RSSFor AMD, keeping it too simple may be too stupid
By Carmi Levy | Published September 21, 2009, 4:59 PM
The "Keep It Simple, Stupid" rule works in business as well as in everyday life, primarily because it forces us to focus on the one or two basic issues we need to make the right decision. My kindergarten teacher shortened it to "KISS," perhaps in the interest of simplicity. When you're driving a car: Know where you are, know where you're going. Leader of the free world: Keep your hands clean, know what you're aiming at. Reprogramming your iPod/in-vehicle audio system interface: Pull over, let the semi pass you.
More data, please
The computer market never got the memo -- or if it did, maybe no one could make sense of it. This is a good thing, though, because when you're investing in a technology, more data is always preferable to less. Whatever parameters you're measuring -- processor architectures and speeds, types of memory, hard drive spin velocities and capacities, or display resolutions and refresh rates -- the more you know about what's going on under the hood, the more likely you are to make a sensible buying decision that you can live and work with.
Now all of a sudden, AMD wants to dumb this process down because some people find it too confusing. And that scares me more than a little. The company's just-announced Vision program aims to replace the information-stuffed process of buying a computer with one based on three categories: Vision, Vision Premium, and Vision Ultimate, each of which corresponds to a particular end user need. Plain old Vision machines define the low end, and will do the trick for Web browsers and basic game players. Vision Premium might be suitable for gamers interested in something more challenging than Solitaire or Sudoku, as well as HD video. Vision Ultimate addresses the most demanding gamers and content creators. Early next year, Vision Black-based machines that target high-end users will join the party.
There's an eerie resemblance here to "Vista Premium" and "Vista Ultimate," but I suppose AMD didn't get that memo, either.
A slightly blurred vision
After a generation of PC marketing being driven by and targeted at technically inclined folks who used the often arcane parameters of hardware capability to measure bottom line performance and calculate value propositions, my mother-in-law is now calling the shots. If AMD's strategy plays out, consumers who don't understand the difference between level 2 and level 3 cache will now find it easier to choose the right solution.
I get that. I've seen my mother-in-law's eyes glaze over when I try to explain the benefits of 7,200 RPM drives versus 5,400 RPM ones. She doesn't much care that a quad-core processor lets her edit photos and video more smoothly than a dual-core one, and she wishes I'd stop trying to get her to upgrade her webcam from her current, lame VGA device that washes out in the low light of her home office to an HD-capable one that doesn't make her and my father-in-law look like stop action ghosts. While I quote numbers to illustrate the benefits, she waits for Wal-Mart to drop the price on a cheap machine she'd like to install in the kitchen.
What about the rest of us?
So she'll appreciate AMD's gesture. It's the rest of the world I'm worried about. Taken to its ultimate extreme, simplified computers will make it virtually impossible to make real, side-by-side comparisons. Want to know if $699 is too much? Tough. No longer will savvy customers be able to laugh off the know-it-all salesperson's claim that no one else can match their price. How can you appreciate a product's capabilities when its basic guts are deliberately hidden from view? Simplified marketing may make life easier for the uninitiated, but does the message have to be so diluted that folks with more than a little knowledge can't dig a little bit deeper on their own?
When otherwise educated customers are forced to buy based on vague notions of role- or task-matched performance, the entire process begins to look suspiciously like the one from the most recent silent auction at my children's school. In amongst the various items up for bids -- the gift certificates, logoed clothing, and small electronics -- was an envelope with a single word printed neatly across the seal: "Surprise." Based on similar experiences from past years, there was an even chance that the envelope contained a booby prize, such as a yellowed old bumper sticker or a collection of discarded scripts from last year's school play. Well-meaning parents, hoping this was a non-booby-prize year, nevertheless bid the mystery envelope up to $50 before the night ended, and ended up with a $25 gift certificate at a local coffee shop for their donation.
I'd hardly expect someone laying down hundreds or thousands of dollars at a profit-seeking technology store would be as understanding as these involved parents were. If the recession has taught us anything, it's the value of a dollar. Computers are not sold in sealed envelopes, and customers aren't supposed to guess, even vaguely, at what might be inside.
A better kind of simple
Intel already gets the message. While it arguably kicked off the simplification parade with the Centrino brand, and has been gradually moving away from feeds and speeds ever since, shoppers who understand GHz and Gbps can still pull out info sheets at the store and geek out to their heart's content. To its credit, Intel recognizes that today's PC buyers come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and levels of knowledge. And a one-size-fits-all, universally-simplified marketing strategy fails to give the tech-savvy buyer sufficient background to make the right decision.
I appreciate why AMD is going simple. Data released last week by iSuppli shows its market share down by 1.4% to 11.5%, while Intel's is up by 1.5% to 80.6% -- its highest since 2005. Companies in decline need to do radical things to change their fortunes. But ticking off the large percentage of the market that still has a clue isn't a great way to start. Even my kindergarten teacher would agree.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.
I think most people don't really need that much out of their computers. They've been convinced they need the newest and best, but most people just use it for the email and to write documents and maybe watch some videos. IMO
Score: 0
|I find it interesting that someone took the time and the energy to write a long winded article about a marketing strategy being bad when the very things cited about the strategy being bad are incorrect.
You go out of your way to state:
"Intel already gets the message. While it arguably kicked off the simplification parade with the Centrino brand, and has been gradually moving away from feeds and speeds ever since, shoppers who understand GHz and Gbps can still pull out info sheets at the store and geek out to their heart's content."
AMD is doing the EXACT same thing. You think the information is going to be plain unavailable? That's absurd. The system specs are simply going to be listed lower and/or on secondary pages, while the Vision Branding and categorization will the first things consumers will see.
This has been discussed on countless other sources. I find it odd that you thought that strategy was good on Intel's part, but the thought did not even cross your mind that AMD may also be tucking the hard system specification numbers behind the Vision Tag. It screams of starkly biased favoritism towards Intel.
I hope you will make an edit or retraction in light of this information, or pending your confirmation of this information.
Respectfully,
~GC
Score: 1
|Hey there Carmi!
Seems like an appropriate time to correct a few misperceptions about VISION Technology from AMD.
First, VISION is meant to express the capabilities of the entire platform - CPU, GPU, chipset and software, not just the CPU. VISION is unique in that it communicates these platform capabilities in terms of the experience the consumer can enjoy - not in terms of the technical speeds and feeds of the components. You are correct in saying that this will make it easier for most consumers; that was specifically our intent.
However, for those in the industry, those who do understand how all the components contribute to the whole, we will continue to provide all the technical information you may wish - right there on the fact tag in the retail environment as well as online. So, do not fret or feel anxious. We know that 25 years of CPU-centric marketing has conditioned the entire industry to look for these component specs, and we wouldn't leave you high and dry. So, GHz, cores, L1, L2,L3 cache sizes, DDRII, DDRIII, Memory Speed, Hard Drive RPM, Hypertransport links, etc., please, dig in. We have plenty.
AMD isn't trying to hide the technology. We're quite proud of our platforms and believe me, can talk all day about them. But we recognize that for most consumers - your mother-in-law is a great example - they don't really care how their PC works - just that it does. By explaining what each system is capable of in terms of usage models, we believe the consumer can make a better informed decision. Thus, rather than relying on what the retail associate (or their-son-in-law)attempts to convey with the technical explanation of why these components add up to more than those, the consumer can look at the VISION point of sale collateral and say - I want to do this, and look, this machine can do exactly that.
I'm happy to chat more, but may be boring the audience here. In the future, please feel free to contact me for any reason, if you would like an update on AMD activities.
Best Regards,
Dan Pickens
Sr. Public Relations Manager
AMD
Score: 3
|Hello Dan,
Since you are an official within the company, I would like to direct your attention to the post below by "BCTech." I am in agreement with his suggestions for alternate Vision names instead of Basic, Premium, and Ultimate.
The Vision marketing strategy is primarily concerned with the question of "What can this computer DO?" Using brands such as Vision Gamer, Vision Business, Vision Creative, etc. seems like common sense over the current strategy. Those brands address what the computer is designed to DO. Additionally, the words "Premium" and "Ultimate" both sound like the same tier, it is not clear which is better (unless the consumer considers Microsoft Windows Vista/7).
I do hope that you come back and read these comments because this website appears to have no other way to contact you!
Thanks,
~GC
Score: 0
|I strongly doubt the information we're all after is going to hidden from view, Carmi. Perhaps you should just think of this as the equivalent of Intel's CPU branding: Core i5, Core i7, Celeron, Pentium, etc. Tech-inept people recognise (some of) those names and can identify the relative performance of them. They might not be able to pick the difference between an old E6300 and a new E6300, but they can guess at a machine's performance based on the friendly names for their processors.
This is no different: but instead of just representing the CPU, the friendly label now covers the entire machine. That's probably more useful - what use is a Core 2 Duo when it's coupled with 512MB of RAM on a Vista machine? (Yes, I'm looking at you, HP/Compaq).
Score: 2
|There have always been "friendly" names for CPUs and, especially more recently, platforms. There's nothing wrong with this. One might also recall the days when AMD named their processors by "Intel equivalent speed" (e.g. Athlon XP 2000+). This does not seem much different. You could get the specs then and I'm sure you'll be able to get them regardless of what AMD says, though to be honest I'm not even clear their new branding is an attempt to do away with specs *for those who want them*.
Anyway the real problem I see here is AMD is using the same divisive and frankly uninformative monikers that others have used. "Vision" sounds great, but wait, wouldn't I rather be "Vision Premium"? Oh but then there's "Ultimate". I may be just a simple Internet browsing dad, but I bought a 50" LCD TV because it was the biggest on my block, and dammit I want an "Ultimate" vision too!
No, what we need are names that speak to the needs and uses of the systems. I'm not claiming to have the best ideas about this, I haven't given it a lot of thought, but here are some possibilities: "Vision " for the standard home user seems fine, it's an appealing moniker. It doesn't necessarily need to be qualified. "Vision Gamer" might be good for the gaming, higher performance crowd. "Vision Creative" might be good for the content creator. "Vision Business" for the workstation market. It doesn't need to be complicated here, say what the target user will be doing with their machine (mostly). Anything is better than "Premium" and "Ultimate", if the intention is to make the decision easier for people. Speak to what they *do* with the computer. "Vision Freestyle" (for the average user who doesn't fit into any particular higher-end category, this means a mid-level system in current terms).
They should really be branding the whole integrated platform. "Vision Gamer" isn't just a CPU, it's an AMD CPU with an AMD/ATI graphics card, at the least. "Vision Business" is an AMD CPU with onboard AMD graphics. Etc. Really it wouldn't matter if they ended up with a ton of different platform brands, as long as they're united by a common root, "Vision" in this case.
I don't have all the answers, all I know is their current solution seems to be missing something...
Score: 1
|@BCTech
See, now here I was thinking Vision Branding was a good idea, and I still do. But your alterations to the branding scheme are even better! For example, Vision Premium vs Vision Ultimate? I don't think it's as clear they think it is which is better.
Vision, Vision Business, Vision Creative, Vision Gamer, etc... I think that's a much more practical way to go.
Though maybe their analysts told them that tying the brands to the Windows 7 versions would be better synergy with Microsoft. Who knows. If enough people in the public talk about it though, they might change their minds about what the different categories will be!
Score: 0
|Faster is not always better. Consumerism wrongly convinces people that they always need the newest as well. For most people "It just works" is good enough.
I still have a P4 3.4Ghz, 2 Gigabyte RAM system as well as an Intel Atom 1.6 Ghz Acer Aspire One Netbook with 1 Gigabyte of RAM. Both meet all of my needs. If I wanted to play games I would get a console.
Score: -1
|