(22 votes, average: 4.05 out of 5)
Loading ...
Bashing competition is hardly a new “concept”; we see politicians lashing at each other, well known companies such as Google and Apple bashing Microsoft, but even some smaller sales performance management companies feeling compelled to slander their competition.
Two recent press releases illustrate what I mean by the unethical practice of defaming competition and spreading lies in the media:
Press Release 1
Synygy created the TrueReplacement offer in response to feedback provided by current and former customers of Callidus Software, namely that some customers have found:
- Project implementations can stretch to more than a year and come in significantly over budget.
- Implementations are typically riddled with custom code, which causes subsequent changes to be expensive and time consuming.
- Unmet promises have led to undesired outcomes.
- Ongoing IT and other costs associated are higher than expected.
- Business users are unable to make changes to data, plans, and reports-exacerbating the problems of inflexibility and excessive costs.
Press Release 2
… Synygy has found that not all such companies are as independent and unbiased as they claim. Instead, Synygy has encountered situations where such companies have alliances with the very vendors about whom they are supposedly providing unbiased advice, are providing implementation and other services to the vendor or the vendor’s customers after helping a vendor win business, and are providing inaccurate and misleading information about the vendors with whom they do not have such arrangements.
Companies providing or that have provided SCM vendor evaluation services include:
- OpenSymmetry (which has performed vendor evaluations and follow-on implementations of Callidus Software, and has alliances with other vendors)
- Arcadia Solutions (which has done vendor evaluations followed by implementations of Callidus and other systems)
- Compensation Technologies (which formed alliances with Callidus, Oracle, and others, and is now owned by Callidus, but which still has management in common with The Alexander Group)
- Business users are unable to make changes to data, plans, and reports-exacerbating the problems of inflexibility and excessive costs
- Ongoing IT and other costs associated are higher than expected.
- Iconixx (formerly an alliance partner with Callidus, Oracle, and others, and now is owned by nGenera)
As an example of the questionable practices of these companies, OpenSymmetry repeatedly uses the words “independent” and “unbiased” on its website and yet in a press release yesterday stated: “OpenSymmetry will deploy and implement Callidus On-Demand and on-premise solutions.”
In both examples, the attempt is obviously to capture current or potential clients from the competition, by attempting to make them believe in lies and distorted facts.
I searched the web for material supporting my view that this is not the best strategy, and found a recent article reflecting what I was thinking:
Most companies out there are trying to solve problems for customers. They may be doing it in a different way from you - but most honestly believe in their method and how it will help those customers. Recognizing your customer’s strengths is key to making your own pitch something that resonates well with your customer. You need to recognize that your customer often has a difficult choice about what product to select - perhaps putting their own job on the line for it. So, if you can help them with a convincing argument why your product serves them better AND build the argument why the other product doesn’t fit - even though it TOO is a great product - then you are more likely to get the sale.
For example, in a simplistic approach if I were selling you apples and someone else were trying to sell you oranges, I could bash my competition and tell you that my apples are sweet and his oranges are citris, and that citris sucks and causes acid in your stomach. Or the better pitch might be to say, “While oranges are indeed a great fruit and have amazing benefits like Vitamin C, I know that someone who is as on-the-go like you will appreciate the tremendous benefit that a fruit like an apple can bring such as portability (no need to peel it), cleanliness (no juice running down your arm), and the perfect balance of sweet and nutrition.” Your prospect knows that you have pluses and minuses, and that your competition has pluses and minuses and when you point out the pluses in your competition, it adds significant credibility to your entire pitch. Your prospect is going to go through this exercise of weighing the pluses and minuses after you leave - so you are helping him/her by going through it with him/her and planting just what you want them to think about you vs them is a perfect tactic to bring your product to the top.
Bad-mouthing competition never works, and if a vendor truly has a superior product, let the product speak for itself and make an argument for the product’s superiority rather than for the inferiority of the competition. This is a concept I would have at least expected companies focusing on incentives and rewards to understand!
Almost everyone faced a situation where some people try to make others look bad to make themselves look better, or where a bully needs to harass people to feel better. Fortunately, this behavior rarely pays off.
The question organizations really need to ask themselves is, do you really want to do business with a vendor with a lack of professionalism and business ethics, who will lower themselves by “playing dirty”? Can you really trust such a vendor, and depend on them to deliver a mission-critical solution?
Come on SPM Vendors… Grow up!
Although you make some interesting points, I think you should have disclosed that you work for Opensymmetry….
Thank you for helping me expose the “unbiased” practices of SPM vendor evaluators, which is particularly amusing since this domain is registered to Julien Dionne, who is an OpenSymmetry employee, which means that LeapComp = OpenSymmetry.
Of course, OpenSymmetry is exactly one of the “pay for play” evaluators that Synygy exposed in its press release.
As for Synygy’s TrueReplacement offer, this is far from “badmouthing,” which is defined in the dictionary as “to criticize or disparage, often spitefully or unfairly.” To me badmouthing means saying things that are untrue or only partially true (the “unfair” aspect) in a malicious or vindictive way (the “spiteful” part).
In this case, Synygy is simply stating facts that are true and comparing that track record to Synygy’s track record of success where Callidus has failed. This is neither unfair nor spiteful.
Synygy is not spreading lies. Synygy is exposing the truth. Those truths are that: (a) there are no “unbiased” SPM evaluators, (b) Synygy has cleaned up the messes caused by failed Callidus implementations, and (c) Synygy has never had such a failure.
- Mark A. Stiffler, President & CEO, Synygy, Inc.
Great article! I could not agree more that SPM companies have been ‘going negative’ for way too long much to the detriment of the SPM industry. As President/Founder of Arcadia Solutions (referenced in the article) our approach is to continue to invest in refining our approach to implementing SPM solutions in a more strategic and lower cost manner. We will continue to share our ideas, experience and metrics on increasing strategic benefit and reducing cost with all interested parties in the marketplace. We think the overall goal is to raise the bar in the marketplace in general as SPM adoption remains relatively low in the marketplace.
Best
Seth Henry
shenry@arcadiasolutions.com
Seth - Thank you for your the feedback, I hope you will find many other interesting article in this blog.
Mark & John - It’s true that I work for OpenSymmetry, but I never tried to conceal that fact. That should be obvious when looking at my profile in the right side bar, or at the “About Me” section, or at my LinkedIn profile. This being said, the blog is something I do very independently from my job at OS. I’m not getting paid for writing it, my views are not influenced, censored, or endorsed by my employer, and as a matter of fact, I have gotten in trouble a few times because of controversial things I have written in the past. You seem to have a strange paranoia that everyone is biased?
I’m not going to try to defend OpenSymmetry or any of those other companies, or try to convince people that your “truths” are not true - there is no way to make a bully admit they are a bully. I will just say that if I was one of your potential client, I would be scared that you would spread “truths” about me, and that I’m sure others will agree with me after making their own mind when they read your press releases.
Another note about transparency: I approve comments before they are being posted on this blog. If I was really biased or if OpenSymmetry was really = LeapComp, I would probably have rejected the comment.
I will talk about vendor selection best practices and why templates for SPM vendor evaluation do not work in a series of posts I have planned for in about two weeks.
I would love to hear what others have to say…
I concur completely with the views expressed in this article. Let us not get too carried away with the names mentioned and instead give credit to the author for raising a really good point and for taking a strong position on something that is maligning the whole industry a position long overdue in my opinion. Can we atleast agree on the fact that “negative” competition invariably will - in the long run - hurt us all.
I increasingly find the industry dominated by this negative mindset. Let us not try to be cops unto others - vigilante justice has never borne fruit. And what is this all leading to ??? In the midst of this competition, the negativity has started to spill over into other areas. Negative banter when the other company got a better deal or a better contract or a better client. Negative talk among employees. Negative business practises ….. lets stay focussed on the one word that needs focus - “negative”.
It’s not healthy - and as rightfully pointed out, let’s agree that the merit of the product should do the talking - not the folks selling it. And lets also agree to encourage open discourse like this - it can only lead to some good. My congratulations to the author for taking a strong position.
To Mark Stiffler: Julien gave you a great opportunity to show tact & professionalism in the face of criticism. I’m sorry to see you failed.
As an IT Manager I would caution all ISV’s;
1) Yes, many enterprise and line of business applications fail. Many from poor communication, lack of executive commitment, one sponsor “throwing it over the wall”, and most importantly - lack of looking at your existing processes.
IT Business Edge journalist Ann All has a good post here;
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/tve/?p=409
QUOTE: CRM Consultants Focusing More on Process, Less on Technology
Let me repeat - you cannot automate chaos.
I have a blog post on trying to automate broken processes here;
http://elliotross.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/dont-automate-broken-processes/
2) I call it Marketing Myths;
http://elliotross.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/technology-marketing-myth-1/
Bad Vendor Piece
- Article Introduction & concept
- you “should do” this
- By-line signature by a company that provides the “should do”
Good Vendor Piece
- Article Introduction & concept
- Possible responses and methods of dealing with the concept
- How vendor can approach and help the possible responses and methods
You will note that this is software agnostic.
You will also note from my blog that I preach about it quite regularly
Regards..
Elliot Ross
Julien,
Thanks for quoting my blog post and I think whats remarkable about this post is that Synygy came back and illustrated EXACTLY why you should NEVER act the way they act. I can’t imagine anyone taking a company or a salesperson seriously that feels the need to talk about how bad the competition is. Its like being in the school yard and the greatest comeback you have is “my Dad is bigger than your Dad”
If you have a great product, talk about why your product is great. And, recognize where your competition is great too. And, then explain why you are the still the best choice. When the best you can do is knock down the competition, then most likely you don’t have enough good things to say about your own product - so you have to make the competition to look worse to make you look better.
I would never buy a product from someone who feels that the best way to promote their product is to tell me why my other choices stink.
Since Synygy’s response to your criticism was to continue their negative campaign, I think your readers got a GREAT example of the idiocy behind this sales method.
I am pleased that Synygy’s press releases have resulted in someone actually writing comments to Julien’s posts, which have been relatively quiet to date.
The press releases, his post, and the associated comments all hint at something very important for the growing SPM industry. That is, what is the root cause of failed SPM software implementations—and what should companies who are shopping for a solution have a right to know?
For 17 years, Synygy has watched competitors come and go, has witnessed dozens of implementation failures by competitors, and has listened to competitors make false claims about their abilities and about Synygy. Synygy has stood on the sidelines watching, witnessing, and listening to all of this.
Now, I guess you could say that Synygy is the “whistleblower” of the industry. Synygy, even in the face of criticism from our competitors, has begun to expose the hidden agendas, the unmet promises, and the failures that Synygy believe are the plague of our industry. (And Synygy has a lot more to say on the topic over the coming months…)
Some people, like Manu, might consider Synygy’s public statements to be “negative.” I consider them to be the start a healthy dialog centered on the truth—the kind of truth that many would prefer be kept hidden in the closet—even though that truth will help companies make a more informed decision about an SPM vendor.
Although Synygy began last week by highlighting the unscrupulous practices of “independent” SPM software evaluators and the failures of Callidus Software, many other vendors have performed just as poorly, and the thing that will “hurt us all” is SPM vendors who take on projects that are beyond their capabilities.
The root causes of failed implementations are SPM vendors who over-sell and exceed their capabilities. When these vendors over-sell and fail to stay within their capabilities, the results are:
• implementations that take longer and cost more than promised
• implementations riddled with custom code because software lacks out-of-the-box functionality
• business users that are unable to make changes to data, plans, and reports
• upgrades that are complex, expensive, and time-consuming
• post-implementation costs that are higher than expected
After nearly two decades of providing SCM and SPM solutions, Synygy’s capabilities have expanded over the years to the point where Synygy can successfully take on any project, including the most complex global implementations for the world’s largest companies. Synygy can even more easily take on projects for companies than have a couple hundred salespeople.
I have a challenge to everyone in the SPM industry: Whether you are focused on solutions for small or large companies, do as Synygy has done:
• deliver on time and on budget for a fixed implementation fee (instead of giving lowball estimates of schedule and cost)
• deliver projects without database coding, without SQL coding, without hard coding of plan rules, and without custom coding of any kind
• deliver solutions that eliminate the need for technical resources to make changes to data, plans, or reports
• deliver automated, frequent, instantaneous upgrades without re-implementation costs
• eliminate hidden costs and be honest with customers up front—before wasting their time and money
- Mark A. Stiffler, President & CEO, Synygy, Inc.
@Mark
You are not defining causal factors or linkages
• implementations that take longer and cost more than promised
Is that because a vendor oversold? or because a client can’t / won’t nail down requirements & lets scope creep & new requirements enter the picture
• implementations riddled with custom code because software lacks out-of-the-box functionality
Is that because there is genuine “gotta have” features missing? or because the customer has the “We always did it this way” beast - where they have zero structure and process and try to use software to manage that existing chaos
Again - I am not coming from the lens of any particular type of business software.
I just find that (especially on the customer side) too many want to blame software vendors for their own lack of process discipline, their own lack of executive commitment etc.
Regards
Elliot Ross
So much to say and so little time!
First, let me vouch for Julienne. He is one of that rare breed who is highly technical in both the compensation AND the data integration side of SPM, and who also has the natural zeal and skills of an independent-thinking evangelist that makes him want to share knowledge he finds as powerful and beneficial to others (it takes one to know one). I shared a cubicle with him for 3 months, and I know him well. He is me 30 years ago. I’ll get back to this later – it is pertinent to this discussion.
Now, the problem we have here (or should I say situation, since it is self-defeating to perceive as a problem, something that is natural and endemic in life), is that there are two ways to succeed in Sales, the way I did it long ago, and the way most do ever since then. In 1980 my good friend Peter Hermann, professor of Marketing at UNO, explained to me that the “Law of Supply and Demand” had been displaced by the “Law of Supply and Idiots” in Marketing. He assured me that he and every other teacher of Marketing required every student to do a thesis experiment in which they developed and marketed a valueless “product” like the “Pet Rock” (does anyone remember that?), to prove the point that the best use of any business’ fund$ is spending it on marketing to “Idiots”, because “there are more idiots who will buy your product than you can ever supply!” A corollary of that “Law” said that “if you skillfully repeat something untrue enough, it will become true, even for those who are not Idiots.” Enough said on this, y’all (I’m Texan) can figure this out, since y’all are not idiots. (You can probably also see how this has been successful in Political marketing, too.)
I crossed over into sales of interactive graphics design systems (IGDS-can you guess the company?) and won every sale because I was able to communicate what I knew were the many reasons that my product was clearly superior to the competitors’ system. I had the advantages of 1: I had an understanding of the technical details because I had been a lead designer/developer of the product, 2: I had taken the TIME to research the comparable technical details of the competitors’ products, 3: I had a belief that the clients’ management that I would sell to were NOT IDIOTS, and 4: I had the skills to communicate the zeal I had for sharing the TRUTH to those clients who were otherwise being assaulted by a barrage of marketing based on that new Law of marketing, and that they could and would appreciate the difference. Again, I’ll stop and let y’all make the logical leaps here.
My conclusion on this thread, and even this entire Blog, is that Julienne is sincerely longing for a change in the SPM marketplace in which the above 4 sales principles are working to preserve the health of the marketplace, before the “Idiot Kool-aid” kills it.
Oh, by the way, in the interest of disclosure, I went from sales to management, and then came back to being purely technical again as a (real) Software and Data Architect. After a bad divorce I did a career change into SPM arena, and worked for Callidus for 4 years as a lead Data Integration consultant, the last year of which was within the OnDemand group, both as an implementer of custom client data interfaces and as a designer/developer of their integration toolset. I have a deep understanding of the problems of the “” (Synygy article), and know that it is often the result of complex business requirements handled without skillful data and software architecture skills; and I doubt Synygy can avoid that except by avoiding the clients with complex requirements.
I am now an independent contracting consultant, after leaving Callidus to join Iconixx last year, and can be reached at NoahDuh@hotmail.com if you want to debate this further, as I am generally too busy to look at any blogs more often than weekly.
:)
Enlighten me because I want to understand
Mr Stiffler, we’ve not had the pleasure of meeting and I’d really hoped it could have been under different circumstances. As a Director of OpenSymmetry in the UK, I’d love to have seen you out here. (BTW why aren’t you in EMEA?)
You’ve laid the boot into OpenSymmetry so I’m sure you’ve got plenty of examples and hard evidence.
I haven’t referenced the specific sentences of your article, but my following questions relate to it.
Simply put, please give me clear and precise examples in open forum or email me directly, where OpenSymmetry have provided biased advice to a client in a vendor evaluation. Furthermore, please provide an example of a client OpenSymmetry have taken through a vendor selection and subsequently carried out an implementation i.e. directly gained further work from.
I hope you are able to substantiate your claims as they are accusations that we take seriously and will address.
- John Stuart, Director, OpenSymmetry LLP
@Mark, so let me get this straight, you are saying that because someone is “partnered” with a vendor, they can’t be unbiased? What if you are partnered with all of them? Having come from one of those previously mentioned independent players, we implemented a number of differnt products from successfactors, varicent, xactly, callidus, siebel icm, authoria, etc. To be able to implement a product, you have to be a “partner” or you take the risk of going to the table without the full knowledge of the product. Now some of those vendors were using our company as nothng more than a body shop and not a full partnership, but then i digress.
This is a really interesting discussion and to take it back to Juliene’s initial point - badmouthing tactics.
I don’t see anything wrong with the tactics taken by Mark and the guys par se, you expect it in a sales environment. You will always get landmines in different places from different vendors who want to help focus on their specific strengths and their competitors weaknesses - that’s just 101 selling. Different people approach sales and clients in different ways, ultimately getting to a trusted advisor position.
What Synergy have done with this press release is create noise and recognition.
- Noise in that we are all talking about it and creates awareness for both Synergy and Callidus.
- Recognition that Callidus is the leader, the 100lb gorilla in the space and that the TrueXXXXXXXX brand created is valid and recognised even when trying to replace it.
- Recognition that the market is maturing, including M&A activity with the Callidus purchase mentioned above and Merced acquiring Practique recently.
I’m somewhat biased, I just left Callidus after a number of really great years and signing some great customers. Customers that will come to an event and speak to other customers and prospects freely - this says it all to me as an individual and a potential customer. The atmosphere and environment inside Callidus is simply great, focused and fun!
Looking more at the facts, every vendor claims to be the leader in SPM/EIM/ICM - but what defines this and who can create a balance scorecard?
- Well - Callidus, Synergy, Oracle and Varicent all scored Positive in Gartners July 08 Marketscope, so perhaps this is just another way to try and differentiate and create free PR for Synergy
- Callidus is $100m+ public company, listed on NASDAQ - wart’s and all are there for everyone to see and scrutinise - you can see revenues, customers the lot. Not everyone has the same position. Mark maybe it’s time to remove the Kimono over there?
- They even publish the availability of their solutions here: http://www.callidussoftware.com/products/on-demand/
- Callidus in my opinion attract some of the best people in the business, including people who have moved from bigger organisations like Oracle. Good people go to where people are buying from and investing money in building the best product set.
- With the best people come some of the best partners. These include SI’s such as Accenture, Open Symmetry, SAP, Salesforce.com and everyone else mentioned here -http://www.callidussoftware.com/partners/ these are Top Tier players. In the interest of trying to be fair, Synergy partner with Colletti Fiss, HayGroup, Hewitt and others listed here: http://www.synygy.com/company/synygy-partners.asp
- Re Open Symmetry specifically, don’t they partner with others aside to Callidus including Practique, Varicient, Centive etc. The full list is here: http://www.opensymmetry.com/alliances.shtml From the outside, that would make them pretty impartial to me. What the customer ultimately chooses is different. In my personal experience, and I have worked with the guys in EMEA, they are uber professional and totally independent, as much as i didn’t want them to be at times as a sales guy – but providing you have done your job, it doesn’t make a difference, they will do what they or Accenture are bought in for – independent advice based on each individual customers unique specific needs.
@Mark, you are obviously the experts in this field – you have been doing it for nearly 2 decades as opposed to Callidus a mere youngster at 12 years, but I am and was proud to be part of the leading provider of incentive solutions on the market. They have amassed a blue chip customer base of almost 200 customers worldwide more than anyone else I believe, probably more than all other vendors added together in this space.
My 2c for what its worth, there are probably 2,000+ enterprises in which to sell to in this space. We should be focussed on bringing solutions to more of them as opposed to slinging mud to create a story…
Have a great weekend!
Nigel
Whistle blowing on all the competition (especially when there is something to gain from it) is not what I would call whistle blowing.
Mike - Thanks for the kind words. By the way, it’s Julien, not Julienne :-)
Nigel - Julien, not Juliene! :-) But to your point, yes you do expect some of that in a sales environment. I’ve never taken a selling 101 course, and maybe that’s what they teach, but I think it’s the wrong path (but who knows, maybe it does work and I’m just an idealist). This being said, what is told to a client during the sales process is one thing; but in my opinion what is said to the media is a completely different animal. You’ll have a very hard time convincing me that “negative” press is good because it creates buzz and awareness; as Seth commented, I also believe this is to the detriment of the entire SPM industry.
Julien - Im not going to disagree with you - but, we are still here writing about the very same subject… Nigel
Regarding Mark Stiffler’s claims that Synygy has:
“…deliver[ed] projects without database coding, without SQL coding, without hard coding of plan rules, and without custom coding of any kind..”
I’m sorry but this is likely to be just a flat out lie. At least as of fairly recently nearly every customer of Synygy’s has had some sort of customized software build to address unique requirements of the client.
And as for the claim that Synygy has “never oversold..”, that one is also BS. At least from a technical perspective Synygy has oversold the capabilities of it’s software (perhaps that’s why they’ve changed course yet again and are now focusing on consulting services rather than their previous goal of being purely a software manufacturer). One rather infamous example of their “oversell” was when they told a prospective company that their software would run on Unix servers (at a time when it wouldn’t). Fortunately for that prospective client they asked for references who could verify Synygy’s claims. Only then did Synygy confess that they had “oversold” the capabilities of their software.