Chuck Hollis of EMC on NetApp marketing techniques.
Click here or read below.
NetApp: Bad Marketing vs. Good Marketing
Deliver on the promise: Good Marketing
Fail to deliver on the promise, or deliver the opposite: Bad Marketing
A few weeks ago, I took the gloves off on a particularly egregious example of Bad Marketing, where NetApp had pushed the limits of benchmarketing too far; to the point where it could probably result in the exact opposite of what was promised.
That’s bad for customers, and bad for the industry.
But clear misrepresentation – in spirit, if not in fact – is where we should all draw the line.
Seductive Claim #1 – NetApp Is Simpler
This is very sexy, at least on the surface.
Damn, that sounds great. Doesn’t it?
The simplicity promise is now gone.
Bring in other stuff, and the promise is broken.
Don’t promise what you can’t deliver.
Seductive Claim #2 – NetApp Uses Less Storage
NetApp gets to this claim two ways.
First, they point to thin provisioning as using less storage. Actually, thin provisioning helps solve certain poor storage management practices that are common in IT (see here for more info) but comes with its own – ahem – complexity.
I would offer that, in our experience, exactly the opposite is true, in two ways.
Once again, Bad Marketing in action.
Don’t promise what you can’t deliver.
Seductive Claim #3 – NetApp is the Preferred Choice for Oracle
All part of the normal give-and-take that sometimes goes on. Here’s what you might not know …
Again, Bad Marketing in action.
Seductive Claim #4 – NetApp Is An Enterprise Storage Company
I’m OK with NetApp claiming that they sell to large enterprises, because they do.
Bad Marketing in action, again.
Seductive Claim #5 – NetApp Products Offer Superior Performance
I won’t rehash this one again (see here), but – once again, we have Bad Marketing in action. One thing is promised, and the exact opposite is usually true.
Now, to be fair, I’m picking on NetApp pretty hard here. They’re big boys, they can take it. Heck, they dish out plenty of dirt to EMC, so they must expect a bit of a rebuke regarding their business practices. And the practice of Bad Marketing is hardly limited to NetApp.
And you may be thinking – is EMC any better in this regard?
My real beef is that I don’t think NetApp is even trying.
The real question – for all IT vendors — is what’s the goal here?
Is it to grow the stock price by showing strong growth and numbers?
Or is the goal to build a franchise built on serving customers needs, and building trust?


