Conference 7.286::digital

    Wrong prediction:  That you can get a rah-rah we're OK, the analysts
    are idiots list here, without a reality check.
    
    It may make you feel good to think that groups like Gartners are simply
    out to get us and "smell the blood".  Right or wrong, they are not
    simply making things up from whole cloth.  So, either put together a
    well thought rebuttal case for why they are wrong, or figure out how to
    fix the things that are wrong.
    
    Oooops.  Too late.  Hmmm.  Someone told Columbus the world was flat.
    Uh, maybe that was a bad example.
    

> those "Gartners" bashing at DIGITAL without no one attacking back.

Very recently the Gartner Group said very negative things about UNIX in
general and Digital UNIX in particular, and somebody "up the ladder" wrote
a rebuttal to them and circulated it around the easynet.  I don't remember
if either or both messages got stashed in this file somewhere.  I just bring
it up because, in some cases, somebody *does* confront the naysayers.

It may not be terribly effective, but it'll probably help more than us just
complaining to each other about how awful "they" are.

-Mark

    
    It was Don Harbert.  And while it was very rah-rah, a lot of the
    numbers were, as they say, "interesting" statistics.
    
    And while in a debate the statistics might not be very interesting, as
    a marketing reply, it appeared to be pretty good (if biased).
    
    

    Take a look at this month's Upside magazine (www.upside.com). They have
    quite a long article which talks about the the wrong predictions made
    the the "Gartners" of the world and of how many people believe they are
    unbiased (when they really aren't since they are paid by vendors), etc.
    Its quite a good article and mentions some of those specific
    "mis-call"s made over the years.
    
    Debbie
    

re 0,

Well,

The Gartners of this world listen to customers and vendors and then
playback the most heared 'predictions' in order to meet the expectation
that the consumers have. However, not even Gartner can afford to be
wrong all the time. Problem is that they are so powerfull (some of my
customers blindly follow their advice) that every prediction becomes
reality just because of that.

I guess that we have spoiled our reputation with Gartner somehow. I recall
that once a Gartner analyst wrote to never believe a Digital product and
program manager because all these people do is protect their own jobs 
(don't recall the exact words). I truly believe that we have lost our
credibility a great lot by the 'outsell' of our software products;
customers and analysts just don't believe us anymore when we make claims.

The only amunition I can think of is explain to our customers how these
watchers work, how and by whom they are being paid. Also to collect
every positive report that we can find, by anybody. Today I learned
that a company called Illuminata produced some wonderfull assessments
on Digital, DH Brown did a couple on Unix 4.0 (how come they are so
positive, Gartner so negative). I'm sure there are many more. IDC did
a nice one on our 1-3-9 strategy, exploit that. One of our WEB pages
has links to these analysts reports.

Of course, I also would love to see nice comments from Gartner but
bashing them will probaly not hit the message home. I share your
furstration.

Cheers, see you next week,
Henny

Getting such information on where Gartners has been wrong would be nice.  
Having such information here would be nice.  Telling it to customers, so 
they can tell Gartners that DIGITAL is badmouthing Gartners would be 
an interesting lesson in how to win friends and influence people.  (I think 
I have DIGITAL spelled right).

Better would be to get all wrong predictions from many of these groups and 
make them as generic as possible.  Don't say "Gartners predicted the 
success of OS/2".  Say "Many analysts predicted the success of OS/2".

Next, do what Microsoft does: put it on the web site.  Any time anybody 
publishes something critical of Microsoft Exchange, there is a response on 
the Microsoft Web site.  It may not meet respond to all of the points in 
the original critical article, but it does at least give an answer that 
customers can find.

And that last part is critical.  We may have all the information necessary 
to refute an article, but if the customer can't read this notesfile, they 
won't find it.  So it must be made available in a form that customers (and, 
by the way, other analysts) can find it.

john

    Perhaps one should just consider the word "anal" as part of analyst and
    go from there if you're using them as your only judgement point...
    
    "Figures lie and liars figure"
    (?was that Mark Twain?)
    

>Very recently the Gartner Group said very negative things about UNIX in
>general and Digital UNIX in particular, and somebody "up the ladder" wrote
>a rebuttal to them and circulated it around the easynet.  I don't remember
>if either or both messages got stashed in this file somewhere.  I just bring
>it up because, in some cases, somebody *does* confront the naysayers.

Does anyone have a pointer to this Gartner report that mentions
Digital UNIX?

Mike

There are other ways that Gartner hurts us than by giving negative 
predictions about Digital stuff. 

Reference: Article titled "Year 2000 Projects: Many Issues to Address 
Before Outsourcing", by D. Brown & R. Terdiman, of InSide Gartner 
Group (IGG), Dated 19 February, 1997

This article makes a very good case of what to look for in vendors 
offering Y2K services. I was very enthused as I read it because it 
described Digital as the perfect vendor to select for Y2K outsourcing. 
I was proud. This was great. Then I read the last page and a half.

	Enterprises must understand - even if they do not
	specifically evaluate - the entire capability of 
	the services provider. As needs change, an enterprise
	can expedite the creation of a short list of vendors
	from which to choose.

	Examples of Year 2000 Full-Service Providers

	Anderson Consulting
	Cap Gemini America
	Complete Business Solutions
	Computer Sciences Corp.
	Computer Horizons
	Coopers & Lybrand
	Data Dimensions
	Ernst & Young
	Electronic Data Systems
	IBM
	Integrated Systems Solutions
	InfoSys Technologies
	Information Management Resources
	Information Systems Manager
	Keane
	Mastech
	SHL Systemhouse/MCI Systemhouse
	Tata Consulting Services
	Unisys
	Viasoft

    
    Before coming to Digital, I worked for Mobil Oil.  They have a VERY
    effective way of getting news to their customers about dectractors'
    opinions - EVERY week in either Newsweek or Time magazine, Mobil
    inserts an "advertising" column which rebuts or explains any derogatory
    or incorrect information about Mobil put out by competitors or any type
    of news/tv media. Mobil's customers know that that column is there
    every week - it's ALWAYS there.  It's not that difficult to get your
    message out to customers if you go about it right.  We don't.  I'm an
    employee of this company and I had to hear about this new Millicent
    product from CNN - not my own company?  And in case someone says, "you
    can look on the interet" - I don't have to get on the net every day. 
    When the mail system crashes, two days later I get a message from CNS
    telling me that it's been fixed, which I usually already know.  If we
    can get this kind of notification from the systems people, why can't we
    get it from the people who are responsible for new products?  Just
    from reading this notes file, where people are always asking others,
    "Did anyone every hear of THIS product . . .?", one can tell we just
    aren't getting adequate information to the employees.  From Readers
    Choice we get competitive bulletins, MCS bulletins - HOW ABOUT A NEW
    PRODUCTS BULLETIN from someone??????!!!						
                                             
                                    
    				
    
    
    
    
    

	I've often wondered why Digital hasn't looked into something
	like an internal Pointcast I-server that would push all
	this info out to the masses. 

	Let's not get into the "we don't all have PC's mike" arguement.
	I said "something like Pointcast"

							mike

When did CNN talk about Millicent? Digital told me (via a widely 
broadcast mailgram) about Millicent on 5/6-March-97. I'm in podunk Dayton, 
Ohio. Certaining they told others. I was even asked to participate in an 
internal field test, which I have been doing since the 6th. The Millicent 
folks have done a great job and they have been very responsive to my 
comments.

Is your VTX PROFILE set up to receive announcements of this sort?

>Does anyone have a pointer to this Gartner report that mentions Digital UNIX?

I believe it's at

http://pmd-wb.zko.dec.com:8008/Market_Info_and_News_Services/Market_Reports/Gartner_Group/Feb97/00035396.htm

or broken to fit in 80 cols:

http://pmd-wb.zko.dec.com:8008/Market_Info_and_News_Services/Market_Reports
/Gartner_Group/Feb97/00035396.htm

    re .10
    
    Subscribe to the press releases.  You'll get more product announcements
    and other info than you'll have time to read.  I feel like I could
    almost write one of these myself now -- or at least write a program to
    do it, given basic product information :).
    
    Tony

I have found that the Press Releases sent by Reader's Choice
are stale by the time they are received.

Today's example:  I received Computer Reseller News (a CMP trade
rag) in the office the other day, dated March 10.  On page 7, it
covered the Digital/Micro Age "Seamless Supply Chain" channel
assembly program.  In this morning's (March 13, 6:33am timestamp)
Press Release mail, I received my first news from Digital of 
this agreement.

Yesterday's example:  I got my daily "Information Week" email
update which covered Millicent with some analyst commentary
before Bob Palmer's presentation and subsequent press announcement
later in the day.

Waiting for the lag:  Today's Information Week mailing talked
about Alpha finally getting price-competitive with Intel on the
low-end, comparing a 433Mhz Alpha vs a 233 Intel at the same price.
I'm now waiting on the Digital Press Release...

To any who think that "a day or two doesn't matter", remember this:

	Our customers read these publications, our customers have 
	questions, our customers ask us these questions, our customers
	consider us "out of the loop" if we don't know what they are 
	talking about.  We feel foolish and appear foolish.

I make my living as a technology consultant to customers and have to look 
like I know what I'm talking about (sometimes I even DO know what I'm 
talking about).  Customers understand a lack of knowledge about some 
obscure niche vendor.  They find it difficult to understand why they have 
just read something about a Digital offering in a trade rag and their 
Digital consultant/sales support/salesperson has not heard of it.
	
I realize that the Press Release package is an aggregate of
news from throughout the company and there may be some
administrative handling delay.  I'm not asking for information in advance 
of publication to the press, just give us a break and send it at the SAME 
TIME.

Bottom line for me: I subscribe to OUTSIDE information services 
because I need timely news (my job depends on it).

    And the pointer to the Year 2000 report is at:
    
http://pmd-wb.zko.dec.com:8008/Market_Info_and_News_Services/Market_Reports/Gartner_Group/Feb97/00035477.htm

or broken to fit in 80 cols:

http://pmd-wb.zko.dec.com:8008/Market_Info_and_News_Services/Market_Reports
/Gartner_Group/Feb97/00035477.htm
    
    
    -Pat (Webmaster for this site)

Regarding the original note on Gartner I saw a recent ComputerWorld,
(sorry I don't have the issue date etc), which included a page one
article on Gartner and their very large influence on IS organizations.

It cataloged some Gartner mistakes-- most noticeably was an
assertion something like; "if we'd followed Gartner's advice 5 years
ago we'd all own DEC stock."

I recall those days when we won all their midrange contests with
leadership vision (adequate execution) and overwhelming leadership in
5 year cost of ownership studies.  I haven't seen a 5 year cost of
ownership study since.  It must be irrelevant when compared to ISV
support.  My own pet theory on why Gartner seems overly zealous in
their DIGITAL denunciations is, they're probably still living down those
midrange reports.  I call it an overcorrected course of action.

The overall tone of the article, imho, was:  Gartner gets more respect
than it deserves and watch out, others are looking to take away some
of their business.  ComputerWorld pointed out in the first paragraph
that they're a sister company to IDC who competes directly w/ Gartner.

Dennis

    
    For a sobering assessment of Digital, pick up the lastest Business
    Week.  Digital ranks just higher than Apple at the bottom of the list. 
    A company that is something like 79th in sales, and 485th in profits.
    
    No subjective analysis, rosy projections, or other spin.  Just the
    numbers.
    
    BTW on the "scorecard" we got straight "F"s, Aple at least got one D. 
    The text did point out that we are failing in a exploding market.
    
    

>    For a sobering assessment of Digital, pick up the lastest Business
>    Week.
    
  What page is this on? I will look for it when this issue shows up in the
library.

http://www.businessweek.com/1997/12/b351928.htm has a .pdf file that gives
performance ranking of S&P 500 companies from March 13 business week.
This may have the information being discussed (I am not sure I don't have a pdf
viewer).

    
    .19...20  It came in the mail last week, so it should be on the
    newstands this week.  It's at home, I'll put the info here later
    today.
    
    

    From the .pdf file referenced in .21:
    
    What makes a top corporate performer? To determine how the companies
    within the S&P 500 index stack up against one another, Business Week 
    ranked all 500 using eight key criteria of financial success. We looked 
    at growth in sales, profits, and return to shareholders. To reward 
    consistency, we measured performance over both one year and three years. 
    And to get a better fix on which companies squeeze the most out of
    operations, we analyzed profit margins and return on equity. Using
    those rankings, we assigned grades for each measure. The top 20% received 
    an A, the next 20% got a B and so on, down to the Fs in the bottom 
    quintile. Finally, we combined the individual category rankings,
    and added a slight weighting for sales volume, to come up with our
    overall ranking.
    
        TOTAL    TOTAL     SALES    SALES     PROFIT    PROFIT         RETURN
        RETURN   RETURN    GROWTH   GROWTH    GROWTH    GROWTH  NET     ON
        (1YEAR) (3 YEARS) (1 YEAR) (3 YEARS) (1 YEAR) (3 YEARS) MARGIN EQUITY
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 INTEL     A      A         A        A         A          A      A      A
2 MICROSOFT A      A         A        A         A          A      A      A
3 DELL      A      A         A        A         A          A      A      A
...
485 DIGITAL F      F         F        F         F          F      F      F
...
489 APPLE   F      F         F        D         F          F      F      F

    And to rub it in even more, it was actually out of 495 companies,
    not 500... 5 weren't completely rated due to newness (such as Lucent
    Technology).  Although they weren't completely rated, each of these
    5 companies still had enough grades that would have put them all
    above DIGITAL.  So in effect, add 5 to DIGITAL's ranking.  K

Hey, you've heard of the "Dogs of the Dow"? Well, at 490/500 we're definitely
in a possible new grouping, the Dogs of the S&P500. Now all we need is a few
mutual funds to mirror the pack to which we belong and the stock should recover
nicely.

    
    Business Week, March 24th 1997, Annual Special Issue.
    "The Best Performers, The Business Week 50, The Top Companies of the
    S&P 500"
    
    In addition to the letter rankings, pg 154 has rankings for us...
    
    Rank		485
    Market Value 	268
    Sales		79
    Profits		495
    
    The numbers are comparative rankings.  For comparison (lower numbers
    are better):
    
    		Rank	Market	Sales	Profits
    			Value
    DEC		485	268	79	495
    Apple	489	422	141	498
    HP		51	14	14	26
    IBM		71	11	8	6
    MicroSoft	2	6	131	28
    Sun Micro	13	123	165	141
    
    

Let's keep in perspective that while the numbers in these report don't 
look rosie, we are still talking about the TOP 500 companies.

    re: .27
    
    Wasn't it not too long ago we were in the top 50? 
    
    I was surprised we weren't dropped by the S&P500 last week
    when a couple of Companies were and a couple added.
    
    Jim C.
    

>          <<< Note 5182.28 by ICS::CROUCH "Subterranean Dharma Bum" >>>
>
>    re: .27
>    
>    Wasn't it not too long ago we were in the top 50? 
>    
>    I was surprised we weren't dropped by the S&P500 last week
>    when a couple of Companies were and a couple added.

It was the Dow 30 Industrials that dropped three companies and replaced
them a week or two ago.
Memory says Woolworth, Bethlehem Steel, and another dropped;
HP one of the three added.

Is the S&P500 a fixed list or is it a criterion-based list like the 
Fortune 500?

- tom]

  Dropped:               Added:

    - Texaco               + Johnson & Johnson
    - Woolworth            + Walmart
    - Westinghouse         + Hewlett-Packard
    - Bethlehem Steel      + The Travellers Group


                                   Atlant