Marketing vs. Performance

[Matthew G. Copple, LCA, MCP]

> If that were the case with Novel vs. NT, then the large corporations who
> don't give a damn about marketing but rely on performance would be using
> Novel.  They're not.  They're using NT, xNIX, and IBM systems.

Actually, Novell is still widespread in large environments. For example,
several agencies of the United States Government still rely on Novell.

Saying that "large corporations...don't give a damn about marketing but rely
on performance.." is really not correct. IT departments are staffed by
humans who are just as susceptible to marketing techniques as any other
humans. Most IT departments *say* they don't give a damn about marketing,
but if that is so, why do Intel, Microsoft, Novell and big channel
distributors throw huge conferences and have massive sales staffs? If IT
departments disregard marketing in favor of pure performance, then why do
systems integrators buy ads at all?

Corporate decisions are rarely made solely on performance. They are
influenced by corporate culture and politics. A purchasing manager is just
as likely to make a buying decision based on last Saturday's golf game with
his buddy (who happens to be a rep for a distributor or systems integrator)
as he is on a whitepaper. He may also be influenced by the fact that
Department X already has that technology installed and he wants to make sure
that his department has the new toys, as well. Price is a big factor, too.
MS SQL Server does not perform as well in enterprise situations as Oracle,
Informix or DB2, but it is a lot cheaper to purchase. Besides, it comes from
Microsoft, which makes Office and Win2K, so it must be OK.

In a perfect world, performance would be everything. However, marketing
would still play a role, because someone has to define "performance." Take a
look at the database management space. Oracle and SQL Server are always
putting out benchmarks and whitepapers showing that their product is clearly
superior to the other -- and usually, the benchmarks each puts out shows the
competition at a grave disadvantage. Since we are talking performance, which
company has it right? Is Oracle better or is SQL Server better?

It all depends on your point of view. It depends on what hardware you run it
on, what applications you use, how well the installation is configured, how
well your queries have been optimized. It depends on the design of the
database, the standards set for the benchmark, what time of day, how many
cups of coffee the testers have had...I could go on.

If marketing is unimportant, then why is Oracle offering $1 million to any
company if Oracle9i doesn't perform at least three times as well as the
competition? When you look at the fine print, you discover that the offer
has so many strings it is nearly impossible to collect. That is a marketing
ploy, pure and simple.

Matthew Copple
direwolf at kc.rr.com