My last topic generated more responses than I've received in three years of writing this column. The column was about the persistent lack of marketing in the MultiValue community. I explored some of the whys and wherefores of this failure and laid out some ways that you, the users of these systems, might be able to improve this situation. You may remember I suggested that the VAR's and user groups could write and submit for publishing to outside trade media Pick success stories. If these articles had a strong common theme such as carefully mentioning the strengths of the Pick Database Model (in addition to, but regardless of the vendor flavor), they could go a long way to help create a common marketing thread. I also suggested the user groups could be a strong force in this process because the input I was receiving was you the users were more concerned about this than the vendors.

Somewhat surprisingly, every single one of your responses were not just positive, but very positive and I even received a couple of well-written success stories. On the other hand, not surprisingly all but one of the responses were from end users. The single exception was from a consultant. None of the Pick or Pick-like vendors bothered to respond. I guess their lights are on but nobody's home again!

I've talked to numerous people about this in the last month, and they unanimously want to put the blame for the non-existent marketing squarely on Pick Systems shoulders. "If only they...", "Why didn't Dick...", and "Pick Systems is a boat anchor dragging down the market..." are the kind of comments I tend to hear. Now, the last thing I ever want to do is defend Pick Systems, but there were lots of Pick (like) vendors over the last ten years that did substantially less than they did! There are still perhaps a half dozen viable Pick (like) vendors besides Pick Systems – where are their marketing programs? I don't mean raw advertising or sales promotions, I mean marketing programs. None of them seem to be doing anything significant to help reduce the gap in mind-share Pick is suffering from!

Perhaps the problem is that these companies simply don't understand the need for marketing. In the 70's and 80's, most of the early Pick vendors were very weak companies that needed to create sales. They hired salesmen, often very good salesmen, but when Pick made them successful they failed to understand they then needed to hire marketers. Marketing programs should promote the recognition and the positive positioning of the Pick Model in upper management's minds. Mind-share rules the board room!

I have talked before about the shift in the MIS management model in the last half decade. It used to be that senior MIS management controlled the MIS shop with an iron fist. Computers cost serious money and nobody outside MIS understood them at all. Systems were sold on results, not OS's or DBMS's. Today of course, things are a little different. To be a little facetious, the Information Age weighs heavily upon us. Every president, CEO, and Chairman of the board reads some form of MIS trade press, and every one of them believes he/she knows more than the professionals.

Nicholas Petreley (Infoworld, 1/15/96) headlined "Quality doesn't matter; Microsoft leverage does". He said "To much of the trade press, no product idea is legitimate until Microsoft endorses it..." Implied was the thought that no product idea is legitimate with top management until the trade press endorses it. While I'd never agree that quality doesn't matter, the Microsoft leverage phenomena is for real. It comes down to mind-share. In the OUTSIDE trade press I read articles about Oracle, Informix, MS Access, client/sever, etc., therefore they must be safe and endorsed by all. I see these mostly positive articles and I recognize the names when MIS proposes a project. I don't recognize the words "Pick Data Model" so it must not be a "mainstream" product. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth on both counts.

This is why I came up with the two requirements in my suggested marketing plan. First, we must be submitting articles that have a strong common theme. Of course they should say Pick Systems, or Vmark, or Unidata, or (fill in the blank) vendor's product, but they must also prominently and repeatedly stress the strengths of the Pick Data Model to create the desired common image. Second, they must be placed in broader MIS publications, outside the MultiValue community trade press because, unfortunately, our community press is perceived as captive.

Now, my friends in the publishing industry tell me that articles have a much greater chance of getting printed if they are backed up with advertising dollars. I'm sure that's true if the article is a vendor promotional piece, and I surely hope its less true if it is a well written end user or users group success story. One way to hedge our bets is to notify the vendor involved and encourage them to tie advertising to the article, or to suggest to the magazine they approach the vendor for an add placement.

Pick Systems is perhaps the only vendor that is attempting to publish success stories. But they are missing the boat on both of my points. Their articles are blatantly biased for Pick Systems and they are preaching to the already converted with PickWorld. If Pick System really wants to succeed, I would offer them a simple suggestion. They should drop the PickWorld magazine and divert all that energy and money into getting these success stories published somewhere they will be read by the upper management of companies who aren't already Pick shops. In other words, somewhere where they have at least a chance of doing some good for Pick Systems and for the Pick market by increasing the Pick Data Model's mind share. Places such as Infoworld, Information Week, Network Computing, VarBusiness, ComputerWorld, etc. Even occasionally, Forbes, Business Week, Time, and the Wall Street Journal.

In closing, I continue to offer a challenge to the end users and user groups of the world. Stop complaining and start becoming part of the solution! Let me know if you are interested in doing something about our lack of mind-share. Something that could have a substantial effect on our ability to hold our heads up high when we say our mission critical systems run on a version of the Pick Data Model. Maybe, just maybe, together we can prompt the vendors to back us and get into more of the mainstream press. And maybe, just maybe, the next time we say Pick, our boss (President, CEO, etc.) will be able to respond "Oh, I've read about that – the flexible, powerful, easy to program and easy to use Pick Data Model." instead of today's response of "What's Pick?".

If this idea has appeal, please write me care of News and Review and I'll attempt to help coordinate a unified design and distribution channel. If on the other hand you're not interested in this idea, please write and offer a better suggestion!!!
Oh, by the way, all you vendors are welcome to participate as well!