Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell

HangingChad writes "ComputerWorld is running an article about Microsoft's latest type of sales force scare tactic. Apparently Microsoft is using the new title of 'engagement manager' to attempt sales via intimidation. From the article: 'Indeed, according to Microsoft's Web site, the responsibility of someone with Lawless' title of "engagement manager" is to "perform as an integrated member of the account team, drive business development and closing of new services engagements in targeted accounts."'"

7 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell by magicjava · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In all fairness, if you're going to post articles about MS doing this, you should post about other companies doing this as well.

    1. Re:Microsoft Customers Balk at Hard Sell by ADRA · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're example is quite different from the rest of the discussion:
      1. You have no prior business arrangement with Oracle
      2. You haven't bought the piece of software in question
      3. You aren't required to have a software audit upon request
      4. They have no reason to question that you're using the software correctly or not (since you never used it, there's no dial home)

      There's a difference between
      "Buy our software because you haven't, but you should, so do it!"
      and
      "We've been mulling it over in the ol' license factory and we think you're lieing when you say you're only using our software 5 times. We think you need to license 100,000,000 users since one server's SMB share is available to the internet serving pr0n (good pr0n btw). So instead of using high pressure marketing techniques which obviously aren't working, we're going to use our manifest right to invade your workplace to mandate what's needed for compliance the way we see it."

      Yeah, I was ranting... /self-slap

      --
      Bye!
  2. Re:it's all about obfuscation by Fanboy+Troy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually your post reminded me of a bookmark I had laying around quite a while about why Ernie Ball dumped microsoft. FTA:

    ...Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."

    ...What I really thought is that you ought to treat people the way you want to be treated. I couldn't treat a customer the way Microsoft dealt with me...I went from being a pro-Microsoft guy to instantly being an anti-Microsoft guy...

  3. Re:it's all about obfuscation by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only people that probably 'hate' Microsoft are probably at competitor companies (insofar as they exist anymore), and that only people who really 'love' them are probably at companies that are making money off of their dominance in some direct or indirect fashion.

    I think that's putting it way too simply. Everyone I have met who hates Microsoft has not been a competitor but a consumer, albeit perhaps a knowledgeable and self-interested one. The problem is that Microsoft does not just destroy its competitors -- it also destroys choice, either by drowning out alternatives with FUD and marketing, or with the classic "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" strategy. And this angers those of us who want a choice.

    If people dislike Microsoft for something, it's mostly for their licensing structure.

    Microsoft's whole business model depends on being a monopoly, so they do everything they can to preserve it. Their licenses help them to do that, but they're not the real issue. See above.

    That's why you see most people trying to advocate Linux use to businesses focus on the small-F "free" aspect: very few people really care about the capital-F/libre definition of "Free," the only advantage of Linux is that it costs less.

    "Free as in beer" is not the only advantage of FOSS such as Linux. However, it is the first one that a business is likely to understand, so it's hardly a surprise that an advocate would mention it first in a business context.

    As for the "free as in speech" part, which really is manifested in the use of open standards -- this also benefits a business because: it removes the threat of vendor lock-in; it promotes competition between software suppliers; and it protects the ability to access to documents and data in the event that the software company goes out of business or withdraws support for the formats.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  4. Racketeering? by thewiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IANAL, but this sounds like racketeering to me and it seems to fit the definition:
    The act of engaging in criminal activity as a structured group is referred to in the U.S. as racketeering.

    M$: We need to check your license with our auditing software.
    IT Guy: Here's all of of licenses and the machines they are installed on.
    M$: No, we need to run the audit to see how much software you're pirating.
    IT Guy: We're not pirating anything! Our records are accurate!
    M$: Either you let us inventory your systems or we break your computers and then your legs.

    Isn't RICO applicable here?

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  5. Not between equals. by twitter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    one could possibly force them face you in court and explain why they didn't just politely work with you and your concerns in the first place. Right to audit ought not to mean right to intimidate.

    Meet the DMCA. If the BSA has "evidence" of your wrongdoing, you get to pay for the audit and the "violated" company's legal bills. See here for a reference story and what to do about this kind of extortion. Essentially, you are screwed and have to pay the fines demanded without a fight. A fight would cost the average company half a million dollars, more if you include the cost of business disruption.

    Software contracts and licenses are not normal contracts. The "agreement" between you and a non free software company is that you are so greatfull for the software that you will do as you are told.

    Treating customers like this, Microsoft has completely lost it.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  6. Re:Unfortunately, Linux is not an alternative by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So ask for Linux versions. If you don't get them, you'll take your business somewhere else. If you need the software *that* badly you can probably pay someone to write it for less than the cost of all those Microsoft licence fees.