if you know the products well enough to sell it.  It is
    imperative that you know the customers needs/wants/business.  I had no
    problems when observing the above.
    
    Jim Morton

    Re .73:
    
    > By the way, Hershey does advertise.
    
    They do NOW.  That's a recent change, relatively small compared to the
    company's history.  They did not for decades.  Apparently you don't
    even know your own industry.
    
    > Remember also that this is an individual who  once, in this very
    > conference, suggested that selling is not a task which requires very
    > much intelligence . . .
    
    So, how much brains does it take to pay for lunch?  Are salespeople
    mentally burdened by the task of looking up the tip amount on a chart?
    
    > . . . a clue what the Sales organization does . . .
    
    Oh, this topic has given us quite a clue . . . bribery, selling our
    long term for the short term, et cetera.
    
    > If you think that is what we (or any other major player) sell . . .
    
    My point exactly . . . what we DO sell is not what we SHOULD be
    selling.  As you have told us, we don't sell hardware, software, or
    services.  Yet that is what we SHOULD be selling.
    
    
    				-- edp                       

    
    re. 75
    
      Not sure what Hershey has to do with Digital, but anyway since I've
    been a Hershey customer for "decades", let's see 
    
      Since prior to WW2, Hershey Chocolate has advertised thru the town 
    of Hershey (ChocolateTown, U.S.A). Hershey Choc. had factory tours, 
    created an amusement park (Hershey did amusement parks way before Disney),
    contributed to the town in ways which advertised it's products (e.g., 
    street light fixtures resembled Hershey Kisses),gardens trimmed to 
    resemble Hershey bars. Also "codes" were setup to make Hershey, the ideal 
    all-American town - there was anti-littering laws (imagine visitors coming
    from Philadelphia and seeing a town littered with candy wrappers, can't 
    have that) also both propertt owners and renters were required to keep 
    lawns watered, cut, etc. - image. The Atlantic City Boardwalk was 50
    miles away, Hershey 100 miles - no contest, we went to Hershey Park and
    bought Hershey products - no Bosco pump, 'Quik makes us sick',
    'N-E-S-T-L-E-S give that stupid dog a rest - SOCK-IT', alright I did 
    like Almond Joys. Hershey made a good product and "seemed" to give back 
    this neat amusement park to us kids with shaded picnic grounds for the 
    family and a tour of chocolate factory with free samples ...and with
    admission discount coupons available for just buying candy bars what
    a deal.  
      During this time, Hershey advertised some "Hershey's Cocoa/Syrup" ads
    in magazines (housekeeping,Colliers, Look/Life) but more so in the stores 
    afterall that's where people bought.
     
      WW2 probably did more for Hershey than Jeep, millions of GI's were
    now hooked on "Hershey Bars" (whether made by Hershey or not, the 
    name stuck). 
    
      I can't recall Hershey sponsoring a whole TV show like Mars , Nestle,
    or Ovaltine did, but they did advertise Saturday mornings afterall
    that's where their largest customer base was.
    
      Early 70's chocolate prices rose and there was more competition -
    Hershey "downsized" their Hershey bar - this was the "Heresy Bar",
    sort of their classic Coke mistake. So they expanded/repackaged their 
    product line to compete against Mars, Nestle, Bosco, etc... and had to
    advertise these new products.
    
      Generally Hershey doesn't miss a chance to advertise in a cost
    effective manner whether its convincing Lionel Trains to sell a
    Hershey boxcar or use Reece Pieces (not M&M's) in "E.T". 
    
      So since the 30's , Hershey has advertised/marketed their 
    products, before that I can't say, but they have advertised for longer
    than DEC has been around. 
    
      Maybe we can get Hershey to make an Alpha-bar, so this discussion can
    relate to Digital.
    
    clay              
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
      
    
      

Re:       <<< Note 1822.75 by BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

Eric, how would you characterize such Digital-paid-for events at DECworld,
such as the boatride, which we sales types use to get closer to our customers
so as to assist the sales process?  A bribe?

Bob

PS - Is that Nintendo robot still working??

    re: .75
    
    Well, you don't get the 10 points.  You're going to have to work much
    harder if you have any hope of earning that free lunch.
    
    But no matter.  Clearly, you have been highly sucessful in selling. As
    an example, you've been able sell many of your own ideas, illustrated by 
    the highly positive reception you tend to enjoy whenever you participate 
    in a controversial topic.  You have the knack for working an audience 
    and winning them over to your side by the compelling logic of your 
    arguments alone.  I can see how, given this overwhelming success, your 
    informed opinions of how the selling process works would transcend the 
    imperfect knowledge of those of us who have actually met a customer.
    
    But I won't belabor that point.  Let me make the following:
    
    Customers don't buy because someone took them out to lunch, dinner, the
    U.S. Open, a Red Sox game or a harbor cruise.  How stupid do you think
    customers are?  You should wish they were that stupid!  If we could get 
    people to make major purchasing decisions just by taking them out to a $100
    lunch, what success we would have!  No more messy demos, executive visits,
    solution design, proposal writing, listening to their problems, late night
    strategy discussions, pricing decisions, nothing!  Do you realize how
    much money we could save?  We could fire 90% of the sales force!
    
    People buy from people.  Customers motives for chosing one
    vendor over another usually have little to do with the relative merits
    of the products they will give us an order for.  One need only look at
    IBM for an example which refutes altogether the notion that customers
    will buy superior products.
    
    No, what customers buy is a relationship.  They want to know and trust
    the people that service their account.  They want to be able to pick up
    the phone when there is a problem (and there will be) and reach someone
    who will respond to their needs and make them successfull.  You build
    relationships by talking and lunch happens to be a nice time to talk in
    the context of a business day.  Sales buys the lunch because it's the 
    courteous thing to do.  No successful sales rep believes for an instant
    that picking up the tab gives him or her an edge.  It just part of
    doing business, like wearing a suit and driving a respectable car.
     
    Events like a harbor cruise (or whatever) allow you to get away from 
    the business environment for a while and discuss the broad range of 
    topics which allow people to become comfortable with you and earn their 
    trust and respect.  If you want to get a customer to part with a million 
    bucks or more, you sell yourself first, Digital second and the products 
    last.
    
    The most disturbing thing here is the apalling ignorance of those of
    haven't got a clue how to sell computer systems and have probably never
    met a customer.  They've seen sales people moving major appliances at
    Sears, so they know everything they need to know.  The comment that we
    need to find customers who will buy on the basis of product features is
    laughable to anyone who has any exposure to the real world.  My
    group will have supported the sale of almost 80 million dollars of
    products and services during the three years ending in June that I will 
    have had my current job. During that period, I can only recall a few 
    hundred thousand dollars of opportunities where a sale hinged strictly 
    on technical issues.  
    
    Yeah, lets dump our current customer base.  We have too many of them
    and, after all, they're stupid and immoral enough to be bought with a
    lunch.
    
    Sound advice, indeed.
    
    Al
    

    Re .78:
    
    > Clearly, you have been highly sucessful in selling. As an example,
    > you've been able sell many of your own ideas, illustrated by  the
    > highly positive reception you tend to enjoy whenever you participate 
    > in a controversial topic.
    
    Indeed, I have been very successful.  When you see me engaged in a
    discussion, you see a lot of dust fly.  It is rare that my direct
    opponent is "converted", but I commonly receive mail from people
    telling me I have opened their eyes, given them information, convinced
    them, et cetera.
    
    > Customers don't buy because someone took them out to lunch, dinner, the
    > U.S. Open, a Red Sox game or a harbor cruise.
    
    If they don't buy because of it, then we don't need to do it.
    
    > No, what customers buy is a relationship.  They want to know and trust
    > the people that service their account.
    
    Give them a relationship by giving them superior products.  Instill
    trust by designing products that are reliable, powerful, and easy to
    use.  Do it right and they will know we stand behind the products.
    
    > Yeah, lets dump our current customer base.
    
    Dump?  Who has to dump anything?  Are the customers going to dump you
    because you won't buy them expensive meals?  If they don't buy BECAUSE
    you buy them lunch, why would they NOT buy because you don't?  I said
    BUILD, not dump.  Build a stronger relationship by providing
    substantive products, not empty form lunches.
    
    Oh, and you didn't tell me how much brains it takes to be a
    salesperson.  Is buying lunch an intellectual challenge?  What's the
    SAT entrance requirement for sales courses?
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    re .78: I can't help thinking that the less time one spends on harbor
    cruises, the more time one would have to answer the phone and solve the
    customer's problems. I can't help wondering what a sporting event has to
    do with helping customers trust the people that service their account.
    

re .78:

Brilliant!  Your second paragraph was masterful.

Like most companies, DEC has some great products, some OK products, and some
awful products.  I don't know of any DEC product that's so much better than
the competition that it sells itself.  If there are such products, I surmise
that their share of our revenues is minuscule.  I'm sure DEC has its share
of bad sales people, but they probably don't stick around as long as bad
engineers.  Of course, none of this justifies the expense account abuse
of the base note.

BTW, I'm an engineer whose customers are fellow engineers in DEC.  I've had a
few dealings with real customers in previous jobs.  I know I couldn't sell
bottled water in the Sahara.

   
>    Oh, and you didn't tell me how much brains it takes to be a
>    salesperson.  Is buying lunch an intellectual challenge?  What's the
>   SAT entrance requirement for sales courses?
   

    A lot of the dispute over lunches and personal relationships and
    technical superiority results from a difference in understanding of a
    critical definition: 
    
    What is a "product?"
    
    In my opinion, the folks who say performance/functionality is all and
    you don't need to do anything else (or very little else) but be
    technically superior to sell are seriously underestimating the number
    of aspects a customer considers part of the "product" they are buying. 
    
    Ease of use, price, self image, link to strategic intent, reliability,
    first impressions, capapcity to delight, self image, ease of doing
    business with supplier, cost of ownership, reputation of supplier,
    ability of salesperson, relationship with salesperson, social
    responsibility of supplier, likelihood of supplier staying around,
    color, ease of disposal, compatability with previous purchases, and a
    lot of other things only marginally related to "the box" are the
    product as well as speed and available software. 
    
    In fact, more and more, in an ever-widening part of our business, "the
    box" is incidental.
    
    To be successful a salesperson has to do more than run down the
    features list. The salesperson, I think, has to understand the
    customer's business well enough to recognize which of our products will
    solve what problems, meet what needs, anticipate what changes; and then
    discover what parts of the larger definition of product are crucial to
    the customer's decision-making and convince them that Digital has that
    part of the product nailed but good. That takes time, that takes
    credibility, that might even take socializing.
    
    It seems to me that much of the time and money spent on customers isn't
    so much to woo the customers as it is to enable a good salesperson to
    get that important knowledge. I mean, it would be a pretty grand
    condescension to think "a couple more drinks and another lap around the
    harbor and this bozo is going to buy!." 
    
    An ace socializer who cared little about my enterprise, a
    hale-fellow-well-met who got me to The Masters but didn't know anything
    about **my** products, or the intense automoton who knew Digital
    products cold but didn't know anything about mine isn't going to sell
    me a box of printer paper.
    
    John H.

    
    Before selling a product or 
    service or anything tangible 
    or intangible a salesperson 
    must first sell:
    
    
    
    	Themselves
    
    Ref.:  "The Art of Selling Self"  cbc

    Reading this topic is discouraging.  It clearly illustrates one of the 
    reasons that Digital is having problems - very few know anything at all
    about selling.  IBM knows much more about marketing and selling, or how
    else can you understand their success with a motto, "You can buy
    better, but you can't pay more!".
    
    There have been a few rays of hope, such as Mr. Kozakiewicz, and I hope
    that I am also contributing along the same lines.  Some of us remember
    the Chrysler Airflow - a far superior product, it just didn't sell, in
    our own industry, RCA's virtual operating system was an excellent
    product, that when they left the business had 28 users world-wide.
    
    The moral few make me laugh - I am certain that they have never
    accepted a cup of coffee in a market, car show room, or a hotel/motel.
    When they stay in a hotel they have never eaten the complimentary breakfast
    since they just rented the room, so that was all used - the room.  They
    would not talk to the concierge since that could be seen as an
    inducement(or in their vernacular- "bribe")to rent a room.
    
    Keep up the articulate response Alan(even if your SAT was probably
    low) you're on target.
    
    Big Mac

    
    Hershey did some advertisements with Kraft on some of the T.V. shows
    in the late 50's.
    
    example:        Commander Cody and the Space Cadets.
    
                 Kraft Carmel Candies and  with Chocolate toping, 

I spent 11 years in DEC (sic) in software product development, followed by
2 years in Digital (sic) as Sales Support.  This gives me some insight into 
both sides of the "the great product will sell itself" and "if we don't 
shmooze we won't sell anything" debate.

Up to the time I moved from Engineering, I would have agreed with Eric P.
My feeling was that sales was somehow a slightly sleazy profession, made
up of people who didn't have the vaguest clue how to sell the wonderful
products we were building, but who got an expense account and trips to 
DECUS, DECworld, and other wonderful places that mere engineers could 
never get sent.  My only contact with sales was at places like used car
lots and Sears, and the experience was not a pleasant one.

Boy, was COD an eye-opener.  The reason that sales "doesn't have a clue"
about our products is because there are so damn many of them.  Every 2
weeks we get a 100+ page book detailing new products, covering PCs, VAX,
MIPS, VMS, ULTRIX, OSF/1, NT, networking, printers, terminals, disks,
tapes, interconnections to every piece of computer equipment ever built
(literally true), and our customers expect us to know every fact off the
top of our heads without ever saying "Let me check that and I will get 
back to you".  I also found out that some of our products were not the
greatest thing ever built.  Some of them have bugs!  Some of them have
competing products built by other people which are actually superior!!!
Some of them are actually priced much higher than the competition!!!!!
For someone who existed in the GMA cocoon, this was a shock.

Second, I now fully agree with Alan K in .78 and John H in .83.  The actual
product being sold is often the smallest part of the deal.  Not because it
is not important (since we wouldn't even be competing if our product did
not satisfy the customer's checklist of features), but because there are
so many products which satisfy they customers needs that we need a way of
standing out from the crowd.

And the way you do that is with relationship selling.  As was stated, first
you sell yourself, then the company, then the product.

IBM is brilliant at this.  They have weekends where they take senior managers
and their whole families to very fancy resorts, make sure everybody has a
*great* time, and never ever mention a product, service, or even the company
name.  But two weeks later, when IBM and Digital are presenting products 
to that senior manager, and both sales reps claim their product can do the
job, who is going to get the sale?

But (I hear you cry) that is not the way it *should* work, and we don't
need to do business like that.  As much as I might like to agree with you,
(and as much as I *did* agree with you 2 years ago), should <> does.

Maybe the better product should win out, but how is the customer going to
separate the facts from Digital and the hype/exaggeration from our competition?
We both say "systems integration", "open", "industry standards", and all of
the other buzzwords of the week, so how can the customer tell the difference?
In the absence of anything else, the customer goes with the sales rep and the
company who s/he believes will make them successful.

And the final point is that customers don't like computers.  In point of fact
most customers *HATE* hardware, *HATE* software, *HATE* applications, *FEAR*
networks, and generally loathe having to deal with any of them.  A customers
definition of distributed computing is "where a system that you have never
heard of and have no control over can prevent you from getting your job done".
A customers definition of software is "something that is hard to learn, runs
too slowly, and often destroys weeks of work".  A customers definition of a
computing system is something that is far too expensive, takes far too much
space to hold (desk space or computer center space, depending on whether 
they are a user or a data center manager), runs far too slowly, and is down
far too much.  Customers think of computers like we think of desks, or 
pencils.  Something that exists, and may even be necessary to do a job, but 
certainly not something you like.

Customers want solutions.  In today's world they have to buy computers to
make those solutions.  But every customer I talk to (outside of a few 
tech-weenies like myself) would much rather do away with every computer
they own and never buy another if they could get their job done without it.

Sales reps (the good ones) sell solutions, part of which is hardware, part
of which is software, part of which is the people with the expertise to
put it together, part of which is training, and part of which is the sales
reps and Digital's reputation for being there when it falls apart.  But 
the only way to find out what the solutions are, is to find out what the
problems are.  And customers very often won't share their problems with 
someone they don't know very well.  It takes a *personal relationship*
to get someone to confide in you, to get a *partnership* going between
the sales rep and the customer, which is where Digital will close the sale.

So I admit to being wrong 2 years ago in my evaluation of sales reps.  The
products we build are necessary, but they are only a small part of the 
package we sell to our customers.

-- Ken Moreau

    re: .79
    
    >If customers don't buy because...

    Once more, real slow.

    No customer ever bought a system just because a sales rep called him 
    on the telephone.  Should we rip the phones out?
    
    A lunch is not a bribe to buy.  It is a tool (one of many) used to
    build relationships.  Relationships are not technical in nature.  I
    know many of our customers personally.  I know their kids names and
    what Little League they're involved in.  I have met the husbands and
    wives.  I know the community institutions they support.  They know the
    same about me. That knowledge is what makes me a human being instead of
    just another computer guy.  People will trust people they know.  People
    will buy from people they trust.  Entertainment is way of getting
    people to loosen up and give them the opportunity to know you as a
    person.  It only takes a little bit of sophisticated thinking to
    comprehend this.
    
    Good products are important.  Essential.  But the days when a solution
    consisted of a VAX 11/780 and a FORTRAN compiler are long gone.  The
    last time our office received a call from a prospect wanting to know
    all about our databases (to use an example) was probably 1983.  People
    who buy on the basis of technical features in the _systems_ marketspace
    are few and they don't spend much money.  Distributors are much more
    efficient at handling these folks than the end user sales force.
    
    Bad products will prevent you from making a sale.  At some level, a
    organizations IS professionals (if they have any) are included in the
    evaluation process.  We have to be able to satisfy them.  But make no
    mistake, superior products do not make the sale alone. They will prevent 
    you only from losing on technical merits.
    
    A good eaxmple is Gene Haag's COPS project in Minneapolis, widely
    reported on in this conference.  A huge opportunity, it did not go
    south because we didn't have the products.  We did, and they were
    competetive.  It went south because nobody bought the customer lunch!
    No, wait, just kidding!  It went south because important relationships
    were not established with the decision makers until too late in the
    cycle.  Ask Gene for a copy of his post-mortem.  It's the real world.
    
    Another example I cited earlier is IBM.  No one believes they have
    superior products, yet they have loyal, satisfied and successful
    customers.  That's because customers don't buy the products, they buy
    the company.
    
    As for your continuing efforts to bait me regarding the intelligence of
    sales people, go perform an unnatual act with yourself.  Gratuitous
    insults of an entire class of people you know absolutely nothing about
    is your perogative.  Ignorance is bliss and you strike me as a happy
    man.
    
    Al
    

    Re .88:
    
    > Once more, real slow.
    
    That's okay, take as much time as you need.  Remember, press Shift to
    make BIG letters, and press Return to end a line.
    
    > No customer ever bought a system just because a sales rep called him 
    > on the telephone.
    
    That's wrong -- if a telephone is used to convey information that
    causes a sale to be made, then a telephone IS a cause, at least in
    part, of the sale.
    
    > I know many of our customers personally.  I know their kids names and
    > what Little League they're involved in. . . .
    
    You are just telling us how you DO sell.  I have never contested how
    you ARE DOING it, so that information is totally irrelevant.
                
    > No one believes they have superior products, yet they have loyal,
    > satisfied and successful customers.  That's because customers don't buy
    > the products, they buy the company.
    
    But you have just told us that you are competing with IBM by selling
    relationships.  Thus, IBM is retaining customers against the strategy
    you ARE using.  You are playing on their turf, and they are winning. 
    Golly, gee whiz, I wonder how that happens?
    
    If, as you say, IBM does not have superior products, then we should be
    attacking their weak spot.  You should be selling based on product
    superiority, not relationships.
    
    > As for your continuing efforts to bait me regarding the intelligence of
    > sales people, go perform an unnatual act with yourself.
    
    Perform an unnatural act -- you want me to go into sales?!
    
    > Gratuitous insults of an entire class of people you know absolutely
    > nothing about is your perogative.
    
    What insults?  I just asked a couple of questions.  It was YOU who
    implied, in .73, that sales work requires intelligence.  I am just
    asking you how much.  Come on, tell me.  Don't you stand behind what
    you said?  Does sales work require intelligence or not?
    
    
    				-- edp

>    Perform an unnatural act -- you want me to go into sales?!
        
        No, he wants you to be polite for once.
        
        					B.J.

    
    Despite edp's social challenges, he raises an interesting point. If
    harbor cruises are our attempt to compete by IBM's standards, we appear
    to be losing quite badly. What if we tried a different approach? What
    if instead of spending time on boats or at resorts, we spent the time
    living with the customer's business, and/or learning more about our
    products?
    

re .89:
    
>    > No customer ever bought a system just because a sales rep called him 
>    > on the telephone.
>    
>    That's wrong -- if a telephone is used to convey information that
>    causes a sale to be made, then a telephone IS a cause, at least in
>    part, of the sale.

Look up "just" in the dictionary.  It's between "IQ" and "SAT".

	Yeah that makes sense if your ready to see little or no numbers
	today and bank on tomorrow.....

	But from what I've been reading here that's not the case.

	Maybe this quarters numbers will make some influential managers
	rethink how we do and measure business...

						Mike
						---- 

RE: .91

>    If harbor cruises are our attempt to compete by IBM's standards, we appear
>    to be losing quite badly. What if we tried a different approach? What
>    if instead of spending time on boats or at resorts, we spent the time
>    living with the customer's business, and/or learning more about our
>    products?
    
Both are being done.  As a Sales Support person, I spend a great deal of 
time living at the customer site (usually 2-3 full days per week, plus
some number of partial days).  I almost never go to the Digital office.
The Sales Reps I know spend over half their time talking to customers.  
The other half of our time is spent learning about the products.  The 
*other* half of our time (usually late nights and weekends) is spent 
doing the mail/notes/SBS/etc administrative stuff.

The boats/resorts thing is either done by account managers or corporate
people.  The front-line sales rep usually is so deeply involved with the
customer's business that they don't have time for that.  We set it up,
get the customer to sign up for it, and then the account managers, unit
managers, group managers, account group managers, and corporate account
people actually take them on these trips.

-- Ken Moreau

	So who's doing the selling the frontline guy or the account group
	manager ?

	Who's the person that's supossed to build the relationship ?

What makes you think IBM is winning?  They're also losing money.

Maybe We ARE winning but, our customers are not buying enough at this time to
keep us afloat given our expenses. I'm not an expert by any stretch of
imagination but it seems to me that the problem is that nobody, neither
corporations nor individuals seem to want to spend money. Until this
turns around the economic climate is going to stay the same.
What I think that needs to happen to get people & corp. to spend is jobs!
We need to put people to work not lay them off. I think that the goverment
needs to lead the way. Of course this also means higher taxes. I dont want to
rathole this discussing taxes et al. so I'll get off the soapbox...

- George

Having only sold into major insurance companies in NYC, my observations
are obviously a bit skewed.  However, I'd like to comment on the notion
that, since we're "losing" to IBM by playing their game, we should give up
and try a new approach.

IBM is generally acknowledged as being the finest marketing company ever.  Their
management is primarily sales-oriented and their sales philosophy is based on
relationship, relationship, relationship.  That's the game, kids.  The rules are
already drawn up and we gotta play by them if we want to be a player in 
mainstream corporate America.  Sure, small niche companies will win some 
sales with a hot box or a superior solution, but over time the vendor with the
strongest relationship wins more often.  The days of "Field of Dreams" marketing
(if you build it they will come!) is over.

But we could always fire the sales force and do all our business with brochures
and 800 numbers.  After all, don't our products sell themselves?  ;')

    
    .94 struck me in a different manner. The front line grunts do all the
    leg work, and then the five management layers above them take the
    harbor cruise... What's wrong with this picture?
    

Re .99

I recently read that in the US, during a recession, more of the burden is
placed on lower-level workers, via layoffs, pay and benefit cuts, etc., than
in most other countries. As a result of this, in the US, recessions are deeper
and last longer.than in other countries. After all, people who are layed off
(or afraid of being layed off) buy less, so the companies that make and sell
the products cut back and lay off, and ... 
In Japan, dividends get cut first; then executive salaries, etc.

I don't think the government is needed to (or can) change this. What is needed
is a change in the way management handles layoffs. Maybe this will happen - 
GM has gone from giving executives bonuses while the company is losing money to
giving executives pay cuts.

Now, if Digital can learn from this...

    What we tend to ignore is that IBM has been doing this relationship
    building for years and years and years! As an IBMer in the early
    Sixties, I continued relationship building practices started years
    earlier by my predecessors. And these low-level customers evolve into
    the major decision makers; IBM is in for the long haul...!
    
    We're really just getting started. Just starting to get involved with 
    the executive levels and in the commercial side of the business. So if 
    all of a sudden our fortunes don't change, you've got to realize that 
    it's going to take time and it's way too soon to judge.
    
    When you call and get a busy signal, you don't give up. You keep
    trying. And that's just what we've got to keep doing with anything that
    contributes to our relationship building.
    
    -Fred- (Sales)
     
    building.  

The purpose of harbour cruises, banquets, and similar is team-building.
It gives the sales people a chance to get all of their customers in
one place where they can discuss issues with each other, and with
the Dec folk. This means, for example, that the MIS managers from
two competing companies can talk about their mutual needs and problems.

I started as a field software specialist in Sweden. Once, when I was
in Maynard for training, I took the entire engineering group out to
lunch (sandwiches at The Wooden Spoon, for those of use with long
memories). This turned out to be the best $24 I ever spent; after this,
whenever I sent a telex to the engineers, I was a person, rather than
a disembodied voice on a piece of paper. The payback for my Swedish
customers was immense because, if my questions were answered, their
work got done more effectively.

Customer/Dec cruises have the same effect; it's easy for a customer
to yell at "the engineer who wrote this piece of junk" but it's hard
for that customer to yell at a problem with "the program that Jane
worked 18-hours a day to get ready for DecWorld"

Engineers understand how to work with things; sometimes we need to
realize that people aren't things, and listen to folk who understand
how to work with people.

Martin.

    re: if our products are superior why are we losing.
    
    Good question, if it were true. 
    
    The question misses a major point: performance is only a fraction
    of what the customer sees as the product.
    
    A product that doesn't sell is a bad product, regardless of the reason.
    
    John H.

RE: .98 and .101

>    .94 struck me in a different manner. The front line grunts do all the
>    leg work, and then the five management layers above them take the
>    harbor cruise... What's wrong with this picture?
    
I now see that my comments could have been taken that way, such that I
was slamming the groups of people mentioned. 

That was *not* my intention.  Very often the front-line Sales Rep will go
to these things (such as DECworld), but frequently they will be working on
other opportunities such that they will be unable to attend.  There is no
pressure (that I am aware of) that prevents them from going, it is often
the fact that they choose not to go because they are prospecting or closing
business.

In the same way that a Sales Rep deals with the end-users *and* their
management all the way up the chain to VP or CEO in order to close the
sale, the more senior customer managers often want to speak to senior
Digital managers.  This increases the customers comfort level, and often
helps close the sale.  And in these times, whatever helps close the sale 
is what we are doing!

IBM and Sun are certainly not hesitant about bringing down their senior
corporate managers.  Neither should we be.

-- Ken Moreau

    ONCE AGAIN R-E-A-L   S-L-O-W   N-O-W
    It is not the intent to BASH Sales they have a rough enough job just like
    the rest of us who contribute to sales and customer satisfaction.
    	The  M-E-M-O that was leaked had to due with:
        DIGITAL EMPLOYEES BLATANTLY STEALING FROM THE COMPANY -by bloated,
    	inflated, missuse of  EXPENSES.	That these expenses were not
    	flagged by their managers and on up the chain to where no one blew
    	a whistle that something was definitely amiss. Some items were:
    	1. Boat rides and fishing trips
    	2. Caterer services
    	3. Thousands of dollars for BOOZE
    	4. Limousine rides for secretaries.
    
    This had nothing to do with an impending SALE or SALES, just some
    sleazy slimeballs trying and apparently succeeding in taking DEC for all
    it could.
    	regards
    	John
    	

    re: .89
    
    Well Mr. Spock, it appears you have made an error in your calculations,
    so pardon me while I go in for the slam-dunk:
    
>    If, as you say, IBM does not have superior products, then we should be
>    attacking their weak spot.  You should be selling based on product
>    superiority, not relationships.
    
    Let me get this straight.  IBM wins because their customers hold the
    relationship in higher regard than the quality of the products.  So in 
    order to win, we should ignore the relationship and attack the products? 
    Call me stupid for not picking that one up sooner!  Eric, you're a
    geenius!
    
    How about a real-life example?  Right now, we're working on an
    opportunity with the NYS Judiciary which will easily be worth $50M over 
    the next three years, without even trying hard.  The decision makers
    are people like the Chief Administrator, the Chief Judge, various
    county judges and court clerks.  All they want is a solution to their
    problems.  What do you think they know about computers?  They know 
    nothing, except that they are capable of solving business problems.  
    If we were to follow your strategy, the only way we'd get any money is 
    if we stole their wallets when they fell asleep during the Alpha PID 
    presentation.
    
    Product selling has its place, and it is integrated into our overall
    business strategies.  But, as I have said repeatedly, it's not the
    primary thing that customers want.  Remember them?  They pay the bills, 
    including your salary.  The most common complaint I have heard levelled 
    against Digital by customers and prospects is that we don't listen enough 
    to their problems before we start talking products and architectures.
    
    But assume I'm all wrong for a minute.  What qualifications do you have
    regarding successful selling?  What experiences with our customers have
    you had that lends any empirical evidence to your assertion that you
    understand their needs better than the people who call on them every day?  
    What do you _know_ (as opposed to _think_) about selling?  The correct 
    answers are none, none and nothing.  If you actually had any experience 
    with our customers, you'd quickly know how unsophisticated and just plain 
    boneheaded your viewpoint is in the context of Digital's marketplace.  
    Since you've never yielded a point to anyone on anything as far as I
    know, you may remain ignorant and uninformed.  After all, it's your 
    problem, not mine.
    
    >Does sales work require intelligence or not?
    
    Plenty of intelligence as well as an ability to listen.  While claiming
    to be long on the former, you're markedly deficient in the latter.
    
    Al 
    

	I know as internal customer of DEC field service that all calls
	are tracked if something isn't being done you simply log a call 
	and say this is a customer concern. Immediately this places you
	at a higher priority. 

	If you don't get a satisfactory response within a few hours you
	call agin and explain you logged a customer concern have not 
	received a satisfactory response and want to escalate, at about
	this time you get management involved and in my experience that
	usually takes care of the problem. 

							Mike
							----

    Re .108:
    
    > Well Mr. Spock, it appears you have made an error in your calculations,
    > . . .
    
    You know, you have been showing us a real good example of your
    so-called "relationship building" skills.  Your customers must love it
    when you tell them you are going to explain the product REAL SLOW so
    they can understand.  You are a WONDERFUL salesperson.  You must have
    had real high SAT scores.
    
    > So in  order to win, we should ignore the relationship and attack the
    > products?  Call me stupid for not picking that one up sooner!
    
    Okay, you are stupid for not picking that one up sooner.  So if you
    agree with the idea, why don't you do it?
    
    > How about a real-life example?
    
    Okay, sure.  I'm going to sell my Digital stock and buy
    Hewlett-Packard, because they make good products and I'll bet their
    good products do better than Digital's relationship-building.
    
    > What do you think they know about computers?  They know  nothing,
    > except that they are capable of solving business problems.  If we were
    > to follow your strategy, . . .
    
    Apparently when you went up for that slam dunk, the rarefied air did
    not provide enough oxygen to your brain to understand "my" strategy. 
    Do you have to just shove the product in front of the Chief Judge and
    say "It's a good computer." and fail because the judge knows nothing
    about computers?  If you know so much about sales, why can't you think
    of a better way to sell a product's strengths?  The Chief Judge is not
    a stupid person and is fully capable of understanding why a product is
    superior -- its strengths, what it can do that another product cannot,
    et cetera -- even if the judge does not know how computers work or have
    the time to learn.  In fact, if you had applied any brain power to this
    at all, you would realize that judges are in fact people accustomed to
    dealing with complicated sets of facts from which conclusions must be
    drawn, including listening to what experts say and figuring out what to
    believe from that.
    
    > The most common complaint I have heard levelled  against Digital by
    > customers and prospects is that we don't listen enough  to their
    > problems before we start talking products and architectures.
    
    Did you read what you just wrote?  "Listen enough to their PROBLEMS" --
    that means issues, not relationships.  You just told me the customers
    want their problems solved, not relationships built.  Thanks for
    admitting I'm right.
    
    > What qualifications do you have regarding successful selling?
    
    I have a brain.  Oops, I forgot, that's not a prerequisite for selling. 
    I'm sorry, you're right, you are a much better salesperson than I could
    ever be.  
    
    
    				-- edp

Thanks,

Bob Co-moderator DIGITAL

There seem to be two or three topics here.  As several replies have pointed
out, the expense account abuse mentioned in the base note did not involve
customers.  The second topic is based upon the assumption that it did, and
that there's something wrong with buying a customer lunch.  The third, and
by far most entertaining topic is the sparring between Mr. "Shoes for Industry" 
and Mr. "Scratch Monkey."

re: .114

I meant the broken PC one...

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

    fwiw, jmho, etc. etc. ...
    

    re: .111
    
    So we finally get to the point where you are, either by choice or
    happenstance, unable to follow the continuity of my replies and resort
    to nit-picking and quoting out of context.  My last words on the
    subject:
    
>    they can understand.  You are a WONDERFUL salesperson.  You must have
>    had real high SAT scores.
    
    Well, like I said, the group I manage helped close nearly $80M over the 
    last three years.  How much did you sell over the same period?  Our
    customers seem to like us well enough.  If it's any of your business,
    my SAT scores were at the 95th percentile.  Of course, that was in 1971, 
    when SAT scores meant something.  Does it matter?  
    
>    Okay, you are stupid for not picking that one up sooner.  So if you
>    agree with the idea, why don't you do it?
    
    Apparently you didn't have your sarcasm radar on.  If I'm out to buy a
    car and my primary selection criteria is flexible financing, how are
    you going to sell me a car if all you have to offer is a large color
    selection?  If the buying criteria is relationship, then the buying
    decision gets made primarily on the quality of that relationship, not the
    quality of the products.  The products have to be good enough, not the 
    best.  I'm not making this up!  Others have said it, here, in this
    topic.  I won't take it personally since you don't want to listen to
    them either.
    
>    Okay, sure.  I'm going to sell my Digital stock and buy
>    Hewlett-Packard, because they make good products and I'll bet their
>    good products do better than Digital's relationship-building.
    
    You think HP doesn't build relationships?  Who said it could only be
    either relationship or product selling, anyway?
    
>    In fact, if you had applied any brain power to this at all, you would 
    
    Ahh yes you, who have never sold a thing in your life, telling us who
    have and have been successful at it, how to do our jobs.  Right.  That
    dog don't hunt. I've wasted more than enough words trying to explain 
    some of the facts of life here in the Field.  I don't make this stuff up.  
    If you were at all interested in figuring out how we sell, you would
    ask probing, sincere questions.  Instead, you act like an arrogant ass;
    more intent on winning an argument than in being right.  Selling computer 
    systems is, apparently, more complicated and less objective than your 
    fragile ego can stand.  TFB.
    
    By now you have requested and read Gene Haag's COPS post-mortem, right?
    Or are you too lazy to seek out information which might damage your
    totally insulated viewpoint?  
    
>   You just told me the customers want their problems solved, not 
>   relationships built.  Thanks for admitting I'm right.
    
    I'm not going to rehash everything I've explained as carefully as I
    could given the time constraints I live under.  Simply, customers buy 
    from those they trust.  Trust is acquired through relationship
    building. Good products allow you to play the game; rarely are they
    sufficient alone to win.  I'm sorry you don't like that.
    
>    I have a brain.  Oops, I forgot, that's not a prerequisite for selling. 
    
    That pretty much sums up your viewpoint, doesn't it?  How fortunate that 
    God endowed you with sufficient knowledge at birth so that you are not
    burdened by the necessity of seeking out first-hand information in
    subjects you have no personal experience with.
    
    Al
    
    

    Re: .111 & .117
    		Could you please take this argument offline? 
    
    Thank You
    

    RE: -1
    
    Why off-line, it's entertaining. I love to see EDP posturing again,
    I've quite missed him.
    
    Al,
    
    You're wasting your time, by the way. I've never seen EDP concede a
    point to anyone, on any subject, ever. However powerful the argument,
    however plain it may be to all and sundry, he seems incapable of
    conceding that someone else's opinion/experience/knowledge might, just
    once in a while, be greater than his own.
    
    As regards selling things, I have it on good authority that EDP has a
    Saturday job in a mall selling Nintendo games to school-children. So
    assuming it's true, he can sell, however beneath his intellect it may
    be. Naturally, there's no question of any relationships.
    
    EDP,
    
    Over the years I've had more than one run-in with you. In that time I
    have thought many things of you. I've also had cause to doubt your
    wisdom, your judgement, your commonsense, your interest in learning,
    sometimes even, your integrity. But never, until now, have I really
    doubted your intelligence. May I suggest you *read* what Al and the
    others are saying? It makes sense, you know.
    
    Laurie.

    Well Laurie I have seen him concede a point once. I still have the
    copy of it, he deleted the original, it was amongst the zillion line
    mail he sent to my manager.

    Jamie.

  
  Re .109 (Broken PC)
  
  You have a log number ?  You have a name ?  Contact the name and ask some
  questions about the log number.  If there is no satisfactory explanation
  about it, ask to speak to the duty manager at whichever site the name is
  based - the duty manager is tasked to resolve such issues (either directly
  or by getting a more suitable person involved).  Alternatively, speak to
  the account manager for that customer to make them aware of the current
  situation - they can start to unruffle feathers and restore the warm fuzzy
  feeling to the customer while the technical issues are being worked.
  
  As Mike (.110) said, all calls are tracked and accountable - hence the
  importance of the log number.  On the other hand, the comment 
  
  > ... and explain you logged a customer concern have not   
  > received a satisfactory response and want to escalate, ...
  
  isn't always the best thing to do ; the trouble with these Chinese whispers
  ("I know of a customer who says that ...") is that there is often a _major_
  disconnect with the real world so it would be more sensible (not to mention
  productive) to contact the engineer concerned *first* to determine how much
  of the version _you_ heard is true.  If you jump in and start screaming and
  shouting only to find that the truth is quite different,  I assure you that
  you'll not enjoy your "fan-coating" being returned to you [with interest!].
  
  Frank
  
  PS : Can Al & Eric please bicker off-line ... without any "encouragement"
       from the sidelines ?

    Re .117:
    
    > . . . unable to follow the continuity of my replies . . .
    
    One cannot follow what does not exist.  You have proven unable to do
    anything more than tell how you CURRENTLY operate, showing a complete
    lack of thought of how things could be different.  All you have given
    is stupid examples of what you CURRENTLY do, completely without
    explanation of why it MUST be done that way and not another.  What data
    is there in that to change anybody's mind?  None.  Nothing you have
    said demonstrates that customers will not respond well to informative
    explanations of how our products will suit them better than a
    competitor's.
    
    > Well, like I said, the group I manage helped close nearly $80M over the 
    > last three years.
    
    It's too bad you weren't doing the job right; we would have sold more
    then.
    
    > How much did you sell over the same period?
    
    Digital, because it is so blind to product quality, does not keep
    measurements on how product improvements, made by engineers, affect
    sales.  You can be quite sure that I, unlike you, pleased customers by
    providing what they really wanted and needed, not fluff like sales
    people.
    
    > If it's any of your business, my SAT scores were at the 95th
    > percentile.
    
    Which direction?
    
    > Apparently you didn't have your sarcasm radar on.
    
    Apparently you can't understand when you are being called stupid.
    
    > Ahh yes you, who have never sold a thing in your life, . . .
    
    Remember, it is FRIDAY that is make-up-a-fact-day, not Monday.  You're
    doing it all wrong.  Oh, I forgot, salespeople make up facts all the
    time.  Made-up facts enhance the "relationship".  Nevermind.
    
    > If I'm out to buy a car and my primary selection criteria is flexible
    > financing, how are you going to sell me a car if all you have to offer
    > is a large color selection?
    
    I'm glad you analogized your position to that of car salespeople -- the
    scum of the Earth.  I was considering it, but I thought comparing you
    to a slimy, mud-wallowing, unethical car salesperson would be too much.
    
    If a customer is looking for flexible financing, then that is a product
    to be sold to them.  If you have it, you sell it to them.  If you
    don't, you try to get it or see if you can sell them something you do
    have.  But car salespeople don't do that.  If they don't have what you
    want, they try to screw you anyway.  They play psychological and power
    games.  They manipulate and deceive.  Oh, it is clear now what the
    "relationship" you are talking about is -- manipulate the customer. 
    Play with their mind.  Keep them in the showroom; don't let them leave. 
    Make them wait.  Lie about "last offers".  Pretend to be on their side
    while you deal with "management" for them, while management and sales
    are really in collusion.  That is not a "relationship"; it is rape, and
    it is not ethical.         
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .122
    
    Al,
    
    Don't waste your time and energy in trying to reverse technical
    arrogance that is partially responsible for the problems that Digital
    is experiencing today.
    
    Keep your energies for the customer... it is a better investment.
    
    John

It really seems over the line to equate sales with rape.  

    
    
    	Correct me if I'm wrong but when you mean building a relationship
    	with a customer your not talking going out on weekends with the wife
    	and family but rather building a professional relationship whereby
    	the customer trusts you in the sense that he'll know he can call on
    	you to resolve any problems with the vendor ( us ) smoothly and
    	professionally without impacting his job or reputation. 
    
    	What I'm seeing happening in this note is that realtinoship is being
    	defined as the former rather than the latter.
    
    							Mike
    							----	 

>>    Smoozing with potential and actual customers is an important element of
>>    the selling process but it can hardly be the determining factor.  I
>>    have some friends that are sales people and I've never done business
>>    with most of them.  If I need a product or service and their product is
>>    inferior or unsuitable, it ALWAYS ends with "Sure he's a great guy and
>>    a lot of fun but I couldn't justify spending my money on his product. 
>>    The guy I did buy from is a turkey but boy his [insert product name] is
>>    great and it serves my purpose."
  

Let me preface this by stating tha I am a sales rep.  However, as a consumer
a don't generally like salesmen, especially car and real estate sales.  In 
fact, most of what Eric says about sales COULD apply if you look strictly
at consumer/retail sales.

That's the problem.  Most of negative things being said about (Digital) sales
reflects the author's experience in the retail space.  The corporate sales
environment is a world apart.  When I started carrying a bag after 12 years
as a (non-buying) user, I mistakenly thought the strengths of my product
would be sufficient to win sales.  Wrong.  Most, if not all, of my prospects
had long relationships with their current vendors, and weren't willing
to change just because I had a superior solution.  They didn't know me or
my company, and needed to develop that relationship before they could trust
me with their career.  Yes, career.  Because a wrong decision could be career
threatening.  So the vendor who could guarantee the success of the solution
(note I didn't say the BEST solution) usually won the business.  So while
buying a prospect lunch occasionally doesn't necessarily instill that trust,
it's one way to help build the relationship (yeah, that "R" word again) the
customer DEMANDS before committing to a new vendor.


    

    No wonder Digital is losing a fortune.  It seems that folks are
    so busy having a p---ing contest in this notes file that no work
    is getting done....Yes, I myself am on a very short break at the
    moment.  I read this file at lunch or after hours.  It appears that
    this benefit, meaning the notes files, could be a significant cost
    saver to the company in both productive time and money if it was 
    eliminated.  Not to ruffle anyones feathers, just think about it.

    Re .128

    Well some of us, no initials - no pack drill, can type very fast and
    come in early and do their noting before office hours.

    Jamie.

    Re: .117
    
    Right On Al! 
    
    EDP....wrong wrong wrong...
    
    
    Marc H.

    re .128
    
    And if we stifle the communication and discussion of the operation of
    this company, then we might as well contract the whole thing out to the
    military to manage. 
    
    q
    

    I wonder how long it will be before a certain person deletes all his
    notes in this topic?
    
    Laurie.

    Re .124:
    
    I did not equate sales with rape.  I made an analogy between certain
    unethical sales practices and rape.
    
    
    Re .125:
    
    > In his usual abrasive manner, BEING::EDP has unfortunately turned a
    > basically informative discussion into an angry, name calling battle. 
    > Equally unfortunately, KOZAKIEWICZ has fallen into the trap.
    
    I challenge you to point out any name calling by me in this discussion
    prior to Al Kozakiewicz's note .73:
    
         . . . an individual who doesn't have a clue . . .
    
         . . . his little sermon . . .
    
    	 . . . aforementioned ignorance . . .
    
    I didn't start any name calling; I just beat Al Kozakiewicz at the game
    he started.  In fact, most of my comments just turned his around.
    
    
    				-- edp

>    I didn't start any name calling; I just beat Al Kozakiewicz at the game
>    he started.  In fact, most of my comments just turned his around.

    Well, now we know why hiring college students is being considered. 
    Time for some maturity!  I feel like I am in overhearing a conversation
    in the school playground!
    
    -sandy
    

    RE the playground :  to some children, a spank on the behind, even if
    it hurts, is still attention.
    
    karl

    Hi, EDP.
    
    Say Hi! to Bruce, he's my bro-in-law.
    
    A little advice, from one engineer who'e learning the selling game by
    making all of the BIG mistakes.
    
    DON'T SELL!
    
    I can just see it:
    
    EDP:	Well, your Honor, that is quite an impressive proposal from
    		ABC, but I think that we should cover oe key technical
    		point.  (What follows is a concise, correct, articulate and
    		thorough discussion of the "two phase commit" requirements
    		for hizzonner's system and how ABC doesn't fill that need.
    		The description is paced and pitched so that the Chief
    		Judge actually understands and appreciates it.)
    
    (Two days later, on the golf course.)
    
    Judge:	You know Bill, EDP brought up some serious points about
    		those two-phased-commit problems of yours....
    
    ABC Rep:	(Shocked incredulity) What two-phased-commit problems, 
    		Henry?
    
    Judge:	Well, EDP was telling me about how your database needed 
    		a whole different application and monitor environment, just
    		to be able to perform this simple task, and....
    
    ABC Rep:	Whoa, wait a minute there Henry, this system is anything but
    		simple.  And ABC take a very different architectural
    		approach to these kinds of transaction systems.  We've 
    		included that piece of functioality as a separate function
    		for some very good technical reasons, which my staff has
    		explained to your staff, and they seem quite happy with it.
    
    Judge:	Well, EDP was pretty convincing about how you would have to
    		charge me more to include the functionality.
    
    ABC Rep:	Look, Henry, I thought that we had agreed to treat this
    		project as a soup-to-nuts deal, and that you weren't 
    		going to nickel-and-dime us to death on the details.
    
    Judge:	Sure, sure, but...
    
    ABC Rep:	Then why are you beating me up on the technical details?
    		Especially based on the say-so of a yum-yum like EDP.
    
    Judge:	What do you mean?
    
    ABC Rep:	I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure that this is
    		same character who gets on the INTERNET and abuses so
    		many people all the time.  (The conversation, in between
    		sandtrap cursing, drifts towards the legality of
    		restricting nastiness and abuse in public-access
    		conferences.  The judge is quite interested, especially in
    		the first ammendment implications.  As an examlple, just
    		for the judge to consider, purely as a scholarly excercise,
    		several really sarcastic, abusive replies, which, of course
    		have had the headers removed are forwarded to the judge.)
    
    Guess what EDP?  The ABC rep has positioned you, in the eyes of the judge,
    as an overbearing, loudmouthed, jerk.  You will NEVER have the chance
    to demonstrate the technical superiority of anything to him, ever
    again.  Just pray you never pull him for a case.
    
    You won't be able to fight this tactic, because you will not have
    established a relationship with the judge.
    
    You will lose.
    
    I agree, it is totally unethical behaviour.  It is also typical.
    
    thomas
    
    (And I will not let you jump on the obvious EDP-response of: "So I'm
    supposed to impune the ABC rep's character?"  No.  That is an actionable
    infraction of our P&P's.  You are expected to develop and maintain a
    relationship of personal trust with your customer, by ethical means. 
    You are expected to use that relationship to gain access to the
    decision-making levels of your customer's company, and when there
    obtain an opportunity to recieve a fair hearing of your proposals.)
    

    Re .137 :
    
    I love it.
       
    If that was Act 1 scene 1 when are we going to get the rest of
    the play?
    
    Ken

    Ken,
    
    replace-all <EDP> ; <TQUINN>
    
    Gosh, how my burned hand still hurts!
    
    thomas
    
    (But I's a tad smartur, now!)
    

    
    
    The replies from Mr shoes and Mr monkey should be deleted from this
    topic.  They contain personal attacks.  
    
    Lets be consistant.
    
    Jon

    I got the following apropos COOKIE when I logged in tonight:
    
    "It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the
    problem."
    
    Eric, have you requested and read Gene Haag's COPS post-mortem yet? 
    
    Al
    

    Please see THEBAY::JOYOFLEX 957.1, with thanks to SMURF::CALIPH::binder 
    
    (Press KP7 to add the above conference to your NOTES$NOTEBOOK)
    
    :-)
    

Returning to the rathole of PC repair; my Mac Powerbook had a problem with
its trackball.

Phone to 800-SOS-APPL.  Two touch-tone presses and a few minutes waiting
for a human. The human takes down the information and says that they'll
send out a shipping carton to arrive on Monday (I called Friday).

Next day air brings a shipping carton, return authorization, and paperwork.
(I was out of the office on Monday, so the hardware was shipped out Tuesday).
The Powerbook was returned the following Monday in perfect working order.

No charge (one-year warranty).

OK, the purchaser is paying for this quality service, but -- the important
point is -- the customer is getting value for the money.

Now, I don't doubt for a moment that Apple has fouled up an order now
and then; but it's never happened to me.

Martin.

    
    
    AL:  I hope there're more professional sales reps like yourself
         in the field.  I was with HP sales support for 7+ yrs (one wears
         the equiv. DEC presales + EIS + EdServ hat, which means apart from
         understandsing your solutions and their BENEFITS to the CUSTOMER,
         you must BUILD and MAINTAIN QUALITY relationships with them.  I do
         appreciate your acute understanding/appreciation of this matter.
    
    EDP: First I do not know you from Adam.  However from your fiery
         responses, I can only conclude that you do not KNOW or understand
         what professional selling is about, beyond that of your experience
         perhaps with retail selling.  Not the same thing, I'm afraid.
    
    Bottom Line:
        merely having superior products built without understanding
        customer requirements, and then NOT being able to relate customer's 
        business problems to the benefits of said products certainly
        has sunk many a deal.  Of course absence of QUALITY, market-driven  
        products simply make the job harder, if not impossible.
    
    Suggestion to EDP:How about actually participating in a sale call?
                        make sure that customer/prospect sensitivity
                        swich is set at MAXIMUM though!
    
    		-ashikin

    Re .144

    >Suggestion to EDP:How about actually participating in a sale call?

    Aren't we hemorrhaging money fast enough?

    Jamie.

    Perhaps EDP would care to explain how he sells Nintendo games to small
    children of a Saturday. I'm sure that would give us insight into his
    strange notions as regards Sales.
    
    Laurie.

    Re .137:
    
    Digital:	Your honor, I told you about the technical issues right
    		up from.  I was honest and open with you from the
    		beginning and laid out the issues so you could see them
    		and judge for yourself.  I did not cover up details or
    		blindside you with character assassination.  Who can you
    		trust to provide you with the better system?
    
    Guess what, Thomas?  The ABC representative has positioned themself as
    a posturer, an irrational and unethical person.  The judge, who is very
    experienced in separating the wheat from the chaff, can recognize that. 
    ABC will NEVER have the chance to demonstrate the technical superiority
    of anything to him, ever again.  Just pray they never pull him for a
    case.
    
    Our customers are not simpletons who can be hypnotized by the
    psychological crap salespeople try to pull.
    
    
    				-- edp

    It is my sad duty to inform you that Laurie won't be contributing to
    this topic any more. EDP has forwarded note 1822.146 to PLAYER::SYSTEM,
    with copies to his manager, and Ron Glover, with a request that
    PLAYER::SYSTEM puts a stop to "it". 

    Jamie.

       <<< Note 1822.149 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Kinnock does it again!" >>>
                          -< EDP has done it again. >-

>    It is my sad duty to inform you that Laurie won't be contributing to
>    this topic any more. EDP has forwarded note 1822.146 to PLAYER::SYSTEM,
>    with copies to his manager, and Ron Glover, with a request that
>    PLAYER::SYSTEM puts a stop to "it". 

     Why?

     Stuart

    Re .150

    When EDP decides that you have attacked him, called him names or got
    the better of him then he mails the SYSTEM account of the node that you
    note from demanding that your system manager forwards his complaint to
    your supervisor.

    If you persist in getting up his nose he will eventually get you
    stopped from noting entirely. I should also warn you that he is a bit
    indiscriminate with his barrage of complaints and poor old Jamie Badman
    caught a fair bit of flack because we share a common first name.

    First Amendment? EDP?

    Don't make me laugh.

    Jamie.

  <<< Note 1822.151 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "It's Hallmark's `buy a card' day!" >>>

    Re .150

>    When EDP decides that you have attacked him, called him names or got
>    the better of him then he mails the SYSTEM account of the node that you
>    note from demanding that your system manager forwards his complaint to
>    your supervisor.

>    If you persist in getting up his nose he will eventually get you
>    stopped from noting entirely. I should also warn you that he is a bit
>    indiscriminate with his barrage of complaints and poor old Jamie Badman
>    caught a fair bit of flack because we share a common first name.

>    First Amendment? EDP?

>    Don't make me laugh.

>    Jamie.


Thanks for the explaination.

Stuart

    RE: .140
    
    Absolutly not! These responses should be read throughout DEC.
    I for one learned a lot.
    
    Marc H.

What happens if you're your own system manager?

    
    
    re. -.153
    
    
    Someone got the point.....
    
    Jon
    

    For those of you who are annoyed with "EDP" using initials, he is
    listed that way in ELF...along with his full name.  

Why would anybody be annoyed with the use of initials? A number of noters
use them...
I'll tell you what is annoying.....
That Eric gets so much damn press!
Who cares any more what he thinks, says, does or doesn't do?
I liked the bantering between Al and Eric because it gave Al a chance to 
educate me in the ways of sales, at least here at DEC.
But, when the discussion got down to the level where words like "stupid"
and "ignorant" started to be used then it became 'old'.
Unfortunatly, the whole scenario was sooooo predictable from the start.
First points and counterpoints whould be exchanged, then the exchange would 
degrade to name calling. Eric's opponent would then end the discussion because 
of being unable to get Eric to exchange reasonable views. Finally, the "I hate
Eric" crowd whould jump in and prod Eric. The final phase is when Eric sends
one of his infamous memos to someone's system manager and supervisor.
This is then followed by indignation by those affected.

I think that the final two phases are *very* childish, and all parties should
grow up! I originally thought that it was *all* Eric's doing but, its not!
If Laurie Brown has had problems like this with Eric before, which I believe
he has, why does he enter notes like the one that prompted Eric to "do it again"?
I read the note again and think it was written to just provoke Eric...
So, I do not believe that Eric is entirerly to blame.

- George

    Re .157
    
    George,
    	I agree with your position.  I was entertained, for a while, but
    knew what was about to transpire.  When it did, I grew tired very
    quickly.
    
    	I disagreed with Al on how sales worked, but respected his position
    none the less.  I tend to agree more with EDP, than not, but have
    decided, I don't appreciate how he handles the conflicts.  I don't
    know if I could handle them any better though.  It does appear that he
    gets attacked, and attacked more than anyone else I have seen.  Does he
    deserve it?  I can't answer that.
    
    	EDP has done a few things that have upset me, like writelock some
    notes.  I don't know if I would have done the same in his situation or
    not.  Now these actions seem to me, to be a little immature, but that
    is JMO.
    
    	On the other hand, I see quite a few others picking on, and at EDP. 
    I get very tired of it.  He is entitled to his opinion just as everyone
    else is.  Give the guy a break.  Let him have his say.  If you
    disagree, and you aren't getting anywhere, STOP DEBATING HIM...  What's
    he gonna do, talk to himself?  Anything else is being abusive, and
    childish.
    
    Now I've done it, I just insulted both sides.  Go ahead and beat me to
    death.  I just had to get this out.
    
    Jim Morton
    

    re: .158, Jim Morton

    If you'll permit, it's occurred to me that I ought to clarify
    something.  That 'other person' follows a rather predictable noting
    stratagem; namely, back your opponent into defending an extreme
    position which is an exaggerated parody of the original viewpoint.  I'm 
    not sure I managed to escape that one, so for benefit of all save one 
    individual, let me reiterate a few key points.

    The original position put forth was, roughly, building relationships is
    a poor way of selling; we should be selling product strengths and
    benefits.  My fear is that in defending relationship building (and the
    lowly act of buying a customer or prospect lunch) my viewpoint has been
    twisted to mean that product selling is unimportant.  Nothing could be
    further from the truth.  Trust me that systems sales is a highly
    evolved art, and that getting most of todays marketplace to plunk down
    $500K and up for a solution is a tad more involved than just picking up 
    the tab for lunch or demonstrating the products.

    The reality is that both kinds of selling are employed in tandem in
    virtually every opportunity we work, often at different levels.  It
    depends upon the kind of customer.  The more technical customers will
    place greater importance on the technical excellence of the product. 
    Commercial, service and manufacturing customers are looking for other
    things.
    
    The technical end-user or OEM is probably an extreme example of a customer 
    who buys almost exclusively on the basis of product features and price.  
    The market has shaken out to where it's a commodity sell: competing 
    products are incresingly less differentiated and the customer shows 
    little interest in buying the kinds of value-added services Digital does 
    well.  On top of it all, competition continues to drive the price down 
    to the point of zero margins.  Digital prefers to sell to customers of 
    this type through more efficient channels than its account (end-user)
     selling teams: volume reps or distributors.  
    
    It's also important to point out that the technical end-user (e.g. 
    engineering departments) that the account selling teams still service
    (because they are part of a larger account, for example) has been 
    declining steadily as a percentage of our total business volume since I 
    joined DEC 10 years ago.  Our customers aren't predominated by engineers 
    and scientists anymore.

    Almost everywhere else in the spectrum of clients, product features are 
    rarely the _deciding_ criteria (how else can you explain the sales of RdB,
    hyuk :^) ). With our manufacturing, service and other commercial
    customers, the ability to become a trusted 'partner' as opposed to
    systems vendor assumes greater importance.  The products are still
    important, and we sell them to the appropriate levels in the customers
    organization (i.e. 'recommendors'), but the decision-makers are looking 
    for commitment. That doesn't come from product demonstrations (would
    that it were so), that comes from people selling themselves to other 
    people.

    I'd like to point out also that I am not a sales rep.  I am a PSSM
    (Product and Services Sales Manager), which is a warmed-over title for
    Sales Support Manager.  I'm in the Sales organization.  My boss is an 
    Account Group Manager. My group's internal customers are sales reps and 
    sales managers.  We work very closely here in Albany, much closer than
    most other account groups, which contributes directly (I believe)
    to our success.  I get measured on product and services revenue, which
    tends to get me focused on business as much as technical excellence. So 
    when the technical support guy suggests it takes more than product selling 
    to be successful, maybe he ain't just wistlin' Dixie!

    I received the following from my personnel consultant (of all people!).
    It rings true to me.  Note especially items 6, 8, 12, 13, and 30-34.

********************************************************************************
                   33 SUCCESS FACTORS FOR SOFTWARE COMPANIES
                       Software and System Integration
********************************************************************************

	1.  Introduce a New Market Strategy every two (2) years
	2.  Cut costs every two (2) years
	3.  Products that require the "Missionary" sell have long sales
	    cycles and short lives
	4.  Never invest in real estate
	5.  Find ways around the system to get things done
	6.  Good references are the key to selling software
	7.  Avoid investment in the Black Hole
	8.  Marketing is a science and has more leverage to the success
	    of the product than just technology and functionality
	9.  Realize that the media is the message
	10. Hire and promote people with good judgment
	11. Invest in good information systems
	12. All business must be conducted with integrity
	13. People buy from people they like and respect
	14. Never attempt a turn-around without a team you know
	15. Simple business: cost per employee must be less than revenue
	    per employee
	16. When you cut -- make sure you cut enough, evaluate what is 
	    critical, and what is nice to have
	18. Don't push products out the door before their time
	19. Communicate both your company's message and your product strategy
	20. Never be in love with a number or a strategy
	21. Focus on customers and prospects
	22. Quality starts with the specification and so does testing
	23. Save cash, cash and more cash
	24. Who you invest with is more important that what you invest in
	25. Know your competition and their strengths, remember --
	    it's a war out there
	26. The three most important measurements to success

	    -- Time to Market
	    -- Time to Profitability
	    -- Margin

	27. Pricing is a competitive strategy
	28. Distribution is the most difficult and, increasingly, the
	    most expensive part of delivering a product to market
	29. Understand the natural forces of the industry and align
	    the products to address that part of the industry
	30. Always understand who is the buyer and what is the
	    buying criteria
	31. Customers cannot set your strategy...they don't invent
	    technology
	32. Customers' first buying criteria is, "Do you understand
	    my problem?"
	33. Customers' second buying criteria is, "Will you make me
	    successful?"
	34. Customers' third buying criteria is, "What kind of
	    company are you to do business with?"

    Al

    In all this debate between Mr. Kozakiewicz and EDP, I think something
    important has been missed by EDP and not stated by Mr. Kozakiewicz. In
    fact, it was EDP's scenario which helped me realize this.
    
    Most of the products by us and by our competitors will do the job. Any
    technical decision can be defended. Therefore, the customer will buy
    from the person he feels he can trust the most. This is where
    "relationship building" comes in. The <name of competitor>'s product
    may be technically inferior, but, if the customer trusts their salesman
    more, he will buy their product. Sales people have to be people the
    customers can trust, and this takes a "relationship". Dinners, boat
    rides, etc., are not bribes; they allow conditions in which sales
    people and customers can build up a sense of mutual trust, without the
    pressure of trying to make a sale. When the customer has to decide who
    to believe, this relationship pays off.
    
    One of our competitors is VERY good at this; I think they could sell
    sand in the desert. We have not caught up to them yet, but our
    technically superior products alone are not doing the job. We have to
    have customers believe our sales force. Then, and only then, will our
    technical superiority be believed by customers. 
    
    One final note. Studebakers were technically superior to most other
    automobiles of their time. They had disk brakes and turbochargers
    before their competition. Anyone been to a Studebaker dealership
    lately? I've had a lot of trouble finding one. Technical superiority
    alone will not sell a product.
    

    Al,
    
    	I took no offense about our disagreements.  I do understand your
    point.  I think I only entered 2 notes stating my feelings, addressing
    your comments.  I felt that should be MORE than sufficient.  I have no
    problem with your view.  It just happens that I have a different view.
    
    	My note .158, was to address the bickering between several people
    and EDP.  It had nothing to do with, how sales should work.  My
    personal feeling about what what went on, is very negative.  I hope
    that those who choose to use notes become responsible, so as not to
    fight, when they disagree.
    
    That was my only point,
    Jim Morton

    Jim,
    
    No offense taken at all!  It was just an opportunity to summarize in
    response to someone who seemed unlikely to parse my note into
    elementary particles and attack the syntax.
    
    Al
    

    Al,
    Re the following;
    
    >                          It was just an opportunity to summarize in
    >response to someone who seemed unlikely to parse my note into
    >elementary particles and attack the syntax.
    
    Wow!  When I TRY to talk like that, my wife beats me up.  :-)
    Jim Morton
    

    
    The side debate in this topic of how to succeed in relationship
    building has been very interesting to me. I've been in Sales in a
    variety of companies, had gangs of sales staff, & am now in Marketing
    in DEC.
    
    Many, many, years ago I was senior in a large airline. We bought IBM --
    often $300m in a year. I was a business guy, running an operational
    function. IBM would invite my peers & I from a variety of airlines to a
    working lunch. Usual thing -- 1145 aperitif, 1215 eat, 1245 up stands
    an acknowledged industry expert brought in from wherever, world-wide. 
    Said expert talks to this senior bunch of airline folk about a major 
    airline issue -- deregulation, takeovers, yield manipulation -- you 
    name the subject.
    
    At no time does he mention computing, never mind a product. Senior
    IBM-er stands up, thanks speaker, tells the assembled host (40 folk)
    that we will all be invited to the next Airline Interest Group in 3-4 
    months time -- at lunch as usual. He may take no more than 2-3 minutes
    -- literally -- to describe a really major IBM initiative. He may not.
    
    I guarantee to you that all 40 came back, & that in the meantime they
    were telling all their corporate colleagues how good is was to work
    with IBM as a company who really understood their industry.
    
    BTW, almost none of the attendees had the slightest interest in
    product. We all had chaps who did that bit. Most of us defined the
    original business need, put up the budget, & signed the purchase 
    authorisation at the end of the study .... or otherwise!
    
    I was in Sales at that time. Learned a lot from IBM, & from Tandem --
    another smart bunch in their chosen markets. As someone said earlier,
    other folk have been building this credibility as a business partner
    for many years......  
    
    Colin

    I was once told that there were two important groups within a company.
    One designed/made the product the other sold it. The rest of us are
    just there to help these groups do their job.

    Jamie.

    
    In and out of the fray.
    
    Al is right.  Relationship is probably the determining factor and will
    become more and more important as the products in our industry become
    more and more a commodity.  When was the last time anyone was able to
    make the rounds of auto dealerships and make real, substantive,
    evaluations of the different offerings!  Tell me, what's the difference
    between a Cadillac and a Lincoln Town Car?  Not enough, I say, to
    determine whether one is superior to the other.  Most of us buy a car
    from a dealership that we feel comfortable with.
    
    Anyone remember the poster that was around a number of years ago that
    listed the reason why customers change vendors?  I think it was
    produced by services.  Far and away, the most common reason had
    *nothing* to do with product!  It was that a customer feels unvalued
    and disrespected by the vendor i.e. when the vendor doesn't understand
    that maintaining a good relationship with the customer is more
    important than *anything* else.
    
    Think about yourself as a customer.  I'll quicker stop doing business
    with someone who leaves me feeling used, abused, or not respected than
    for any other reason and there are *no* second chances for them in my
    book.
    
    Steve
    

    From my own experience, when I buy something, I evaluate three major
    things, in order of importance:
    
    1. Image of the company - reputable, sound, fair, service-oriented, 
       concerned, supportive, "green", etc.
    
    2. Image of the salesperson - well-mannered, articulate, knowledgeable,
       concerned about me as an individual, confidence that s/he won't
       abandon me after the sale, etc.
    
    3. Image of the product - technology, bells and whistles, quality,
       reliability, well-designed, etc.
    
    Now, if 1 and 2 are equal, then 3 becomes the differentiating factor. 
    If 1 or 2 are not equal, then 3 doesn't enter into the decision.  A
    strong 2 could compensate for a weaker 1, however, assuming that both
    3s are basically equal.  I suspect that most non-techno wizards (read, 
    most customers in our market space) buy product this way.  I suspect 
    that the order may be reversed for the techno-wizard!
    
    So, people, both Al and edp have valid points - depending upon one's
    frame of reference.  I personally feel that the 1-2-3 process is most
    prevalent in our market space.  I also feel that the DEC salesforce 
    may be hampered by the fact that item 1 (company image) is not widely 
    known (read, off the existing DEC base).  Not so for IBM (and others).
    
    IMHO,
    Dick.

   Re:      <<< Note 1822.167 by GIAMEM::MUMFORD "Dick Mumford, DTN 244-7809" >>>

>    From my own experience, when I buy something, I evaluate three major
>    things, in order of importance:
    
>    1. Image of the company - reputable, sound, fair, service-oriented, 
>       concerned, supportive, "green", etc.
    
>    2. Image of the salesperson - well-mannered, articulate, knowledgeable,
>       concerned about me as an individual, confidence that s/he won't
>       abandon me after the sale, etc.
    
>    3. Image of the product - technology, bells and whistles, quality,
>       reliability, well-designed, etc.

   My priorities come out differently.  Let me give examples in
   the field of "transportation".
   
      1. Does the product satisfy my perceived need 
         (not "nice-to-haves")?  I won't go looking at
         convertibles if what I think I need is a 4x4.
      
      2. My judgement of the salesperson - I too won't do
         business with someone I don't trust - but I can buy a
         Buick (say) from many different salesmen, even in the
         same dealership.
      
      3. What I perceive is value equivalent to cost.  I once
         decided not to buy any model of VW when I found that
         the cost differential for a radio was $500.  I believed
         that they were charging me too much for ALL the options
         based on the evidence of the radio.
      
      4. Any characteristic of the company that made or designed
         the product.  I can't tell the difference between
         Toyota, Nissan, and Honda as companies.  They are all
         just names.
         
   Now, admittedly, the mass consumer market is not the same as
   the industrial market.  But, I have a big question about
   relationship selling.  
   
   Do any of you belong to a professional purchasing
   organization?  If you do, you may recognize in "relationship
   selling" what smells like a violation of professional ethics
   (at least on the part of the purchasing agent).
   
   I think that what "turns some people off" about "relationship
   selling" is the conflict with what they believe are
   professional purchasing ethics.  
   
   An analogous question is the following: Should we (Digital) pay
   off customs officials in those countries where such bribery
   is common?  We are really facing here a conflict of values
   that deserves much more thought than the "relationship" vs
   "product" simplification suggests.
   
fwiw,

   Dick

    reply .168
    
    <relationship selling conflicts with professional purchasing ethics ?> 
    
    With respect this is harking back to the concept that "relationship
    selling" is bribery and corruption.  It is not.  It is the building of
    a 2-way trust relationship.
    
    For 5 years I sold to a major telecoms company, and negotiated
    multi-million dollar contracts with their purchasing people.  Those 
    purchasing people wereamong the most professional I have met in 
    30 years or so in the business.  They had to be, they spent upwards 
    of $6 billion each year of their company's money and could afford the
    best people.
    
    The senior Purchasing management recognised there was as much value to
    them in creating a good relationship with their vendors as there was to
    the vendors.  They took an active part in creating and maintaining
    those relationships, by instituting regular one-on-one Vendor Forums,
    by taking time to visit Digital in various parts of the world to see
    our facilities and meet our management to understand us better. They
    also reciprocating our hospitality by inviting our management to visit 
    and understand their company better.
    
    The negotiations were just as tough, if not tougher because we
    understood more about each other's companies and the nature of people 
    sitting the other side of the negotiating table.  However, we had both 
    managed to get to that negotiating table successfully.  We also trusted
    each other to help solve eventual problems that the contract had not
    covered.
    
    The result was good, long-term business for both Digital and this
    customer.
    
    Professional "relationship selling" works and involves neither bribery
    nor corruption. Regrettably those who think it does, have either not
    been there or not have experienced professional relationship selling.
    
    John
    
    
    

    Re .159:
    
    > With our manufacturing, service and other commercial customers, the
    > ability to become a trusted 'partner' as opposed to systems vendor
    > assumes greater importance.  The products are still important, and we
    > sell them to the appropriate levels in the customers organization (i.e.
    > 'recommendors'), but the decision-makers are looking  for commitment.
    
    You aren't distinguishing here between a sales relationship and a
    corporate relationship.  A commitment from the manufacturer is a
    corporate relationship, a promise to support the customer and not to
    leave them hanging with an obsolete product.  That's a valid thing to
    sell.  In essence, it is a product with value, because it actually
    affects a customer's business:  If they get support in the future, they
    can continue to do business.  Without it, they have to spend money to
    fix the lack of support or fail.
    
    But a sales relationship is fluff.  It doesn't affect the customer's
    business, so it has no value.  And that's what I have attacked,
    regardless of your misinterpretation.
    
    Although you have repeatedly said building a relationship with the
    customer is necessary, you have never given the slightest evidence that
    it must be done -- the few examples you gave were only examples of
    CURRENT PRACTICE; you never gave any indication of knowledge of what
    would happen if a DIFFERENT TECHNIQUE were attempted.  Thus, your
    examples do not make any comparison that demonstrates your choice is
    better than another.
                                         
    Like many sales people, you have given us fluff without evidence or
    reasoning that would cause a rational person to change their opinion.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .166:
    
    > When was the last time anyone was able to make the rounds of auto
    > dealerships and make real, substantive, evaluations of the different
    > offerings!
    
    Why, it was the last time I bought a car, of course.  A subscription to
    _Consumer Reports_ will pay you back manyfold.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Anent .147:  Eric, the world view reflected in this note, which you
    suggest as a more likely outcome to the scenario posted in .137, is
    breathtakingly far from the norm!  In fact, it reminds me of Mike
    Dukakis in 1988, answering Pledge-of-Allegiance attacks on his
    patriotism by talking about the weak Constitutional law background of
    George Bush, and answering a question about the rape and murder of his
    wife with his standard, bloodless spiel about law and order.  
    
    I would agree that your scenario represents an ideal situation, but is
    it feasible? Would the judge, or any customer, reject character
    assassination for sweet reason?  Mr. Dukakis never thought the
    electorate would swallow what was being dished out, but he was rolled
    over.  (I say this as someone who voted for the man.)  I think if you
    were the Digital salesman, you would never even know what hit you. 
    It's not like you'd be in the foursome, hearing the attacks on your
    character, right?
    
    Also, the sales technique you propose may work when you have the
    superior product.  What if it's about the same?  What if it's inferior?
    I suspect a lot of the hype you object to comes from sales
    professionals trying to earn commissions on inferior products.  I can't
    call that unethical, and I know Digital makes at least some inferior
    products!  (Maybe our probelm is that we aren't fighting *dirty*
    enough!)
    
    Don't hold up H-P as a beacon of truthful salesmanship.  In the product
    area I'm familiar with, we have the superior product, and they -- no, I
    can't finish the sentence, except to say you'd be as disgusted as we
    are.
    
    Customers are not simpletons.  But where are the salespeople who are
    not "playing the game"?  If that strategy would be so successful, don't
    you think someone would have stumbled onto it and succeeded by now?
    No, even when the product is superior, and that's not very often, I
    remain dubious about your idealistic approach.

>    Like many sales people, you have given us fluff without evidence or
>    reasoning that would cause a rational person to change their opinion.
    
    I cannot take an easy shot at someone who paints such a large target
    upon themself!
    
>    But a sales relationship is fluff.  It doesn't affect the customer's
>    business, so it has no value.  And that's what I have attacked,
>    regardless of your misinterpretation.
    
    And therein lies the essence of your ignorance.  For our end-user
    customers (the reason we have a direct sales force), the sales rep IS
    Digital and is the person held accountable for our collective
    performance, as well as being the person who takes virtually all the
    personal risk if we don't deliver.  If you have ambitions for your career 
    at Digital, you should at some point sign up for a hitch in a Field
    organization.  You really need to correct your misconception of what it
    is we do out here.  The moneys not for nothing and the chicks aren't
    free.
    
    As for the rest, you're making two fundamental errors.  One is assuming
    that we don't already employ a number of selling techniques, geared toward 
    individual customers and opportunities.  Two is that you've thought of 
    something that has never occurred to any of the 8,000 people in the U.S. 
    Sales organization.  This isn't a court of law or a scientific 
    dissertation.  I don't really feel that it's necessary to produce formal 
    evidence of why removing relationship building as a sales tool wouldn't
    work - it's patently obvious to those who have to deal with the
    consequences every day. 
    
    Is there really any point in continuing this?
    
    Al
    

    Re .175:
    
    >>    But a sales relationship is fluff.  It doesn't affect the customer's
    >> business, so it has no value.  And that's what I have attacked,
    >> regardless of your misinterpretation.
    >
    > And therein lies the essence of your ignorance.  For our end-user
    > customers (the reason we have a direct sales force), the sales rep IS
    > Digital and is the person held accountable for our collective
    > performance, as well as being the person who takes virtually all the
    > personal risk if we don't deliver.
    
    That's a non sequitur.  Telling us the sales representative "is"
    Digital doesn't tell us why Digital must give the customer fluff.
    
    > One is assuming that we don't already employ a number of selling
    > techniques, geared toward  individual customers and opportunities.
    
    I made no such assumption; that is something that appears in your
    notes, not mine.  I merely criticized one inappropriate sales
    technique.
    
    > Two is that you've thought of  something that has never occurred to
    > any of the 8,000 people in the U.S.  Sales organization.
    
    So, it occurred to you?  Did you actually conduct a search for a person
    who has the requisite skills to sell properly using rational techniques
    and then hire that person and give them a try-out?  Here's another
    idea:  Keep track of customers who buy a superior product versus those
    who buy after fancy sales treatment.  Then see where those customers
    are five years down the line -- who did better.  Are you willing to try
    a new idea?  Maybe we will find out, as I suggested, that the more
    rational customer does better business and becomes the better customer
    later on.
    
    > This isn't a court of law or a scientific  dissertation.  I don't
    > really feel that it's necessary to produce formal  evidence . . .
    
    Formal evidence?  How about _any_ evidence?  You challenged a statement
    I made; it is therefore reasonable for me to ask you to support your
    challenge.  So far, you have failed.
    
    > Is there really any point in continuing this?
    
    You already promised once to stop.  But I am accustomed to sales people
    who do not deliver what they promise.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .176 and the authors other comments...
    
    Regarding your comment about buying cars and referencing a copy of
    "Consumers Report", well pick up Digital News, UNIX Today, IEEE Journal
    or any other such literature and read it as a potential customer.
    
    Guess what conculsion you would draw....
    
    More bang for your buck...
    	More market share....
    		Better Quality....
    
    			Buy SUN or HP or IBM but not DEC!
    
    Now if we left our sales up to those kinds of sales tools we would all
    be looking for work. The sales force when it works correctly cultivates
    a relationship with a customer, built upon mutual trust and
    understanding. When you have such a relationship people buy from you
    even when your product may fall short is some aspects or other. 
    
    It really pains me when people attack the sales force for doing "sales"
    things. Granted the $30M stuff was wrong is most cases, at least on the
    surface, but do not attack the art of selling becasue of the actions of
    a few.
    
    How many times does a consumer buy a car from the same dealer or sales
    person? The comparison just will not wash. Why don't you come out of
    your safe little world and join the field sales force for a year or
    two?
    
    One of two things will happen - 
    
    	1. You will change your opinion 
    
    	or
    
    	2. You will help change the way sales are done.
    
    FJK - (Sales Support Consultant - 5yrs)
    	  (Customer for 10yrs before that)

    Re .177:
    
    > Guess what conculsion you would draw...
    > 			Buy SUN or HP or IBM but not DEC!

    > . . . The sales force when it works correctly cultivates
    > a relationship with a customer, built upon mutual trust and
    > understanding.
    
    I love it -- you call it "trust" when we are really selling them
    inferior products.  That's not my idea of trust.  A salesperson who had
    gained my trust and then sold me an inferior product would lose it
    completely, never to regain it.
    
    > Now if we left our sales up to those kinds of sales tools we would all
    > be looking for work.
    
    There's another possibility.  When its products are inferior, a company
    shouldn't turn to "those kinds of sales tools".  Instead, it should
    invest in making its products better.  Failing to do so is the mistake
    Digital has made.  We're not keeping up with technology, we're not
    hiring college graduates with new ideas and the latest skills, we're
    not investing in making good new products instead of patching the old. 
    Digital is mostly trying to sell what it's got, and it's not working.
    
    
    				-- edp

    What I learned while being instructed in how to conduct myself at
    DECworld:
    
    	"80% of the way people remember your company is by the
    	BEHAVIOR of your booth personnel."
    
    This was followed up with the reminder that we are making products
    that can be pretty much matched elsewhere, so our attitude is what
    really makes the difference.
    
    						Ann B.

    EDP,
    
    Your picture of reasonably addressing the judge's concern will never
    occur.  You will never have the opportunity to speak with the judge
    again.  Also, judging (Gawk! What a pun.) from your tone, I would say
    that you would try REALLY hard to get that interview.  And the harder
    you tried, the more the judge would become convinced that you were an
    "unesireable" business partner.
    
    thomas
    

    EDP,
    
    Another concern that I have with your position is that you base all of
    your reasoning upon the sale of a PRODUCT, the performance of which can
    be measured in some real terms.
    
    I work for a practice, as a consultant, and I am expected to sell and
    deliver my own self, and nothing else, to the tune of AT LEAST $185 per
    hour.  I deliver Business Needs Analysis, System Requirements, Workflow
    Analysis, etc.  Please observe two aspects of what I sell
    
    First, I am being paid some extremely serious money to, basically, tell
    the customer that, where, and how he is screwed up.  In order to get
    away with this AND GET PAID FOR IT, TOO, the consultant must develop a
    relationship of trust with the client.  Personal time is absolutely
    required for this to occur.
    
    Second, you will note that the deliverables mentioned are all "soft"
    items.  No one can "benchmark" a needs analysis.  It just have to "make
    good business sense" to the customer's senior management, and they have
    to "feel good" about the follow-on reccommendations.  The best way to
    ensure that this happens is to deliver, in the written document, only
    information which you have already reviewed with the customer's senior
    management, and which they have approved.  The reality of American
    business is that is is EXTREMELY rare for a Director or VP to have such
    politically charged discussion "on the clock" or "in the office."  The
    golf course (trade show, ball game, etc.) is the only opportunity that
    one has to "pre-qualify" observations, analyses, or reccommenations, so
    that you don't get shot down "in committee."
    
    Therefore, your contention that "entertainment expense" is not a valid
    business expense is one that, if followed, would not allow Digital to
    pursue consulting/system integration business effectively.
    
    thomas 
    

     This discussion has done an excellent job of summing up the engineering
     types vs marketing types problem in DEC. Until recently DEC leaned on
     the engineering side. I could remember the days when VT100's had 6-8
     month order cycles cause we couldn't make em fast enough. You don't need
     marketing when all your products are flying out the door. Also in the old
     days a major share of our market was OEM's, you were dealing with other
     companies techies.

     That's all changed.

     The days of products selling themselves are longgone. The edge between
     two different companies products are so small that they all can do the job.

     I can babble on and on, anyone else see the pbs series on computers, good
     section on the start of commercial computing, Remington Rand's Univac was the
     better computer then IBM's. But IBM better understood the market,
     people had been using punched cards (Univac was magtape, IBM - punch cards)
     AND IBM's great sales force had already been selling these people all of the
     punch card equipment and knew and understood what the customers needs
     were. In less then three years over 1000 were installed and IBM was #1 and
     never looked back.

     Another whole rathole, is if you have ever read anything on how
     Japan does business, personal relationships are everything, they want to
     know who your are and understand if you're someone they want to do
     business with before you're even allowed to discuss what you're selling.
     One (only one there are lots of other real reasons) why US companies have
     trouble getting in.



     Selling today.

     Business has split between informed buyers, who know what they
     want (we're starting to get this business also with new 800-PC direct
     sales).

     And those who could care less and even don't like computers but have a
     problem and want a cost effective solution and will work and trust those
     who have helped them in the past, no one is suggesting used carsalesmen
     here or anything slimly at all, you build relationships on trust and
     professionalism and they will listen to what you're selling, as long as
     your products are at least close to the competitors.


    re .179
    > There's another possibility.  When its products are inferior, a company
    > shouldn't turn to "those kinds of sales tools".  Instead, it should
    > invest in making its products better.  Failing to do so is the mistake
    > Digital has made.  We're not keeping up with technology, we're not
    > hiring college graduates with new ideas and the latest skills, we're
    > not investing in making good new products instead of patching the old.
    > Digital is mostly trying to sell what it's got, and it's not working.

    hogwash

    Inferior products - very relative, everyone's intro pace is such
                        that leapfrogging quarterly has become the norm.

    College hiring  - we do alot, just maybe not where your are.

    New Products    - Over the past 3 years Vax workstations alone have
                      had so many new models, we are either at, close to or
                      ahead (depends on who you ask) of Intel's (seen by most
                      as the leader) new CPU's intro rate. I feel sorry for
                      sales people trying to keep pace.

    Not keeping up with technology? - Ever hear of Alpha?

    Sell what's it got? - Safe to assume there will be a slew of Alpha products
                      in the future. Also Alpha will force DEC to be lean and
                      mean since we will be selling chips, anyone can build an
                      alpha workstation and compete with us. Open systems is a
                      complete turnaround for DEC. DECworld will be aimed at
                      convincing people we mean it.


    /mike - a very longtime techie who's seen the light.

    I agree that sales are based on relationships between the buyer and the
    seller.  But what kind of relationship?  Personal?  There are all kinds
    of personal relationships.
    
    The way I'd like to see it work is selling through consultative
    relationships.  The focus is on solving the business problem, but it's
    a close relationship with the buyer, so it has a personal element.  Of
    course, the consultative sell requires more effort; we might not have
    the resources to pull it off everywhere, but we need to try.
    
    What is it about a relationship that makes a customer want to buy from
    us?  A sense that the customer is important to us?  A perception that
    we listen to what the customer has to say, that the customer's concerns
    are _our_ concerns?  From what I keep seeing here, a customer can get
    free lunch and dinner from just about anyone, so how much value is
    there in providing that?  In contrast, what's the value in
    differentiation -- in providing something _else_ that the customer
    wants or (even better) needs?
    
    I confess I'm a little tired of the "that's just the way it is"
    argument.  Sure, we've got to recognize reality.  On the other hand,
    why do we have to lock ourselves into a particular rut and refuse to
    consider that there _might_ be other ways?

    There's a reason for the large technical field Sales Support group.
    
    Salespeople take care of the personal relationships, and this IS,
    despite the protestations of a very vocal minority, necessary.
    Sales Support people take care of the technical issues around the sale. 
    The better ones form personal relationships with customer techhies.
    
    I believe that covers all the points in the previous 90 replies.
    
    karl

    Would anyone like to comment about the latest reorganization that now
    ties Engineering efforts more closely with Marketing?  The blurbs that
    I've seen do not talk much about the goals of the new organizations,
    but seem to focus more on the politics (who's "in" and who's "out").
    
    It looks like "Digital" (whoever that is) might be starting to see
    the light.
    
    	Geoff
    

    re .186 re my .185.. -< Where have you been while we fumbled? >-
    
    Observing, like a fond father watching his child trying to walk.
    
    >Gee Karl, thanks for clearing things up for us.  To think that 90
    >replies were boiled down to a single entry.  
    
    Good field Sales Support people are excellent at translating and
    summarizing.  
    
    >Hopefully whenever any other topic hits, you'll jump in.. and provide 
    >the insightful answer the rest of us are struggling for.  
    
    No problem.  Just remember you asked.
    
    karl

    
>    Good field Sales Support people are excellent at translating and
>    summarizing.  
    
    Hmmm.  Guess I made a wrong career choice somewhere along the way...
    
    Al
    

    
    Several replies from this topic have been deleted as they were
    personal attacks against an individual. Noting of this sort is not
    appropriate for this conference or any other of which I am aware.
    
    The moderators of this conference request that participants refrain
    from such personal attacks when noting here in the future.
    
    -Joe Bates
    co-Moderator Digital
    

    RE: .190
    
    Hope that you deleted *all* the replies....both sides throw mud.
    
    Marc H.

    >> RE: .190
    
    >>    Hope that you deleted *all* the replies....both sides throw mud.
    
    A little late, irregardless.  The damage had already been done as
    witnessed by Jamie's note.
    
    
    Scott

    For an interesting example of how one company attacks another, and how
    that company responds, read Note 135.0 in the conference DANGER::NEXT. 
    (You can enter the command OPEN/NONOTE DANGER::NEXT 135 to read this
    note without adding the conference to your notebook.)  Warning: The
    note is 698 lines long.
    
    I have no comment as to the truth or untruth of the attack and the
    defense.  I won't even say which two companies are involved.  I do note
    that this is how things seem to be done out there, for better or for
    worse.

You think *we've* got a problem!  According to yesterday's WSJ, a former GE
official alleges that a GE manager spent $20,000 in corporate funds to travel
to Bangkok to visit prostitutes. 

    Just following his corporation's slogan, doubtlessly...
    
    "We Bring Good Things To Life"
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist.  Delete this note.
    
    :-)
    
    /Dan,_son_of_a_Corporate_Engineering_Mgr@GE

    RE: -2
    
    No surprise there, I've heard *rumor* of DECcies doing the same thing in
    Boston at DECworld.....

What do you get for $20000?

    
    		  )
    		:-)
    		  )

    Re.197

    The privilege to bring AIDS back to the US. The New York Times and
    Rolling Stone have reported on Bangkok being the AIDS capital of the
    world. The higher they get the dumber they are.
 
    Power truly corrupts.    

    Ed