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
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) are too often used as marketing tools. And too many mainstream publications are citing reports that have no validity. So if you know anybody who is citing these publications and reports to make business decisions, please point them to one or more of these links. You can also point them to the "Fighting FUD" index of stories and/or add the "Fighting FUD" graphic link to your web site.

About Me
About the Blog
Accounting Software
Admin2005
Articles
Auditing Standards
Best Practices
Best Practices - Coding
Blogging Risks
Blogging Templates
Blogsphere
Book Downloads
Book Reviews
Bookstore
Business Continuity
Business Continuity/Disa...
Business Controls
Business Process Re-Engi...
Caddyshack
Case Studies
Collaboration Tools
College Football
College Hoops
Commentary
Community News
Compliance
Compliance Tools
Compliance Tools - Lotus...
Conference Presentations
Control Frameworks
Control Self Assessment ...
Copyright, Fair Use and ...
Corporate Governance
Data Protection
Daylight Savings Time
Dimensions of Leadership
Disaster Recovery
E-Commerce
E-Mail Compliance
E-Mail Etiquette
Employee Policies
Ethics
Exposure Drafts
Eye on Sports Media
Fighting FUD
Fraud Prevention
General
Going Green
Golf
Governance Cup
Government Compliance
HIPAA
Humour/Satire
IBM Pensions
IM Controls
Internet Safety
Interviews
Ireland 2007
IS Governance
IS Governance At Home
IT Audit Tools
IT Governance
IT Governance Insight
ITIL
Just for Fun
Licensing
Lotus AdvisorLive
Lotus Notes 8
Lotus Quickr
Lotusphere 2005
Lotusphere 2006
Lotusphere 2007
Lotusphere 2008
Movie Reviews
News Links
Newspaper Columns
Niagara Basketball
None
Notes 8 Beta
Notes/Domino Administrat...
Notes/Domino Development
Notes/Domino Mail
Notes/Domino Security
Observations
Outsourcing
Patent Issues
Presentations
Press Releases
Privacy
Procurement Controls
Product Advocacy
Records Retention
Reflections
Risk Assessment
Sarbanes-Oxley
Sarbanes-Oxley Tools
Secure Messaging
Security Awareness
Security Controls
Site Update
Smoking Kills
Social Engineering
Social Software
Social Software Risks
Software Development Con...
Software Tools
Spreadsheet Controls
Telecommuting Risks
The Disposable Society
Training Series
Travel Tips/Observations
Trivia
TV/Radio Sports
Understanding COBIT
User Education
User Interface
Vocabulary
Way Off Topic
WebSphere
XBRL
XML Feeds