Slashdot Mirror
Nokia CEO Blames Salesmen For Windows Phone Struggles
An anonymous reader writes "Steven Elop of Nokia has placed some of the blame for the struggles of Windows Phone on mobile phone shops — for not pushing it. As The Register points out, sales staff 'want their commission,' and tend to only show phones they think might sell. Exact details of Windows Phone sales numbers are being covered up by both Microsoft and Nokia, who refuse to state specifics; sales figures to operators are stated at one million, but the majority of those seem to be unsold to consumers, and neither Microsoft nor Nokia will give numbers on activations. The best available numbers seem to be maximum Lumia sales estimates from Tomi Ahonen, a former Nokia Executive and the only analyst to correctly predict Nokia's market share fall for the end of 2011. Nokia's Lumia sold around 600,000 phones in 2011 (again, including the large portion in warehouses). One of the worst signs for WP8 is that Nokia's N9 — despite being crippled without marketing, and often selling at full price compared to the almost fully subsidized Lumia phones — is selling better than Nokia's Windows phones, with 1.5M or more phones reaching end users. Interestingly, if the Nokia N9 had been available in all markets, it might have sold almost 5M units and pushed Nokia into profitability."
Then maybe you should fire your marketing department, because clearly you are trying to convert the wrong people.
Meego project had huge potential, but you went for the quick bucks.
Elop has shown his ignorance in the way mobile phones are sold (at least in the UK). The pressure on sales staff is incredible to make the numbers. They cannot afford to put all of their efforts into selling a lame duck. And the public are all buying iPhones, Android and BlackBerry smartphones. The WP7 Nokia Lumia are not generating much if any interest in the buying public. So the sales staff are going to focus on all and anything that will fly off the shelf, and WP7, no matter how much smoke Elop blow up our arses about how good it is (it isn't) will make a blind bit of difference. Nice try Nokia. Now do the right thing, swallow your pride and put Android on the N8 and be prepared to be hit with a tsunami of orders.
Interestingly, if the Nokia N9 had been available in all markets, it might have sold almost 5M units and pushed Nokia into profitability."
Truer words not said.
I noticed last week in a big electronics store in Germany, that N9s were now on sale there. Originally, they were not sold here . . . but Amazon Germany sold imports from Austria. It will be interesting to see if this starts to spread to other markets.
I'm sure the Austrian sales force made their quota for N9s.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
From what I've seen of the reviews, WP is a pretty good OS, and the Lumia phones are being sold at pretty competitive prices with lots of marketing behind them. So, now MS and Nokia are fishing around for explanations for why they aren't selling to consumers.
The answer is the MS brand. After years of pushing crap on users, using nasty and anti-consumer tactics to fight their competitors, and trying to harm the Internet, MS is a tarnished consumer brand - surprise, surprise.
Obviously, I think this is fair, but I also think it is fair that consumers and the industry re-evaulate brands. MS has been much better behaved in recent years (e.g. they are trying to win the browser wars by making their browser better) so maybe they deserve a second chance?
I don't know the salesmen motivations
They're trying to steer their customers away from a substandard product.
I sold audio equipment for a couple of years and one of the first things I got to learn was to always give the customer TWO options. Unless the customer seemed unhappy with both choices, introducing a third option would only make the buying decision harder often resulting in a "need to go home and think about it"-response. This of course combined with lazy salespersons who doesn't feel they need to learn anything more than they absolutely need to close a deal.
This isn't exactly news to people in sales. Anyone trying to enter as a "third option" will have an extemely tough time trying to break through in the market, even if their product is better in many aspects.
(And as with any golden "rule of thumb" within sales, there is of course a shitload of exceptions, but I doubt the smartphone market is one of them)
Jesus had a UNIX beard.
Not about the phone, I've never heard of it. But in NZ they're advertising the Windows 7 OS. The TV ads are absolutely terrible.
One is a father and son both on laptops, the son gets dad to help with division on his computer(which you'd expect to be easy on a computer), and the son goes onto his dad's laptop. He then groovies up his powerpoint presentation with noise, wallpaper, and 3D extruded text and graphs.
Compare this to the elegant and elitist Mac ads. They make you think that one becomes stylish and cool with lots of good-looking friends of all races with perfect smiles. This is proper marketing. Mac is much better at it than MS.
Yes, but sales staff don't make commissions on i he N9 (because they don't fucking OFFER it), and yet people get online, find an importer who sells this phone with the last-of-line OS and consequent grim support outlook (and, outside Europe, not even any warranty at all!), and buy them -- surely this sales mechanism is equally plausible for WinPhone7 phones, actually more so, since they are warrantied, and can expect OS updates for a long time, but it doesn't happen in volumes anything like the N9.
Possibly because (practically) nobody wants WP7 phones? This was the GP's point.
The market is already saturated with locked-in, walled garden type smartphones. Microsoft isn't offering anything that other manufacturers aren't already. Most people aren't going to want to buy a WP7 device if they can get an established Android phone or iPhone at the same price.
And there are people who do want Nokia phones based on good quality in the past, so they go looking for one. Shop around and compare features and the N9 comes up on top.
Nokia is constantly shooting itself in the foot over this stuff. They had products essentially finished and starting beta in a week and the project gets shutdown and replaced with windows crap. That's the high end stuff dying, but high end is a small market for relatively richer customers. The real problem is the mass market phones are being undercut by cheap phones, ie a zillion people around the world just want to phone up relatives and use voice *gasp* with no data plans, no extra features, just something sturdy and with good voice quality. That's the market that Nokia used to dominate.
My last phone was a Nokia XPress Music 3510. The only reason I binned it was because, after 4 years, the screen cracked and began cutting out or losing backlighting. I was shocked at how few Nokia phones there were on show, either in the "Pay as you go" or Contract sections of the stores (I went to about 6 to find the best prices). If there were any Nokias they were relegated to the "Other makers" section, alongside makers. Blackberry's got their own (small) stand, as did iPhones, while about 2/3s of the walls were the myriad Android handsets from Samsung, HTC, et al. This is in the UK btw, and the O2 store in particular had probably two Nokia handsets in total. The had more Sagem handsets than Nokia. (Not to besmirch Sagem, I have owned TWO sagems out of 5 phones I've owned since 2002, the first was actually my first phone, and was fine. Simple, but fine. The second got wedged between the inside and the outside of a car and refused to work afterwards but was a good phone while it lasted).
Frankly, Nokia had a good thing making phones that were phones. Their attempts to break into the Smartphone market have been schizophrenic at best. S60 was supposed to be superceeded by atleast three different OSes IIRC. Maemo, Meego (Which was an evolution of Maemo) and Symbian 3. Now they're making Windows phones and, while I don't think anyone doubts that it's a capable OS (if not the best, I don't think anyone will say it's unusable), and requires only marketing and visibility to sell, I don't think Nokia realise that the name "Nokia" is no longer synonymous with "Good Phone", and hasn't been for some time. They've been overtaken by Samsung, HTC, Apple and RIM (and that's saying something considering RIMs in a bit of bother). And the reason is plainly one thing: They were late to the party and they brought more drink while everyone was already sozzled and sleeping comfortably with their poison of choice.
It's like what happened with IBM and OS/2, they've lost and don't know it yet. They need to refocus to survive. Maybe in a few years a gap will open up when the next big tech leap comes out. Bide their time and come back stronger.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Then why aren't they walking into the shop and saying "Sell me a Nokia Lumia 900, dammit!"? Why not the same level of determination for a WP7 phone?
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
I have a feeling that Microsoft have been mistaken branding everything they do "Windows something". People generally run Windows not because they like Windows (they curse it, generally) but because they have to have it to run the apps they want.
If that driver isn't there, people run a mile from anything branded Windows, because they see Windows as dull and a source of discomfort from their experience on the PC. Android and iOS don't have that baggage. Also, there will be a lot of negative baggage from memories of the old Winmo devices. Non-technical people don't realise that Windows Phone 7 is actually a different platform, they see the name "Windows", and remember what WinMo and WinCE (pronounced wince) was like. Also you'll get the folks who see "Ah, Windows, therefore it'll run suchandsuch an app for my PC too", then find that Windows Phone is actually completely different to Windows on the PC and is incompatible, and get disapointed.
Note that Apple didn't call the iPhone OS "OSX", even though they share a codebase - it got called something completely different, thus avoiding confusion and avoid having disappointed nontechnical people who think their Mac software can run on their iPhone or iPad.
In short, I think Microsoft should have invented a different name that's not Windows for their phones to break all the negative associations people have with Windows (dull, something I use only for work, etc.). But then again, we've seen Microsoft try to be cool in the past and it was painful to watch (Zune).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I don't see a lot of evidence one way or another, but if people are coming and *demanding* the N9, but not *demanding* any of their WP7 devices, more is wrong than sales commissions....
The N9 could not have been hamstrung much more than the way Nokia handled it. Anyone in the market for it knows up front that Nokia shot their MeeGo efforts in the head, all of Nokia's positive efforts are behind WP7 now, and yet people are claiming N9 is outperforming their WP7 and no one seems to be challenging that assertion. A device running a confirmed dead-end platform as far as you are concerned should never ever perform better than your flagship endeavors.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
People who even walk in looking for Windows Phones are steered towards Android phones.
I will recount my experience: I wanted to by a WP7 handset during the promotion Microsoft ran last year. I set up an appointment at the store to buy the phone. Get to the store and find out they are out of stock. Store people call around and find one left at a store a few blocks away, so I put that one on hold. Go to the other store to get the phone, and the sales rep suggests I should get an iPhone or Android handset instead.
I tell him I want the WP7 phone because I like the development environment for it. That still isn't good enough, so he asks if I am sure. I then ask him what he knows about WP7. Has he ever used it? No. I ask what he knows about WP7. He said he knew nothing about it, he was just more familiar with iPhone and Android.
After I finally convince the guy that I really did want the WP7 phone I had put on hold at the store, he activates it. Turns out he didn't really activate it, he bricked it. Obviously I should have checked it while in the store, but I never had a problem before. I took the phone to another store the next day to have it reset after spending an hour with customer support to try a manual activation which failed. Clearly the rep had no training for the phone. I have a hard time believing a typical consumer would put up with half of the hassle I did before they would say: "Give me an iPhone, this one doesn't work." It seems to me that Microsoft has totally dropped the ball with the sales force at the carriers. They should not be pushing the phone until the store reps are comfortable with it and show at least a little enthusiasm for the device. Microsoft should spend some of the marketing money flying reps to Hawaii or Vail or Jamaica or wherever sales rep paradise might be.
As for WP7, I do like what Microsoft has done in general. There are still rough edges here and there, but I would guess they will be addressed in future phone releases. The voice translation is amazingly good, and the Bing music recognition feature works really well. Turn by Turn navigation works well, too. I have not had any problems with crashes or the disappearing keyboard. The active tiles are nice, and a lot better than the icon infestation of iOS. I think it is at least equal to iOS and Android in terms of utility. But for me, the big selling point is not the phone, but rather Visual Studio and Expression Blend, which make app development much nicer that the pain of XCode. I haven't done much with Android, but colleagues who are developing for it tell me they would prefer to use Visual Studio, and that the fragmentation of Android really is a problem from a QA perspective.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
Because the average consumer doesn't want/have time/... to investigate every single thing he buys himself and thus likes to have someone else tell him what to buy, someone who's supposed to know everything about it.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.