Two reasons Lotus sales might look worse than they could be

by Volker Weber

Afaik, there are two technical reasons that hurt Lotus:

  1. IBM Forms and Websphere Portal are sold through the Lotus business. They are expensive products so sales people like to push them. However, they are reported under the Websphere brand.
  2. IBM does not compensate for renewals. There is no reason for sales people to push renewals into the mid market. When was your last visit?

Take this with a grain of salt. IBM does not really give me that information directly.

Comments

1) That info has been anecdotally out there for a long time. I'd be interested to know if the development costs/sales of Portal are included in the Lotus or WebSphere numbers. Also, much of Lotus product sales into large customers are bundled with Portal in Accelerator packages (Connections, Quickr, Sametime etc). If love to know if those numbers make it into the Lotus figures properly.

2) That is true in almost all cases, and massively damages existing Lotus customer relationships. Worse, IBM partners are also now very badly compensated for renewals, so almost the only ones that have an incentive to call for renewals are few telephone-based renewals teams around the world. I've always preached that 'a customer is for life not just for Christmas' given IBM's bizarre Q4 net-new focus, this only gets worse year on year.

However, these are small details really. It is the trend in the numbers over the past 5 years that tells the tale.

Stuart McIntyre, 2011-04-21 13:29

IBM Sales LEADS with, "Let us help migrate you to Exchange" instead of, "Let us show you why your investment in Notes was the right call and why more investment will be equally effective." They also don't bother talking to the people on the proverbial front lines before they waltz in with their spiel about Portal and LotusLive. Their incompetence is matched only by their arrogance. But no, I'm not bitter at all...

Rob McDonagh, 2011-04-21 16:25

Rob, are you freaking kidding!?

Tim Paque, 2011-04-27 00:11

Ha! Not even a little bit. If anything, I understated it...

Rob McDonagh, 2011-04-27 03:34

Recent comments

Susan Bulloch on I miss these people at 02:26
Volker Weber on I miss these people at 21:56
Alan Lepofsky on I miss these people at 21:55
Volker Weber on I miss these people at 21:35
Susan Bulloch on I miss these people at 21:34
Thomas Duff on I miss these people at 20:44
Chris Coates on I miss these people at 20:37
Bill Buchan on I miss these people at 20:35
Paul Mooney on I miss these people at 20:26
sean cull on I miss these people at 13:09
Erik Ferrari on I miss these people at 10:50
Andrew Pollack on I miss these people at 03:40
Stephan H. Wissel on I miss these people at 01:46
Volker Weber on I miss these people at 21:31
Darren Duke on I miss these people at 17:43
Volker Weber on Stupid is who stupid does at 16:15
Chris Lindley on Stupid is who stupid does at 16:06
Jürgen Sting on Fataler Konstruktionsfehler im besonderen elektronischen Anwaltspostfach at 11:33
Jérôme RAUCH on Impulse buy of the day at 02:48
Armin Grewe on Stupid is who stupid does at 00:51
Ingo Seifert on Impulse buy of the day at 00:38
Volker Weber on Stupid is who stupid does at 22:43
Craig Wiseman on Stupid is who stupid does at 20:01
Volker Weber on Stupid is who stupid does at 17:01
Kai Schmalenbach on Stupid is who stupid does at 16:49

Ceci n'est pas un blog

I explain difficult concepts in simple ways. For free, and for money. Clue procurement and bullshit detection.

vowe

Contact
Publications
Stuff that works
Amazon Wish List
Frequently Asked Questions

rss feed  twitter

Local time is 17:04

visitors.gif