The Business Controls Caddy

On Forbes, Foolishness and FUD

A month or so ago, my colleagues told me that Daniel Lyons of Forbes Magazine, hardly a favorite writer in the eyes of the Lotus community, was writing an article about the Radicati affair that I wrote about last summer. So, my colleagues said, I might be contacted by Mr. Lyons. Well I was not contacted, but since this is just my "poxy" website, I did not really expect to be contacted. So I was content to just sit back and wait for the article to come out to see what Mr. Lyons had to say. This morning I was rewarded with a Google news alert that the article was published, so I went to read it. Did I come to an article talking about what happened with The Radicati Group last summer? No, I came to an article that chose to attack the Lotus community with the following words:

"Meanwhile, Notes consultants have resorted to bashing market researchers who say Notes is slipping, suggesting on blogs that these analysts are extreme outliers who lack credibility and/or are shills who were paid off by Microsoft."

Well Mr. Lyons, I promised you in an e-mail this morning that I would take you to task on your article, and the main reason is the quote above which is totally incorrect without laying the groundwork and explaining the context of the situation.

To catch you all up, this is what I sent Mr. Lyons this morning:

Dear Mr. Lyons,

I have to ponder the content of your article, but the bias is clear and unfortunately you cited Radicati numbers, which have ZERO credibility because of certain actions by the company and one of its employees, and numbers which are not current/up to date for 2004. I am wondering if Dr. Radicati helped you write this piece?

So as I ponder, I probably will fire back. But I do expect more objective journalism from Forbes and not this piece.

Where to Start?

I guess in fairness I should start out by disclosing that my company is an IBM Business Partner, but we are also a Microsoft Business Partner (although this is in name only to keep up with their technology). However, my problem with the article has nothing to do with this fact, but the fact that it deals with misinformation, bad data, incorrect allegations against the bloggers in the Lotus Community, and spreads FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) which I guarantee will be used and spread by Microsoft sales staff (copies of his previous articles proclaiming "Notes is Dead" are posted on some Microsoft sites). The ultimate irony is that the web version of today's story had a large Microsoft Office ad next to the content. But there is no bias or catering to advertisers on the part of the magazine, right?

Attacking the Lotus Blogging Community

Mr. Lyons was incorrect in his statement that we, as members of a larger Lotus community, are like lemmings in our attacking the credibility of the Radicati Group studies, or any other 'analysis for hire' reports put out by any other analyst firm without disclosure of funding sources. And yes, I apply this criticism to any IBM funded reports as well. The key to the expression of outrage by the Lotus blogging community was and is the fact that the Radicati report was full of inaccuracies and one of Dr. Radicati's employees chose to astroturf using fake names because his ego could not handle the criticism being heaped on the report. This same employee then used fake names to send e-mails to peoples' employers demanding they be fired for their writings. I personally sent an e-mail to Dr. Radicati offering to open up a dialogue on the issue, and she never replied.

If You Are Going To Cite Numbers, At Least Use Current/Real Numbers

Mr. Lyons, in an effort to support his position, cites numbers that are at least a year out of date. In addition, he makes the mistake of comparing two products that cannot be compared. Lotus Notes is about collaboration and collaborative, secure applications. Exchange is about e-mail, period. Microsoft also has this expensive "software assurance plan" that cost customers a great deal of money for no value (i.e. non-delivery) in return. If he wants to compare revenue numbers, then tell us how much of their revenue is from this program.

My Licensing Fees Are Bigger Than Your Licensing Fees

Mr Lyons states that "Microsoft has a larger installed base and generates greater license fees than IBM", citing Ferris Research. Please lets not get back into the seat counting game, which is pointless and means nothing. And more revenue? So what? Customers can do a lot more with Lotus Notes & Domino than Microsoft products. The fact is that to accomplish similar functionality, you have to buy a lot more from Microsoft. But Mr. Lyons fails to discuss this point.

We Are Not Invincible And We Know That

Lotus Notes is not without its warts, lie all software. We do know, however, that it is more secure and extensible than any other product on the market. So when attacked, we can and do fight back. If we did not, Mr. Lyons and others would say "See, even they cannot defend what we have written". So Mr. Lyons, take a cue from Stephen Swoyer, who when confronted with the facts, publicly owned up that what he had written could be interpreted incorrectly and allowed me to post his mea culpa on this blog (see link for "Trade Magazine Writer Offers Mea Culpa on Lotus Notes/Domino" below).

Mr. Lyons, What Is Your Agenda?

I cannot recall seeing a single article written by Mr. Lyons than had anything positive to say about Lotus Notes, but maybe I just have not looked hard enough. But please Mr. Lyons, do not cite numbers put out by the Radicati Group, a company which in my opinion has not displayed the most ethical behavior. How can they expect to be taken seriously when they have to resort to a prize giveaway on their web site to get people to answer a survey, a survey so skewed that it is clear that the results wanted can easily be inferred from the questions asked and from their total lack of understanding of the IBM Roadmap (and yes I am at times confused by it as well). This is the same company that is selling a report with their take on Lotusphere 2005 and they were not even there to talk to customers and business partners.

Please Don't Go Hiding Behind Your Editor Again

In 1998, your editor came to your defense over that era's "Notes is Dead" article. He said in a letter to Forbes readers:

"Lotus has demanded a retraction. There will be none. We stand by the article, convinced that it was accurate and fair comment. Daniel Lyons is an experienced computer journalist. He conducted 66 interviews. His facts were checked independently -- as FORBES stories always are -- by our research staff. The article was vetted both by me and by our managing editor. "

Well if that again is the case for the latest article, I wondered how the information you used can be so inaccurate and out of date? Are you going to have to hide behind him again or are you willing to come on this or any other Lotus (or even Microsoft) blogs to defend your position and take any lumps and/or praises in a public forum. Microsoft was unwilling to debate IBM publicly at Inbox East last year, so I will not hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

Related Links