{"id":383,"date":"2007-01-12T16:17:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-12T16:17:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/?p=383"},"modified":"2007-01-12T16:17:00","modified_gmt":"2007-01-12T16:17:00","slug":"383","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/2007\/01\/12\/383\/","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Chuck Hollis of EMC on NetApp marketing techniques.
Click here or read below.<\/a><\/p>\n

NetApp: Bad Marketing vs. Good Marketing<\/a><\/h3>\n
\n

All is fair in love, war and marketing. Or is it?<\/a><\/p>\n

Do we, as vendors, have a responsibility to our customers and the marketplace that when we make a claim, that it is generically true, and customers get the benefit we promise?<\/a><\/p>\n

I believe so. <\/a><\/p>\n

I believe so strongly, in fact, that I\u2019m taking it upon myself to call out others who may not subscribe to this particular world view.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Context<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

If you promise a customer that your solution is more cost effective, it shouldn\u2019t end up being more expensive. If you say your solution is simpler, it should not be more complex than what it replaces. If you say its high availability, it should be. If you claim superior performance, that is what it should deliver. And so on.<\/a><\/p>\n

Deliver on the promise: Good Marketing<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Fail to deliver on the promise, or deliver the opposite: Bad Marketing<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

A few weeks ago, I took the gloves off on a particularly egregious example of Bad Marketing<\/em>, where NetApp had pushed the limits of <\/a>benchmarketing too far<\/a>; to the point where it could probably result in the exact opposite of what was promised. <\/a><\/p>\n

That\u2019s bad for customers, and bad for the industry. <\/a><\/p>\n

Now, to be clear, I have no problem with head-to-head competition. I welcome it. It makes all of us in the vendor world better, and it ultimately benefits customers. And I love the rough-and-tumble, he-said-she-said world of IT marketing. It\u2019s fun.<\/a><\/p>\n

But clear misrepresentation \u2013 in spirit, if not in fact \u2013 is where we should all draw the line.<\/a><\/p>\n

Today, I\u2019m going to go a bit further on NetApp on some of their other marketing claims. Not because I don\u2019t welcome an aggressive competitor (I do, believe me), but I cringe when I find people actually believe what they\u2019re saying, and get hurt in the process.<\/a><\/p>\n

Seductive Claim #1 \u2013 NetApp Is Simpler<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

This is very sexy, at least on the surface. <\/a><\/p>\n

The premise is that \u2013 because NetApp has one primary operating system (ONTAP), and one generic hardware architecture (dual controller storage), that customers can serve all their storage needs with a single, compatible family, saving considerable operational expense.<\/a><\/p>\n

Damn, that sounds great. Doesn\u2019t it?<\/a><\/p>\n

Now, if I\u2019m a smaller shop, and my requirements aren\u2019t that demanding, I\u2019d give NetApp the benefit of the doubt. I certainly have met smaller customers who could conceivably run their entire shop on NetApp if they limit what they do.<\/a><\/p>\n

But let\u2019s look at the facts. There are tens of thousands of customers who\u2019d never consider putting a critical database on an emulated SAN device like NetApp \u2013 it\u2019d kill their performance. What happens when a small customer needs that capability, and has to put something different in to do that job? <\/a><\/p>\n

The simplicity promise is now gone.<\/a><\/p>\n

Or maybe their environment grows and they find they need more powerful SRM tools, which NetApp doesn\u2019t provide. Or perhaps they find shortcomings in remote replication, or other areas. <\/a><\/p>\n

Bring in other stuff, and the promise is broken.<\/a><\/p>\n

As an example, all NetApp customers are now being \u201cstrongly encouraged\u201d into a very disruptive upgrade to ONTAP 7G. Usually, there\u2019s new hardware involved, and it involves substantial downtime, unless you use something clever like Rainfinity. <\/a><\/p>\n

Now, certainly NetApp isn\u2019t the only storage vendor that does this to customers, but it goes right against NetApp\u2019s promise of \u201csimplicity\u201d.<\/a><\/p>\n

Are there any meaningful performance tuning tools in ONTAP? Not really, that would add complexity. Want to do VTL? That\u2019s a different NTAP storage platform. Want to do encryption? Decru isn\u2019t integrated. Want to do CDP? That\u2019s Topio, also unintegrated.<\/a><\/p>\n

Nothing wrong with any of these things, really. Other than NetApp promised simplicity, and most customers end up with complexity. And that\u2019s Bad Marketing<\/em>, in my book.<\/a><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t promise what you can\u2019t deliver.<\/a><\/p>\n

Seductive Claim #2 \u2013 NetApp Uses Less Storage<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

NetApp gets to this claim two ways. <\/a><\/p>\n

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 (<\/a>see here for more info<\/a>) but comes with its own \u2013 ahem \u2013 complexity. <\/a><\/p>\n

And thin provisioning is not unique to NetApp \u2013 if after evaluating the pros and cons, you want to do thin provisioning, there are lots of vendors (including EMC) who can do that for you.<\/a><\/p>\n

Second, they point to a low-overhead snap capability that doesn\u2019t actually make the second copy until it\u2019s written to. Nice trick, but also available from other vendors, including EMC. And, of course, there are pros and cons with different use cases when this would make sense, and when it wouldn\u2019t. It\u2019s not a panacea, and it’s not unique.<\/a><\/p>\n

Nothing wrong with having competitive features compared to other vendors. But to claim that you use less storage than the other guys basd on these claims simply isn\u2019t true, and isn\u2019t supported by the evidence.<\/a><\/p>\n

I would offer that, in our experience, exactly the opposite is true<\/strong><\/em>, in two ways.<\/a><\/p>\n

First, as many people have noticed (and I\u2019ve pointed out) the only reasonable way to address a performance problem on a NetApp filer is to add more unused storage<\/strong><\/em>. When we get called in to solve a performance problem on NetApp, we usually notice that the customer has taken this step, and is using much more storage than would otherwise be needed, simply to present more spindles to ONTAP and WAFL.<\/a><\/p>\n

Second, EMC has built a nice practice of going into large NetApp shops, running some simple analysis, and showing customer by either deleting or archiving the gorp that\u2019s sitting on their filers, they can use 40-70% less storage. <\/a><\/p>\n

Put differently, because NetApp doesn\u2019t offer the tools or the practices to do this to their customers, we find that unmanaged NetApp shops use far more storage<\/strong><\/em> for file storage than is usually required.<\/a><\/p>\n

Now, these are not bad things by themselves, but a claim was made for a benefit, and the exact opposite is usually true. <\/a><\/p>\n

Once again, Bad Marketing<\/em> in action.<\/a><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t promise what you can\u2019t deliver.<\/a><\/p>\n

Seductive Claim #3 \u2013 NetApp is the Preferred Choice for Oracle<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

After reviewing some of the NetApp marketing materials, you\u2019d think that Oracle wouldn\u2019t be able to run on anything else. I run the alliances group at EMC, so I have a bit of an insider perspective on this.<\/a><\/p>\n

NetApp spends big bucks every year sponsoring Oracle Open World. Well over a million dollars a year, I believe. Oracle really appreciates this money for their event, and reciprocates by saying very nice things about NetApp. <\/a><\/p>\n

Nothing wrong with that \u2013 heck, I enjoyed watching Sir Elton John at OOW this year, as did many of you. The food was pretty good, too.<\/a><\/p>\n

NetApp also did a great transaction a while ago with Oracle\u2019s Austin Data Center where they run their outsourcing business. I\u2019m not privy to the exact details, but there seems to be an exchange-in-kind where Oracle got a great deal on hardware, and NetApp got a great marketing reference. The result is a slick video where Oracle people running Austin talk about how great NetApp is.<\/a><\/p>\n

All part of the normal give-and-take that sometimes goes on. Here’s what you might not know …<\/a><\/p>\n

So, what does Oracle run their production systems on? The ones that keep their company running? Their email? The majority of their development environment? The gigantic Oracle Single Instance at the very heart of their company? <\/a><\/p>\n

EMC.<\/a><\/p>\n

So, back to the theme. I\u2019d agree that NetApp is Oracle\u2019s preferred marketing partner in the storage world these days, but there\u2019s a far stretch between that financial arrangement and the one NetApp is claiming.<\/a><\/p>\n

Again, Bad Marketing<\/em> in action.<\/a><\/p>\n

Seductive Claim #4 \u2013 NetApp Is An Enterprise Storage Company<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

This one makes no sense to me whatsoever. There\u2019s a big difference between selling storage to large enterprises, and being an enterprise storage company.<\/a><\/p>\n

My company (a large enterprise) buys memory sticks from a small company. Does that make them an enterprise storage company too? <\/a><\/p>\n

More specifically, do companies trust NetApp with their most mission-critical applications? Do they have the robust architectures, backed up by expensive service and support capabilities? Do they have experience in some of the most demanding IT environments in the world?<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019m OK with NetApp claiming that they sell to large enterprises, because they do. <\/a><\/p>\n

Usually it\u2019s test and dev environments, or maybe a large file farm, or something else that isn\u2019t deemed mission critical. And, trust me, they do a very good job selling to places where they\u2019re good, and staying out of environments that they don\u2019t do well in.<\/a><\/p>\n

But \u2013 please \u2013 don\u2019t torture that statement into positioning yourself as an enterprise storage company. You folks haven\u2019t made the investments in products, testing, service and support to back up that claim. <\/a><\/p>\n

Someone could get hurt.<\/a><\/p>\n

Bad Marketing<\/em> in action, again.<\/a><\/p>\n

Seductive Claim #5 \u2013 NetApp Products Offer Superior Performance<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

I won\u2019t rehash this one again (<\/a>see here<\/a>), but \u2013 once again, we have Bad Marketing<\/em> in action. One thing is promised, and the exact opposite is usually true.<\/a><\/p>\n

Bad Marketing In Perspective<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Now, to be fair, I\u2019m picking on NetApp pretty hard here. They\u2019re 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 <\/a>business practices<\/a>. And the practice of Bad Marketing<\/em> is hardly limited to NetApp.<\/a><\/p>\n

And you may be thinking \u2013 is EMC any better in this regard? <\/a><\/p>\n

I sit on several marketing review committees, and we try \u2013 as hard as we can \u2013 to make sure that if we claim something in our marketing material, that we can back it up, and \u2013 more importantly \u2013 we\u2019re not leading people into the exact opposite outcome. We\u2019re not anywhere close to perfect in doing this, but we consider it very important to make a consistent effort in this regard, and to try to get better.<\/a><\/p>\n

My real beef is that I don\u2019t think NetApp is even trying.<\/a><\/p>\n

The real question \u2013 for all IT vendors — is what\u2019s the goal here? <\/a><\/p>\n

Is it to grow the stock price by showing strong growth and numbers? <\/a><\/p>\n

Or is the goal to build a franchise built on serving customers needs, and building trust?<\/a><\/p>\n

I would offer that \u2013 in the long run \u2013 they would ideally be the same thing. I just wish more people felt that way. <\/a><\/p>\n

Certainly, customers would be better served.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Chuck Hollis of EMC on NetApp marketing techniques. Click here or read below. NetApp: Bad Marketing vs. Good Marketing All is fair in love, war and marketing. Or is it? Do we, as vendors, have a responsibility to our customers … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=383"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/383\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zerowait.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}