Michael N. Dundas

I once worked for a company where during one of our quarterly internal company meetings, the CEO, presented a slide with the same graphic as the one on the top left of this blog post.  The goal of this slide was to explain the importance of making the company name synonymous with the problem they were trying to solve.  During his talk, he spoke about companies such as Coke, Heinz, and Kleenex.  What these companies have in common is that often, people automatically replace the product with the  company name  – if effect they use the company name to reference the product or problem being solved.  This is the ultimate in branding.  Ever heard someone say “Do you have a Kleenex?” – technically you never do.  Kleenex is the company or brand, and one of the products they make are facial tissues.   The CEO felt this was one of the best positions for a company to be in and encouraged the team to always do what they can to achieve that goal.   In fairness, I know him and he is a good guy. A great speaker who wants the best for his company, and wants to instill those same values throughout the company – exactly what a CEO is suppose to do. And he was somewhat successful.  When engaging clients to execute professional services there were a few times when the company name was inserted where the product should have been.  To this day, I can find Internet posts that speak about  “when we installed the <company> …”

Today, I am no longer representing the vendor providing the consulting; my team is the client.  One of my teams responsibilities are to reduce the complexity of our security environment and increase security.  In order to do this, it is important that separation of the features, solution and the vendor occurs at all levels in my organization.  The last position I want my organization to be in is one where there are inaccurately perceived dependencies on a particular vendor.  As such, I now work in the exact opposite way of the vendor.  I work hard to stop these branding attempts whenever I encounter them.  You can find them in many places,  documentation, e-mail,  meetings.  It can start to infect employees and they will propagate the branding message.  Working against this, some vendors feel that I am difficult or hostile towards them.  It has nothing to do with them, rather it has to do with keeping the message clear, real and accurate at all levels in the organization.  Effectively removing the ‘spin.’  Here are the main reasons I actively do this.

Creates a perceived dependency on the vendor. Most if not all vendors would love to achieve the perception (or reality) that a company, especially those with deep pockets can not easily do a particular feature or solution without them.  I have found in my years of consulting and technology this is rarely the case and if by chance it is, give it a few months and it will no longer be the case.  What is important is that any messaging directly or indirectly along these lines is verified and accurate.  The higher up the organization the more important this is.  Often, depending on the environment, assessing and correcting the message that vendors often send up the organization can be difficult.  Fortunately, I work for a company where senior executives actually do listen to their employees opinions and recommendations.

Correcting statements with “the Vendor project”. I am constantly correcting these statements.  It is common especially when a new vendor enters the footprint of a large enterprise for the first time.  Often employees and executives refer to the project as “The <vendor name> project”.  I feel it is important to correct this early on.  In meetings, when reviewing documentation, responding to e-mails, a project always has a name and description, and should not specify the vendor. The name of vendors can and should be stated where a decision has been made to include or exclude a vendor, but the project / service should be written, spoken and perceived as separate from the vendor and something a particular vendor is providing.

Creates and keeps competition alive. Vendors like to ‘feel’ that they are the chosen company – it gives them a sense of security in sales, and bragging rights on the street. You want to keep a certain amount of competition with the vendor during the selection process.  More importantly, you never want a vendor to feel they have you locked in to their technology.  It keeps the vendor more honest, and always paying a certain amount of attention to your company and their account.  It keeps them competitive both from a pricing and services perspective — all good things.

Subconsciously changes the company’s thinking. By using a vendor name as the solution, it starts to change the way teams think within an organization.  Employees start to think less critically about problems and potential solutions because the vendor is the solution.  They keep less abreast of the market and start to rely on a specific vendors to solve their problems, regardless if that is the best way to solve a particular problem or not.  If this type of thinking perpetuates throughout a company, as time passes, you end up a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the company simply goes directly to the vendor and more easily accepts their answers as truth.

Not that vendors are all bad, they are just trying to do what is best for their company and themselves.  Typically, the employees of the vendor are incentivised by bonuses and incremental pay scales that encourage this behaviour.  It is important that you constantly look out for this type of messaging and correct it. At the end of the day, it is one of the reasons your employer pays you.