FUD- Tom, Mike, Eric- FWIW- my follow-up
As a long term (and currently frustrated) Qualcomm investor I feel this is a worthwhile topic as I believe FUD/ FUDD is one of the primary reasons Qualcomm remains a very misunderstood and undervalued company.
My comments to Mike
1. You stated >>”I don't think any of the cellular industry's FUD campaigns have been particularly effective.” And, “. To this day, and this is especially a direct criticism of Qualcomm's FUD campaign, the vast, vast majority of the end users don't have a clue that there are different benefits provided by competing technologies; almost every end user thinks all cell phones and all cellular operators have the same capabilities.” And, “I don't think any company or group of companies in the cellular industry has been anywhere near that successful (as IBM) . <<<<<
I’ll definitely agree that Qualcomm’s marketing (or FUD as you wish to call it) is not particularly effective. However, I must totally disagree that those FUD attacks by the GSMA and the GSM companies have been ineffective, on the contrary they have been most effective.
Eric in an April 29 post stated the following-
>> “What I do know is that they certainly have a strong hold on the carrier community. They currently have 524 operator and regulator members representing 190 countries, in addition to their 134 associate members (vendors).
That's called technology adoption, and yes, they are a very effective organization. “<<<
2.You stated >>” I'm open minded, as always. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise.
If indeed they are effective, that's more because Qualcomm's FUD campaign has been so ineffective more than because its competitors' campaigns have been effective. So, I blame it on Qualcomm more than casting aspersions on its competitors. <<<<
Mike, I believe that you’ve followed Qualcomm/ CDMA for a long time so if you haven’t observed the effective FUD against such by now I doubt that I’m going to be able to convince you. As stated above, the GSMA and the GSM are vastly superior to the GDG and CDMA companies in terms of the funds they control to support advertising campaigns and lobbying efforts. Only recently have a few articles emerged that have discussed in detail the strengths of CDMA vs GSM/WCDMA (Economist, Fortune, Worth, Forbes). From my observations, any time the CDMA camp puts forth an effort to “market itself”, it gets attacked from all sides (GSMA PR’s, CNBC, and print media) in a ratio of 10 to 1 or more. I believe that Qualcomm/ the GDG has finally resolved itself to just accept that fact at present as it realizes it is in a no win situation. A case in point was the recent attack by the GSMA and the barrage of pro GSM articles that followed (over 30 by Eric’s count) when Congressman Issa wrote a letter supporting CDMA for Iraq apparently believing a decision was imminent on the letting of GSM contracts for that area. Another article was written today from a so called independent consultant that included verbatim statements from the GSMA PR in his independent piece supporting GSM for Iraq. (see my post on Si Mod if interested siliconinvestor.com
3. You stated >>”From my point of view, there is no difference when FUD is truthful and is based on truth. It's when FUD becomes intentionally untruthful or is based on intentional falsehood that it becomes bad, unethical marketing. “<<
I totally agree, FUD based on intentional falsehood should be considered unethical marketing. And, thanks for taking the time to do further research and post the Netlingo Fear, Uncertainty and Disinformation information
My comments to Eric-
1. You stated to Tom’s question << What would you say is the difference between FUD and "good marketing"? >>
... or "bad marketing" (ineffective marketing)?
There is no difference.
FUD is a formal sales and marketing discipline that is incorporated into a sales or marketing campaign.
Add disinformation, half-truths, untruths, to the mix, and you have FUDD, with the final D standing for disinformation. Now you're in a different ball game. If any piece of that disinformation is discerned by the target audience to be untrue, games over. <<<
Eric, from the above (you being in sales) I take it that even though you consider FUD to be the same as marketing, you do consider FUDD as marketing employing disinformation to be unethical?
In reference to our earlier discussion regarding Dr J and his truthful “FUD” in “spilling the beans” that viable commercial WCDMA deployment would not be until 2005/2005 wherein his GSM/WCDMA counterparts were disseminating disinformation (FUDD) about such, who do you consider ethical and unethical?
In a subsequent post you wrote that I “choose here to indulge in what I consider to be highly distasteful innuendo “ when I posed two logical reasons ( but perhaps unflattering) for your being upset with Dr J for telling the truth (and posting several long paragraphs on same subject).
Again, you appear to be saying you are opposed to FUDD, but are upset with Dr J for truthful (but ineffective) FUD while applauding the GSMA and GSM companies for employing deceitful (but effective) FUDD. I find you’re your position curiously inconsistent and as such continue to search for the truth.
2. Thanks for posting the “Newbees guide to FUD” with these salient statements-
A. “After 1990 the term FUD was associated increasingly frequently with Microsoft, and has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon. “
B. . The past few years have brought a dramatic increase in the FUD tactic. Not only are large companies using it to help stifle new and upcoming competition, in addition, uneducated journalists are wielding it like a four year old with a loaded gun: unaware of the danger, or of the consequences.
C. The use of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in marketing campaigns -- while certain to get the public's attention -- is plainly wrong. Armed with the above information, it's our hope that the reader will now be able to spot it, refute it, and most importantly, not buy into it.
D. Respond to FUD by :
1) Mail the author of the FUD . 2. Do not assume the FUD was intentional. 3) Openly dispute the article in a public forum.
I often adhere to 2 of those 3.
Regards, jim |
