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

From: Doug Yowza <yowza_at_yowza.com>
Date: Sun Oct 11 20:33:26 1998

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:

> It doesn't explain everything, but you'd be a fool to think marketing is
> not responsible for at least 50% of a product's success (and that's being
> conservative).

Then I'm a fool, but you're the one who assigned a quantitative value to
marketing. So, please derive that 50% figure for us, specifically for the
cases given: IBM and Microsoft.

> Let me get this straight...you're saying IBM can hardly be called
> successful? This must be a typo.

No typo. IBM went from #1 to drop below the top 10 despite heavy
marketing, i.e. outspending their competitors on marketing. Is that how
this magic marketing works to guarantee success? That must explain why
you're running OS/2 on your MCA-based system today.

> Sure, take the easy example of Microsoft, which was a fluke. They rode
> the coattails of IBM and through sheer luck and determination ended up
> where they did today.

First, I didn't pick the example of Microsoft. Microsoft and IBM were
held up as examples of success through marketing when this thread started,
remember? Are you using a Microsoft product? I thought so. Now, think
real hard: was Microsoft lucky to get you to use their software? No? Did
you use their software because they were determined? No? Did they
convince you to use their software by playing "Start me up!" real loud?
No?

Marketing. Feh! Here, I'll give you marketing experts an easy one:
Remember when TI brought out the 99/4 and had huge Bill Cosby marketing
blitzes? Was the result:

A) TI dominated the market.
B) Some company named Commodore, famous for non-Marketing, dominated their
market.
C) Dunno, I was trying to decide between Coke and Pepsi.

-- Doug
Received on Sun Oct 11 1998 - 20:33:26 BST