On 5/8/2013 1:08 AM, Booth Martin wrote:
You illustrate the problem perfectly Steve. Ambiguous names lead to
ambiguous results, whether it is an advertising campaign, a job
reference, a Google search, or what to write on your business card and
resume. It is a marketing expert's nightmare. Brand recognition has
been diluted to the point of making the name of our platform a
completely useless triviality.
There are two audiences. IT and The Rest. Within IT, the branding has
never mattered. We could only ever buy the platform from IBM, and those
of us with a midrange machine are mostly looking to stay with IBM.
Sales of replacement machines haven't fallen as a result of platform
branding changes.
As far as The Rest of the world is concerned, I think it's a horrible
thing we've done to them. We've overused our internal jargon to the
point where the end user community talks to us about chaining to files
on the AS400. So now we're faced with two choices - either tell them
that the current hardware is Power 7 and mock them relentlessly until
they get it right or listen to the fingernails on the blackboard as they
talk about chaining to the 400 for status when the software is actually
cross platform, uses SQL and stored procedures and there's neither a
'chain' nor a '400' in sight.
Jargonising our end users is no way to run a business.
I understand there is nothing we can do about this, but pretending this
unnecessary mess is inconsequential, unpredictable, and unfixable is an
even worse nightmare.
We have to live with the consequences of this marketing disaster but we
do not have to pretend to like it.
The disaster would be if IBM decided to abandon the midrange market.
What would we do then? Today, that's not a problem. I just had a Power
7 720 installed and it was easy. Our BP is great, IBM built the machine
is a reasonable time frame and maintenance is lower than the previous
Power 7 box. The midrange market place might not be thriving in the way
the iPhone is, but it's pretty much the same as it ever was - machines
get replaced, the market continues apace.
That some don't care for the new branding is obvious. I personally
think that every single official brand has been crap. Pacific and
Silverlake were much better brand names, but I'm not going to change the
past. What's done is done. I have to live in the here and now.
When I talk to my colleagues in IT, I use appropriate terminology. If I
must refer to the operating system, it's IBM i. If I must refer to the
hardware, it's Power 7. I find I rarely have to do that unless
discussing PTFs. If I refer to OUR software, it the membership system,
or accounting, or... whatever is appropriate. I don't go out of my way
to belittle colleagues who use improper terminology when it's clear what
they're referring to but I myself take pride in my ability to be precise.
For end users, I work diligently to strip my speech of any and all
jargon. I ask for user stories, I walk over and watch them do their
work so I can understand that when they say they want to see THIS, right
HERE, I can ask appropriate, intelligent questions. Because having them
tell me to chain to the 400 isn't helping me understand their business
problem.
It's been a long way, but here finally is my point: can someone explain
to me the business value of us on this list continuing to use antique
jargon to describe the modern platform?
--buck
midrange.com
