Hi Steve and Melissa:
Sorry, but I don't think you guys ‘get it'. Tom's Super Bowl Extravaganza was not about targeting decision-makers. It was a simple message: we are a gorilla. We are now so big that we can afford to advertise during the Super Bowl, with full knowledge that such expenditure is blatantly wasteful. The message is that the coiffures are so full and the budget so huge that we don't fall under the normal rules of fiduciary responsibility.
I don't want to go on a Dennis Miller-esque rant here, but does it surprise anyone that The Tom has done this? His whole strategy is one of making his company look bigger and more dominant than it really is. The Gorilla Game has been warped into a dangerous and destructive game of one-upsmanship and ‘blow fish' mentality that harms both the customer and the market. In the wake of this aggressive, no-holds-barred selling tactics are failed implementations and scorched careers. The Tom's claim of ‘100% satisfaction, 100% successful' proves him to either by a liar or decimal-point-placement challenged.
And while I'm at it, is everyone else tired of the Tom and Jerry, uh, Larry cartoons? Can't someone just send both of them to their rooms to ponder their childish behavior? Does it really benefit anyone, much less the customer base, to hear them call each other names? It may be entertaining, but it sure ain't good business. Tom and Larry represent an upper echelon of businessman that is totally divorced from the reality of the hardships of everyday business life. Are people more interested in branding issues, or systems that work? Name recognition, or a company that stands behind its products? Gorilla tactics, or satisfied customers? (Can you tell I'm an engineer?) I understand the need to get the right message to the right customers, but when decisions are based on bullying and misleading tactics, it is the customer that is punished.
As investors, we need to all be aware of the dangers of such business tactics. As an employee of a competitor (CLFY), I am not above making money by investing in other companies this space. However, I have personally never owned SEBL, and do not see myself owning SEBL, based on these tactics and their long-term ramifications. I am not giving any advice on whether or not to own SEBL, merely my own personal perspective. Congrats to those who have made money here, but at some point investors need to consider the long term ramifications of supporting such destructive business models that ignore customers in favor of ‘making the sale'. The so-called ‘Oracle' model of growing a business at any expense (usually the customers) negatively affects the productivity of entire market segments. Customers are promised one thing and delivered another. Competitors (yes, even CLFY) then feel the pressure to match such tactics, else become a shriveled french fry forgotten under the car seat. Customers can't deliver on their promises because of missed vendor commitments, and pass that cost on to YOU. At some point, investors need to recognize this cycle and own up to their responsibility by refusing to invest in such companies. Reward the companies that deliver their promises and not the ones that promise their deliveries.
Yes, I realize that the concept of responsible investing will probably not be popular here, based on the comments I have seen about Tom, Larry, and others in that mold. Many seem to be aware of the issues, but then comment ‘oh, but they really deliver the numbers'. What happened to delivering the goods? Increasing productivity? Contributing to the greater good? I know there are those that would argue that SEBL does just that. To those I say: phooey. Double phooey. Wake up and smell the coffee. Separate the delivery of numbers from the delivery of goods. Look up a former SCOP user, for example, and prepare to hear an earful.
Good luck in your responsible investing.
|
