Re: More anti-midrange propaganda

<Moved from Tech List (since, technically, a Non-Technical issue...;-) a
longer version of my previous reply
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200309/msg01116.html...>

| -----Original Message-----
| From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Booth Martin
| Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:09 PM
| To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| Subject: Re: More anti-midrange propaganda
|
|
| What is complicated to understand?  Buick Division sells Buicks.  Saturn
| sells Saturns. GM advertises hugely but never mentions GM except in a
| footnote.  They advertise the brands.  Heck, everyone sells the brand, no
| one sells the enterprise.   Except IBM.   Their idea of selling
| the corporate entity is flawed.  It has
| never worked for anyone else and IBM isn't going to make it work either.
| Their advertising is directed to their own executives, and falls in to the
| general classification of Vanity Advertising.  Its purpose is to
| appease the
| bosses and keep the account.  The advertising agency has no goal
| of actually
| selling to the World.  The Agency know what it takes to get their
| advertising contracts renewed, and making real World sales isn't
| one of the
| measures.  Its too bad.  Advertising 101 has case studies about
| this all to common
| pitfall.
| --------------------------------------------------------- Booth
| Martin   http://www.MartinVT.com Booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| ---------------------------------------------------------
| -------Original Message-------   From: Midrange Systems Technical
| Discussion Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:16:31 PM To:
| Midrange Systems Technical Discussion Subject: Re: More
| anti-midrange propaganda   So......using this logic, why wouldn't
| IBM sell PC servers and advocate server farms? There's be a LOT
| more services you'd sell that way.   In fact, why sell the
| iSeries at all if this is such a loss leader on services?   I
| think that there's more here than Jon's analogy, not to say he's
| not right, but I'd imagine there's more to this than just the
| services end of it.     Shannon O'Donnell
|

Gerry, as I was saying...:-(
<referring to http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200309/msg01108.html>


Booth, I never took Advertising 101.  And never worked in advertising.  But
I guess I have pretty good instincts for the stuff because the 3 Execs I
spoke to at IBM (once each) were Mr. Haines, Ms. Stevenson, and Ms. Lauren
Flaherty, VP in charge of ALL marketing for ALL Server Divisions.  (The
latter documented on Ignite lists around 10/31/00 and you can see the
overwhelming response <Ha!> from the community, too, in the archives there
(if they kept them)...;-) And (I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I detect a
similar tone in your post) my instincts are that you have essentially no
idea what you are talking about here.  Here's a few facts for you to
consider:

Back when I studied this a bit, I asked my (then) Wife "Did you see that
ad?" (within 15-30 seconds of it playing). "Yeah, Tiger Woods."  "But did
you NOTICE the ad?" "Yeah, he was in a car."  "But what brand?" "Dunno."

Do you actually think that ads running for FORD xxx vehicle are not selling
both the specific brand and the Ford image?"

Selling brands that overlap in the marketspace is altogether different than
selling brands that don't.

Advertising is not synonomous with Marketing.

When Pepsi and Coke advertise, they are advertising against each other
(obviously) and advertising FOR each other, primarily to youths:  "Drink
sugar-y liquids that are expensive and will eventually rot your teeth and
make you fat.. because it's WAY COOL!!"...!

You might benefit by reading the first chapter and skimming _Building Strong
Brands_ by David A. Akker.  That's all I did, and found little surprising in
the headline (didn't read article) "Ads watched on fast-forward are almost
as effective as ads watched at regular-speed" (or something close).  THAT'S
THE LEVEL ADS WORK AT.

Most all Marketing Departments have a pretty decent sense of what Marketing
is about.  Marketing Departments of mega-buck multi-national Corporations
are a little past the Advertising 101 stage.

Ying Chu, at one time Executive Assistant to Mr. Zeitler, asked me to "think
how the different products of the Server Group can be presented as *one
'face'*" (emphasis added).  See above book.  THAT'S what they're CALLED, the
FACE of a brand.  A brand-IMAGE.

Back when I was allowed to contact IBM Execs I wrote Ms. Flaherty, and cc'd
Ms. Abby Kohnstamm, "People are tired of being BLUDGEONED by ads, and they
will retaliate".  Saw this, which says essentially same:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/09/21/InfoMarket

People, in everyday ordinary discussions, and in postings/blogging/etc,
create a "personal brand image" which is usually VERY consistent.  This
happens at the same level ads aim for, largely subconsciously, whether or
not there is any intention to create a "brand image".

Finally, and foremost:  This is a complicated set of issues and the trick,
same as in programming, is decomposing the problem into simpler problems
WITHOUT OVERSIMPLIFYING the issues.  Everybody knows the mantra of KISS, but
few can actually do it very well.

There is SOME truth in the facts you present, Booth, but the conclusions you
draw have little validity from what my instincts tell me about the subject.
Am I getting on my high horse in this here post?  Sure.. just as I suggest
you were in yours, Booth.  And will add that I skimmed the thread of a few
weeks back and there were a LOTTA fundamental misconceptions about Marketing
and Advertising, and people getting on high horses, in that one.