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 : Vantive Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (2296)	7/8/1998 3:16:00 AM
From: cis man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3033

<< Am I interpreting you correctly in that you think the Vantive SFA product offering is inferior to Siebel in terms of functionality?>> From an enduser's perspective they are not even close. Siebel's UI feels like Microsoft Office (ok, maybe that's stretching it a bit, but you get the point), Vantive's UI screams "I STARTED LIFE AS A SUPPORT APPLICATION". Go see the products at the DCI show in San Jose in a couple of months. You'll see what I mean. << If so, then some of the blame should fall on the engineering organization.>> To the extent they have failed to get the product to the point where it is competitive, I would blame product marketing, not the engineers themselves. How can they possibly know what a salesperson wants/needs in an application? <<Really, there is no reason that Siebel should have a better product offering than anybody - Sebl is hardly a software engineering powerhouse. How come Vntv cant build a better product? No budget?>> Well, first there's the matter of an 18 to 24 month head start. Then there's the fact that SFA, until the Scopus acquisition, was Siebel's sole focus. I've always gotten the impression that their products have technical limitations, especially around mobile synch, but that they are first and foremost designed to be SOLD. Whoever runs product marketing for them has a thorough understanding of what the decision makers and key influencers in large organizations are looking for in an SFA product, and the products certainly reflect that understanding. Combined with a sales force that knows how to call high, they are very tough to beat. It pains me to say this because I think Tom Siebel is a slimebag. Getting back to Vantive, the major mistake that was made IMHO was the focus on Siebel as the major competition and the subsequent focus on SFA before the product and sales force was ready. Hindsight is obviously 20/20, but it seems to me that a better strategy would have been to continue to step on Clarify's neck in the support market while doing the product marketing homework needed to design and develop a competitive SFA product. Instead, they hired Lochhead and yelled CHARGE!