Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (144560)	10/2/2001 11:51:48 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, re: It's not as if Intel is selling razors and razorblades. My guess is that the top 20 customers account for 80% of Intel mpu sales. The number of marketing people Intel needs is probably far less than most manufacturers in other markets. The Intel Inside program has created tremendous value. It has been the most successful marketing program for a component ever. The value is reflected in the higher ASP's that Intel enjoys, compared with AMD. Without brand value, created by marketing, Intel products become commodities, sold strictly on specifications. To figure the value of Intel marketing, just figure what the higher ASP's mean to Intel in gross margin dollars each year. It's huge. Plus the barrier to entry, to unseat a top 10 respected brand, keeps the competition at bay. Brand preference doesn't just happen. The engineers may or may not make a superior product; the marketing folks are the ones that create the perception of a superior product. John

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (144560)	10/2/2001 3:36:51 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I'd note a few things. First, Intel is far from being just an MPU company, so your statement that they probably don't need that many marketing people is somewhat erroneous. They need people who are continually in touch with a variety of industries and customers. Second, marketing covers a lot of territory. The most obvious (and probably least important) is in advertising and branding. I think this, more than anything else is what Barrett's statement, which was mentioned elsewhere, is all about. You can only get so much bang for the buck in advertising a product that most consumers won't even touch directly. Intel has done a lot to help support OEM advertising, but even that is tapering off as we move into uncharted waters. Even within those several large customers, there are multiple product lines and multiple products in use. You'd be surprised how tough it can be to cover a company like HP or IBM with all their different products, geographies and unique needs. It's not huge, but it is bigger than many people realize. Intel, for better or worse, have put themselve in the position where they are necessarily involved in just about any PC product designed anywhere. That means lots of Tech Sales Engineers and others need to be involved in discussions all over. I thin that your overall statement is correct. Intel can do with LESS than many other companies in other fields. And that has been my experience in working for and with them. However, I question those who think none of the above is a reasonable policy. Good marketing has been part of the Intel mix as far back as the 60s and is likely to remain so. mg