Over the years, I’ve run into many marketers at all skill levels who had either no or limited knowledge of their products. Granted, product marketing managers do, but what about marketing communication managers? Lead generation specialists? And even marketing executives? Is this surprising? Well, yes and no. Yes, because product knowledge is one of the key tenets of effective marketing. No, because many products are becoming more sophisticated and require a significant investment of time to develop base expertise.

Good engineers know their products and so should good marketers. That’s the lesson from engineering: know your product in excruciating detail. It’s the the foundation of positioning. It’s the foundation of competitive analysis. It’s the foundation of selling. There’s absolutely no excuse for not having product depth, especially in today’s highly-competitive environment. Still, many rely on the crutch of dragging along a product-aware person to trade shows, industry events, analyst briefings, press calls, prospect visits, etc.

What’s the solution? RTFM. “Read the ‘fine’ manual.” If you’ve worked with engineers, you know the more acerbic ones have a better word substitution for “fine.” I’ll argue, however, that RTFM is only one step in a broader process of product understanding.  Here are some key steps.

• RTFM
• Install the products
• RTFM again
• Review support calls
• RTFM again
• Go spend time with partners and customers

Lather, rinse, repeat. Yes, this is an ongoing process. And it takes time – time that many think they don’t have. But what could be more important than this? Marketers and their companies will be better for it. Moreover, that acerbic engineer will have more respect for marketing and won’t call you out publicly with, “Hey Marketer, RTFM.” He or she may even reciprocate by reading the product brochure.

Rob Ciampa

There are more than 100,000,000 lines of code running over dozens of processors in a contemporary automobile. That programming controls everything from the transmission gear selection to the tail light malfunction indicator. If you’ve ever had an automotive computer problem, you know that it’s an expensive, trial-and-error nightmare. Often, the dealer or repair shop simply replaces the whole part and tells you to “give it a shot.”

Last summer, I retired the family’s Dodge minivan after many years of service. (And I have no regrets about owning one!)  I was amazed and frequently annoyed at the number of issues I had with the on-board computers: the body control module, transmission computer, etc. There were code compatibility issues, wiring issues and other assorted problems that would cause the dashboard to shut down while traveling 65 mph on a crowded highway. The repair shop was happy to do a “reprogram” for about $1000. My contract programmers used to get $100/hour, yet this task took the dealer 15 minutes to complete – and there were still bugs.

The recent problems with Toyota, though initially deemed mechanical, are now being considered “electronic,” and are not unique to this manufacturer; Ford has also issued recalls. Every manufacturer has a problem with programming whether they like to admit it or not. You can survive a computer crash because of bad code; you may not survive a car crash because of bad code. Losing the scan of Aunt Bertha’s crumb cake recipe is far different from running through a red light head-on into a dump truck.

As a former engineer, I’m surprised this crisis didn’t occur sooner. It’s just incredibly hard to design and debug distributed computing and control systems, much like those we find in today’s cars. However, we continue to make these systems even more complex and co-dependent.  We are at the mercy of both an incompetent programmer who writes bad car code and the wayward squirrel that chews through the wire that connects the body module computer to the transmission.

Manufacturers who ride the complexity curve must be prepared for fall-out when the bad glitch occurs. The alleged “cover ups” that we’ve heard about are more likely an indication that the manufacturer has a complexity crisis and really doesn’t know what’s going on.  And that’s bad for all of us.

Rob Ciampa

Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Conspirators

Nearly all the dialog I had with the financiers turned to the concept of “dry powder,” an interesting and well-known metaphor for uninvested capital. The irony is that there are many emerging firms searching for money – looking for powder – and unable to get it. Is there a disconnect? Yes and no. Yes, because investment criteria are different and, in most cases, more exacting and stringent. No, because the model – as always – must address two markets: the one in which you’re trying to build a business and the other in which you’re seeking to raise money. Interestingly, elements of Sequoia Capital’s “Presentation of Doom” still ring true, but viewed in a different light it’s just common sense.

Entrepreneurship 101 right? Yes, but…we remain in a bit of a broader technology market malaise. Fortunately, because I lean toward optimism, there are encouraging signs, as indicated by a recent piece in the Merc. When conditions improve – and they will – the success of the outcome will be directly correlated to the dryness of the powder. Right now, that powder may be just a bit damp.

Rob Ciampa