Time to gut the network - thoughts?
-
Basically the nature of advice is that you only get it for technical things. Basically everything that we buy is technical or purely aesthetic.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. You could make the exact same argument about Chevy. Cisco markets because they want people to buy their stuff.
Chevy advertises to its buyers. Cisco advertises to the people that oversee the buyers.
One is trying to influence the "expert". The other is trying to undermine the "expert". Very different.
No, a lot of SMBs, the IT person does the buying. It's not their money, but they are the ones doing the purchasing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
I did... marketing. If they've heard of it, they should be wary of it. I'm just repeating myself here.
Wow, that's it huh, the long and the short. If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.
Of course the reality of any suggestions should be - Please tell me why you choose this vendor/product line and the next one or two alternatives, and why this one was the one you picked to recommend to me.
But you're not saying that - instead you started by saying that we should all know that if we get a recommendation for any product that we've ever seen an ad for, we have to instantly be suspicious of that recommendation. I think you're taking the wrong approach here.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. You could make the exact same argument about Chevy. Cisco markets because they want people to buy their stuff.
Chevy advertises to its buyers. Cisco advertises to the people that oversee the buyers.
One is trying to influence the "expert". The other is trying to undermine the "expert". Very different.
No, a lot of SMBs, the IT person does the buying. It's not their money, but they are the ones doing the purchasing.
I've never seen SMB focused advertising for these products. Only general. Or very little to the point of being less than the general case (I see less Cisco on ML or SW than in general advertising.)
But the same deal applies, if they are trying to influence your acceptance with ads, you should be automatically more wary, rather than less. Selling based on marketing rather than on merits. Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.
But that doesn't matter, they ALSO advertise to "everyone" and that is what matters. That they also advertise to the SMB IT guy, maybe, is additional and does not remove the need to be diligent.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
I did... marketing. If they've heard of it, they should be wary of it. I'm just repeating myself here.
Wow, that's it huh, the long and the short.
Yes, essentially. That's the entire point. That marketing makes it easier to take advantage of most people. So learn to be wary of being set up for that.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.
That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?
That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If someone presents you with a recommendation that is so obviously a copy of what general marketing or bad practice suggests you would get when getting screwed,
This is what I'm talking about. These people don't know what bad practice is or what general marketing is. You still haven't supplied how these people are supposed to find what bad practices are.
again - EXACTLY.
Do us both a favor and use a non technical example of a product that paid for advice person would possibly give us an advice of a product that we should instantly question if this guy really is a consultant or in reality a VAR, etc.
When do you pay for non-technical advice?
When you pay a broker for stock tips. Actually I was thinking of this earlier - an old client of mine told me they hired a business consulting company because their business wasn't doing well. The consulting company helped them change business practices not related to IT that made their business better/grow.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Of course the reality of any suggestions should be - Please tell me why you choose this vendor/product line and the next one or two alternatives, and why this one was the one you picked to recommend to me.
Obviously if you question absolutely everything, you don't skip questioning the most likely bad case. BUT it's unreasonable to question every single thing, that's a good way to push people over the edge and to raise costs. THat's why we take the time to highlight cases where we should be more questioning, rather than less or even keel. What does the pattern for being taken advantage of look like?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. You could make the exact same argument about Chevy. Cisco markets because they want people to buy their stuff.
Chevy advertises to its buyers. Cisco advertises to the people that oversee the buyers.
One is trying to influence the "expert". The other is trying to undermine the "expert". Very different.
No, a lot of SMBs, the IT person does the buying. It's not their money, but they are the ones doing the purchasing.
I've never seen SMB focused advertising for these products. Only general. Or very little to the point of being less than the general case (I see less Cisco on ML or SW than in general advertising.)
But the same deal applies, if they are trying to influence your acceptance with ads, you should be automatically more wary, rather than less. Selling based on marketing rather than on merits. Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.
But that doesn't matter, they ALSO advertise to "everyone" and that is what matters. That they also advertise to the SMB IT guy, maybe, is additional and does not remove the need to be diligent.
But every company advertises. If someone came in and recommended Ubiquiti, I should question it because I've seen their ads? So in your mind the perfect company would not market at all because of this statement
but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.
Plus there are so many other parts of companies like Cisco. They sell little 8 port unmanaged switches. So because you've seen advertisements for products even like that you should be wary?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
But you're not saying that - instead you started by saying that we should all know that if we get a recommendation for any product that we've ever seen an ad for, we have to instantly be suspicious of that recommendation. I think you're taking the wrong approach here.
I'd be very interested to hear why you feel there is room to not scrutinize in that obviously "red flagged" case?
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
But every company advertises. If someone came in and recommended Ubiquiti, I should question it because I've seen their ads?
If you are seeing non-IT ads, definitely.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
And almost everyone I know does the above. They call their pharmacist or another doctor and double check prescription advice because there is such a high likelihood of mistakes or outright scams.
Wow, I know of NO one who does this, but I say that with the understanding that I don't talk to anyone about the medical needs with the exception of my wife. And I know the best she's going to do when prescribed a new drug is ask the pharmacist if there are any interactions to worry about, but she would never question if it's the right thing.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
So in your mind the perfect company would not market at all because of this statement
How did you get this from anything I said?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.
That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?
That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.
It's not. This whole thread is you expecting people to listen to you. You just said "this is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it."
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
And almost everyone I know does the above. They call their pharmacist or another doctor and double check prescription advice because there is such a high likelihood of mistakes or outright scams.
Wow, I know of NO one who does this, but I say that with the understanding that I don't talk to anyone about the medical needs with the exception of my wife. And I know the best she's going to do when prescribed a new drug is ask the pharmacist if there are any interactions to worry about, but she would never question if it's the right thing.
Right, most people are not good at business decision making or getting advice. And the average advisor takes advantage of this. Hence why I am so adamant about teaching how to get good advice.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
So in your mind the perfect company would not market at all because of this statement
How did you get this from anything I said?
Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.
That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?
That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.
It's not. This whole thread is you expecting people to listen to you. You just said "this is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it."
It is, I'm literally unclear why it is being questioned? I'm uncertain of what the counterargument is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
But every company advertises. If someone came in and recommended Ubiquiti, I should question it because I've seen their ads?
If you are seeing non-IT ads, definitely.
What non-IT ads have you ever seen from Cisco?
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. You could make the exact same argument about Chevy. Cisco markets because they want people to buy their stuff.
Chevy advertises to its buyers. Cisco advertises to the people that oversee the buyers.
One is trying to influence the "expert". The other is trying to undermine the "expert". Very different.
No, a lot of SMBs, the IT person does the buying. It's not their money, but they are the ones doing the purchasing.
I suppose the expert that Cisco would be undermining would be the consultant that the IT person hired to give them advise... i.e. if the consultant comes back with a non Cisco solution, according to scott, the typical IT person would question if the recommendation is good because it's not Cisco.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
So in your mind the perfect company would not market at all because of this statement
How did you get this from anything I said?
Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.
Right. Which in no way leads you to what you said. You are making an illogical leap. That the buyer should be wary of advice says literally nothing about the company.
