Marketing (was Re: Columbus analogy (Was: Corrections to trivia

From: Marvin <marvin_at_rain.org>
Date: Sun Oct 11 18:49:47 1998

Doug Yowza wrote:

> First of all, IBM can hardly be called successful. *In spite* of all the
> "marketing" they did, Taiwanese with no marketing at all were able to
> completely erode their PC market share.

If IBM can hardly be called successful, I would love to hear your definition
of "successful".

"NO MARKETING"???? Not a chance of that being even slightly true. While
the marketing was not done by the Taiwanese per se, it was done by every
dealer selling their systems ... and very successfully. Hmmm, to give you
the benefit of the doubt, maybe we need to hear what your definition of
"marketing" is.


> Microsoft is certainly successful, but do you honestly believe it's due to
> their inane marketing?

IBM did "just a little bit" of marketing, and Microsoft was one just one of
the beneficiaries. And of course, luck always plays at least some part in
all of this.
Received on Sun Oct 11 1998 - 18:49:47 BST