TTG Marketing Woes

["Paul R. Falzer" prf@xxxxxxxx]

At 01:52 AM 2/9/96 -0600, Peter Knupfer wrote:
>Sigh. Kenneth Frank lectures us on civility and deplores "hostility and
>sarcasm." He disqualifies from the conversation those who weren't present
>when TTG deigned to discuss these subjects a year ago, and refers us to the
>archives for proof that TTG has "made an effort to be open and discuss our
>plans and direction."

Peter, gauging from your most recent posting along with Ken's response to
your previous comment, it's becoming apparent to me that something is odd in
Baltimore.
One indication is that Ken seems to be letting personal sentiments interfere
with his executive responsibilities. I think everyone understands that a
person might have affection for some people and not others, that he would
hold strangers and enemies to a higher standard than friends. People create
standards of conduct and violate them _ad lib._ These tendencies are part
and parcel of the human condition. But, a corporate executive must keep them
at bay while he focuses on the company and its products.

I understand that Ken might not like people who challenge him and that he
might favor long time customers. What I don't understand is why an executive
would want to advertise his personal likes and dislikes in a way that
restricts his customer base and alienates new users.

I am aware that Ken has responded to specific questions by saying, in
effect, "this has all been discussed before." Personally, I can appreciate
his frustratioin at being asked the same or similar questions over and
again. Still, it puzzles me to see an executive who doesn't take every
question, suggestion, and request as an opportunity to chant the corporate
mantra, disseminate information to a wider audience, and reinforce what has
already been conveyed. I would expect him to say, "You want to know about
our products and plans? Happy to discuss them. Let me tell you a few things,
then give you some information. Here's a policy statement; this is a press
release; here's an FAQ that we've created especially for our on-line customers."

I appreciate your having perused the archives and reporting that you failed
to find evidence of putative discussions to which that Ken has alluded. If
we give him the benefit of the doubt, we could say that he has forgotten
about times and forums. Perhaps the discussions that he thinks occurred here
actually transpired through private email. Maybe they occurred during staff
meetings. I understand the foibles of human memory. But I don't understand
why an executive would rely on memory rather than having a select set of
documents readily at hand, that can be be passed out or transmitted on the spot.

I understand the need for corporate secrecy, especially the right of
companies to limit what they say about products under development. I would
respect Ken's saying: "we are developing a new version of XyWrite for
Windows and are interested in what you would like to see in this version. I
can tell you a few things about the product, but I can't to get into
details." What seems odd is that an executive would decline to discuss
something by insisting that he's already talked about it, then point you to
non-existent discussions. It's not as if you can't go hunting and report
back that you've been sent on a wild goose chase.

Well meaning people inadvertently point others in the wrong direction from
time to time. Ordinarily, a mistake like this is easily remedied and quickly
forgotten. What's odd in this instance is that the response compounds the
situation and creates a problem out of nothing. You were sent off to the
information tulies. You came back with a disturbing message that might not
have surfaced otherwise about dubious business practices combined with poor
customer relations. I would expect an executive not to let this pass.
Normally, I would anticipate a reply forthwith that answers the allegations
point by point. Though I can wait and see what appears next, past
performance suggests that I could be waiting a very long time indeed.

Your recent postings, along with postings from others, have suggested that
TTG has a very unusual way of treating its loyal customers. Overall, the
company's behavior reminds me of a dissonance reduction experiment, in which
one's attitude is supposed to justify negative events. If the program is
broken, I learn to love its faults. If tech support refuses to help, I must
be patient and believe that the effort is worthwhile. If they make promises
they don't keep, I will believe that they are working on something very
important. Since they behave badly, I must believe that they are really good
at what they do. If their behavior is strange and erratic, I will regard
them as geniuses and cut them even more slack. Creating dissonance in the
service of knowledge is one thing, but I doubt that anyone will defend it as
a sound business practice.

XyWrite is a writing instrument; as such, it is intimately connected with
something I do. I am personally involved in what I put on paper or on the
screen. I don't have the same sense of involvement with an executive of the
company that produces the instrument. Ken Frank can heap insults if he
likes. If his friends are targets, they might feel hurt or angry. Customers
who doesn't have a personal relationship will react differently. They might
be concerned about how this predilection affects his ability to bring a
quality product to market. If the product is good and the company sound,
most customers will dissociate affect from behavior. As it is, this customer
has begun to distinguish the product from the company. I have been wondering
if perhaps the future of the XyWrite product line will be better assured if
it is in someone else's hands. Gauging from discussions on another moderated
listserv, this is the experience of Nota Bene users, who survived TTG's
ownership and now are a much happier lot.

Meanwhile, the product -- in my case, XyWrite for Windows -- remains on my
drive. Its qualities and capabilities speak for themselves. Consider the
marketplace: well-healed competitors have expanded their capabilities and
incorporated some of XyWin's best features. Nota Bene is developing a
Windows 95 version right now, without using XyWin code. Maybe what Ken Frank
is telling us, in an oblique way, is that renewing the product line is a
bigger job than he can handle. I don't know Ken, but if this is what will be
I wish him well. In the final analysis, though, what's best for the product
and what's right for him may be separate matters.

Paul