Are you selling complexity or simplicity?
"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed."
Dear Vorticians,
Do you know who first uttered (or wrote) the quote above? I've heard it used by various speakers and I love the idea, but I'm not able to ascertain whose original thought it is. If you know, drop me a line.
Anyway, after writing last week's piece on the intelligent LAN versus the dumb LAN, I got to thinking that there was another way to encapsulate that discussion - and, in fact, much of the future strategic direction for IT vendors. What we're talking about here is the difference between selling complexity and selling simplicity.
Building the intelligent LAN - one that provides added security or advanced application traffic handling - is essentially an exercise in selling complexity. You're taking something that already works and layering new functions atop it that promise to streamline and improve operations. By way of contrast, customers could pop in appliances that handle these functions and require little change to the current infrastructure. Or, at the extreme, they could outsource these network functions and leave the whole mess to someone else.
As a vendor, it's critical that you understand whether you're selling complexity or simplicity.
Now, I can imagine you're thinking to yourself: Has John finally lost it? Who wants to sell complexity? Complexity is the bane of enterprise IT today. Complexity robs enterprises of flexibility and costs the vast amounts of money in resource consumption and integration costs.
You wouldn't be alone in thinking I've lost it (just ask the lovely Mrs. Gallant), but hear me out before you decide whether I'm wrong here.
IT must be simplified. Toward that end, enterprises are centralizing and consolidating IT operations, trying to standardize and minimize the number of vendors in their shops. They're also trying to provide new levels of IT automation, optimization and virtualization.
But how best do customers achieve these goals?
On the one hand, they can follow the paths and visions laid down by their strategic vendors, the Cisco's, HP's, IBM's, Microsoft's and SAP's of the world. Customers can build on the systems they've already deployed to reach IT nirvana. Use OpenView and Tivoli to automate and virtualize, build on Cisco's IOS, embrace .Net or SAP NetWeaver.
As one customer described it to me in an interview, they can "build complexity on top of my current complexity" to get to a simpler world. It's got an unpleasant ring, but it's an accurate view, because the directions laid down by these vendors require commitment, resources and time in order to pay off. The vendors must take these directions in order to protect their installed base. They don't really have any choice. Customers may also feel like they have no choice because of their investments.
The alternative is for customers to follow the paths being laid down by newcomers like salesforce.com, Egenera, Cassatt, Azul or any managed service provider. Their message is that customers should go in a different direction. IT executives should embrace new systems rather than building on, or trying to force-fit functions, atop the old. They're selling simplicity.
Now, the camp selling complexity would never position it that way to their customers. No one in their right mind wants to be seen as adding complexity. But the marketing and delivery of their messaging must be built on the fact that they are, in fact, selling complexity.
For vendors like Cisco, IBM, HP, and SAP - those that need to move their current customer base - the key elements for success are:
" A clear vision of the end point. That vision needs to be articulated with consistency and with great frequency in order that customers understand exactly where you want to take them. To put this in allegorical terms, Frodo has to know at the outset that he must reach the fiery mountain in Mordor and dump in the One Ring or Middle Earth is doomed. Without a clear understanding of that, Frodo's likely to run home when he meets the first Nazgul on Weathertop.
" A clear roadmap. These are the steps we take to get to the end point, these are the products you'll need to buy, we'll deliver them on this schedule, you'll need to invest this much. Surprises can cause Frodo to stray from the path.
" A clear explanation of what the customer will need to do to be successful in making this migration. For example, if you're a Cisco customer, you're likely to have to undertake some significant work getting your IOS versions up to snuff. Most customers have a veritable green salad of IOS versions out there that will need to be cleaned up before new functionality will be rolled out.
" A clear vision of the role of strategic partners. Making customers choose between your vision of the future and those of other strategic suppliers is scary. It's better to help them understand how your plans dovetail with those of their other key vendors.
" A clear portrayal of customer success. Customers love to hear that other customers are already ahead of them on the path. They want to know who's done what and what they've learned along the way.
These elements must be central to selling "complexity."
Now contrast that with what it takes to sell simplicity. For vendors like salesforce.com or Egenera, marketing and messaging must highlight:
" How the functionality of their solutions provides performance equal to, or better than, existing solutions at lower cost and with more flexibility.
" How easily the solutions integrate with legacy systems.
" How their solutions enable customers to reduce their commitment to existing systems, or do away with them altogether.
" How major customers have already committed to their solutions, providing a comfort level for buyers.
To those mandatory elements, I would add that a maverick persona can go a long way. Everyone loves an underdog, especially a scrappy one.
Very different approaches. But it seems to me that the complexity camp doesn't understand the difference.
I'll be the first to concede that it's much easier to sell simplicity. But, too often, the legacy vendors try desperately to cloak themselves in mere simplicity - in essence, they focus only on the vague end point to which customers should aspire. They fail miserably at covering all the other key elements involved in selling a complex, long-term vision for the future. We hear vague promises of automation and virtualization and utility computing, but little about what's involved in getting there. We see witty, empty, expensive TV ads spouting platitudes about this or that buzzphrase, but precious little investment in education, positioning and architectural design for the real buyers.
These vendors are fearful that customers will be frightened off, that they won't make a commitment to reaching the finish line hand-in-hand. But, to my mind, customers are much more likely to buy into these "complexity" visions if they understand the whole picture.
More important, vendors are creating a dangerous messaging mismatch. They are involved in the race of their lives - a race to convince customers to invest in their futures before an expanding cadre of newcomers sell them on a simpler approach to "simplicity" or customers become so fed up with their current complexity that they hand things over to an outsourcer - which is exactly what Nicholas Carr predicts in his recent piece on the emergence of utility computing.
The suppliers who understand what it takes to sell complexity are the ones much more likely to make it to the finish line.
Sorry to be so long-winded. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. As always, reach me here.
Bye for now.
Back to Vortex Blog
Comments
Post a comment
