"Almost EVERY Fibre Channel related article contains a quote from Brenda
Christensen, and a plug for Brocade. Notice the not so subtle tie between Sun and
Brocade? There is no mention of Ancor in this article."
Craig, I agree with you that the proactive marketing effort on Ancor's part is certainly much weaker than Brocade's. They have certainly improved, and I would cite the recent release from the CEO, listing the number of "firsts" that they have accomplished. I think that the lesson they need to learn from Brocade (and Brenda Christensen) is the mind share concept that you discussed in your previous post. There may also be a bias that superior technology will win the contracts. As we all know, that is not currently the case. If you are a manager, looking for class 2/3 switching and you don't have a crucial difference in the traffic on your network, and you don't need class 1 or FC-AL in your fabric - it is essentially a toss-up. At this point in the development of FC markets there are not enough critical differences between the MKII and the Silkworm to cause one to select the other on a pure technology difference. The competition on cost, was intially to Ancor's advantage, but that has disappeared.
All that is left at this time is marketing and mindshare difference. It is a classic Coke vs. Pepsi/Nike vs. Adidas battle.
The marketing people need to recognize this and rise to the task. They need to generate a "wall" of PR around Ancor and the MKII, to equal the Brocade effort.
I think we all need to be aware of the retrospective bias factor, involved in our critiques of Ancor's marketing. In disappointing situations, it is common to look back and find fault that was not recognized at the time. My most rational retrospective look is that Ancor's marketing is dramatically improved with the new management team, they just have not figured out as many ways to get media coverage as Brocade.
George D. |
