"Make sure prospect knows Alibre is not good enough…"

FUD according to Wikipedia:

FUD was first defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products." The term has also been attributed to veteran Morgan Stanley computer analyst Ulrich Weil, though it had already been used in other contexts as far back as the 1920s.

As Eric S. Raymond writes: "The idea, of course, was to persuade buyers to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. After 1991 the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon."

By spreading questionable information about the drawbacks of less well known products, an established company can discourage decision-makers from choosing those products over its wares, regardless of the relative technical merits. This is a recognized phenomenon, epitomized by the traditional axiom of purchasing agents that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM equipment". The result is that many companies' IT departments buy software that they know to be technically inferior because upper management is more likely to recognize the brand.

Basic Sales Strategy…
1.…Make sure prospect knows Alibre is not good enough. Explain why Alibre is being offered at uneconomic pricing.

2. Show prospects benefits of quality support and training through a SolidWorks Value Added Reseller vs having to rely on other users.

3. Show SolidWorks history of innovation due to focus of company & business model.

4. Show SolidWorks solid financial history.

5. Demonstrate the business benefit of SolidWorks solution and return on investment.

6. Demonstrate the benefits of choosing a market leader

Executive Business Summary…
SolidWorks is a safe long term investment.

So goes the “Alibre Competitive Snapshot” produced by SolidWorks.

I read this with a tinge irony.

I recall putting together a similar analysis 20 years ago when I worked at Autodesk. It was called, “How to Sell AutoCAD Against CADKEY.” I worked at Autodesk in the late 1980s and was responsible for competitive analysis, so I would produce this sort of tool for the channel, the Autodesk VARs. I recall it being frustrating that once the shred of real technical comparison was exhausted I had to fill a lot of space with things like, “more third-party developers,” “more trained users,” etc.

To produce the piece I recall sitting and working with CADKEY at length and finding it had all these robust and elegant tools for real mechanical design in 3D. It could do things like calculating precise apparent intersections, snapping directly to them, trimming relative to them, etc., or projecting geometry onto other planes with the result being precise analytical curves, like an ellipse or spline.

For those who aren’t familiar with this, in those days a lot of 3D design was done in wireframe, in fact, at that time it was pretty much all done in wireframe, although some surfacing and solid modeling systems were available on the high-end. When viewing a 3D wireframe model on the computer from a given viewpoint, sometimes lines appear to cross or intersect, but in actual 3D space they don’t intersect. This is known as an apparent intersection. When modeling it is often important to be able to grab, snap to, trim or extend to this apparent intersection. CADKEY could do this sort of thing in its sleep with splines, ellipses and so on. It also supported real ANSI dimensioning standards. AutoCAD couldn’t even draw a real ellipse, much less calculate an apparent intersection and trim to it. And as hard as it is to believe the leading drafting system AutoCAD didn’t even support dimensioning standards. But we had more third-party developers and resellers -- and we had the “nozzle” in 3D! A shout out to Don Strimbu! Extra points for anyone who knows what I am talking about.

As an engineer, I was really impressed. I recall even calling CADKEY for support a number of times. I actually got to be known there, the Autodesk competitive guy, and they really supported me, graciously I might add.

I was sweating it because I knew, at that time at least, CADKEY was technically far better for mechanical drafting and design. I was young and idealistic, fully believing it was more about technical merit, what you knew, not who you knew. All they needed to do was keep doing what they were doing. Unfortunately, for them and the industry, they didn’t keep doing that. They got pushed off their game. FUD.

I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize to the folks at CADKEY. I was part of the reason -- albeit probably only a small part -- that a better product was beaten in the market by a weaker one.

So back to the SolidWorks piece. I like and respect the folks at SolidWorks. They have earned their position the old fashioned way. Things are changing though; it’s no longer the days when the only competitor was Pro/E running on UNIX workstations costing five times as much. Now there’s Alibre offering comparable value at 20% of the price. And of course, a host of “also rans” that cost about the same. And there’s always Autodesk, pumping out Inventor shelfware with AutoCAD to pump up the numbers. Ah, for the good old days. PTC’s competitive snapshot against SolidWorks in 1995 could have read identically to the Alibre Competitive Snapshot of today by SolidWorks. What goes around come around.

We’re safe, not like them.
Fear.

They won’t be around in the future.
Uncertainty.

How can they possibly sell their software at such uneconomic pricing?
Doubt.

Of course, "uneconomic," means uneconomic for SolidWorks in this case, not the customer.

To Alibre, as it did for SolidWorks in 1995, much of it boils down to the one operative phrase: “Make sure prospect knows Alibre is not good enough.” Of course, in 1995 it read, “Make sure prospect knows SolidWorks is not good enough.” The corollary, though, is that if it is good enough: “Houston, we have a problem.”

I’ve heard it said that in court a lawyer should never ask a question to which she/he doesn’t know the answer.

At the end of the day, if Alibre Design gets the job done efficiently and reliably, the arguments to pay thousands of dollars more are reduced to generalities, like more third-party partners and "we're number one." These are the barriers to entry that all entrenched vendors rely upon to maintain the status quo.

We believe most people just need and want the tool with which they can complete their job on time and on budget -- and they want it at the best price.

We have a simple proposition: try it. Once you confirm for yourself that it works as advertised, then you can choose whether things like more resellers, “history of innovation” or "we're number one," are compelling enough to shell out another $5,000 or more.

One other thing I found interesting, when you search on Google for Alibre, these ads come up.

Comments

[Felix G.]

Hello ! I didn't find any place for "suggestion" on the Alibre website. That's why I put my message as comment on your blog !

First, I need to say that your software is very powerful. Your decision to give away a free version of this software was very clever.

BUT...

Because of the very very short limit of 10 uniques parts, I have to create two or more partial assemblies, even for a little passenger car in 1:87- model railroad ( I can't attach a file, so I can't show you the problem). I am getting bored from this. I can't afford the 249$ package ( Here in Europe, you have to add 30% to have the real price = ~340$). Do you will provide in the future an affordable "part pack" tho leverage the part number in Xpress ? Despite the fact that I like to use Xpress, I consider seriously to switch to another software (Punch software ViaCAD), because there isn't any affordable option for me to leverage the part number (the most of my assemblies have 12 to 20 uniques parts...).

Best regards

F. Gfeller

[Jim Quanci]

"But we had more third-party developers and resellers -- and we had the “nozzle” in 3D! A shout out to Don Strimbu! Extra points for anyone who knows what I am talking about."

So how do I get the extra points? I just saw Don in the hall a few weeks ago. :-)

And we do still have more third party developers an dresellers. :-)

PS
I have about the same amount of hair left as you do... sigh...

[R.Paul Waddington.]

In the main Greg what you say is correct and FUD is used in all industries, not just the CAD industry.

There are, at least, two distinct ways of using FUD: one that will endear you to the customer you may be wooing and the the second will invariably leave 'egg on your face' at some stage.

eg, A long standing customer, of mine using Autodesk software, was approached and 'pressured' to purchase Solidworks in preference to Mechanical Desktop. When I was asked to justify why I should continue to be their supplier (and convert AutoCADs to Mechanical Desktops) I uncovered the oppositions very successful (to that point in time) use of FUD. A direct approach to the senior management convincing them of the just how un-reliable and incapable Mechanical Desktop, Autodesk and me would prove to be in the application of 3D.

How do you counter FUD, and in particular this apparently very successful campaign, was the question I was asked by our crew. My answer; it's easy, answer the criticism, head on.

I asked for, and received, a list of Solidwork's criticisms; organized an appointment and armed with a computer loaded with Mechanical Desktop set out to cover, blow by blow Solidworks criticisms showing were they were completely wrong and openly tackling their criticisms where there was substance. The only difference was that I put our shortcomings(and those of Solidworks) into perspective relative to the customers requirements.

Having addressed the demon I then invited the customer to ask Solidworks to respond in kind, "give them the same opportunity to refute what I have shown you and the shortcomings of their software that I had identified". (They are still my customer and Autodesk users).

Used in an initial approach or in defense this is how to use FUD, as I know it, in a 'positive' manner. I have always seen FUD as an education process; done correctly it gives a customer the tools he/she needs to make informed decisions. If FUD is used as an attempt to destroy the oppositions credibility it will fail at some point in time and there is nothing worse than a customer finding out how wrong you were after he has become your customer.

3D CAD software marketing and sales persons have elevated FUD to an 'incredible height', in relation to the value of 3D CAD vs 2D CAD, I say to the point of dishonesty and this raises the question why? The answer lies with users REAL requirements not their perceived (by vendors) requirements. Vendors have missed the point so use FUD, destructively, in an attempt to counter competition - and 2D - (it's a dumb resource wasteful strategy).

The use of FUD as described by you Greg, demonstrates this point. The, "mine's better than theirs because they do this, can't do this or won't survive doing that", process survives as a strategy because users are silly enough to sit and listen to it and allow it to happen.

Taking Greg's advise to 'try.....' cannot be a bad thing but I think the smarter thing is to make the vendors earn their living by demonstrating to potential users why their product
is worth 'the investment'. It is very costly to 'try before you buy' and few, if any user, can actually afford the time and cost to do this (lots of experience doing this).
I believe it is incumbent on me to do the leg work for a customer so that any trial he may then choose to do will be done in an informed and calculated manner, making the cost justifiable, regardless of the final outcome.

One observation: I have and used (since early 1984) AutoCAD, Mechanical Desktop and Inventor and I use all of these for 3D work, AutoCAD the most! I have just given away my last Alibre trial CD and have recommended CADKey(Keycreator), Alibre and Express, Rhino, Cadopia, VariCAD and now MoI, to so many I have lost count. That said, I continue to use AutoCAD for 3D and not a single vendor would know the real reasons, including Autodesk; because nobody has ever asked, and I know they cannot guess. In Autodesk's case, even when told, they don't want to know why I continue to use AutoCAD - and worse still Mechanical Desktop, a 3D product they want to kill -, for 3D, so they keep applying FUD; their own
products being the target. How dumb is that?

Second observation: It's a management thing; FUD is the result of senior (mis)management; One CAD vendor's management has never answered a single question I have asked in relation to product improvement, productivity claims and statements comparing competitors software.

You see, in the CAD world, its easier and more importantly, it's cheaper, to 'knock' a competitors product than to mount a time consuming (read costly) marketing and sales process based on facts.

The trick now is for ALL 3D CAD vendors to find new ways to assist customers to 'trial' their software to determine it true potential value, cost saving or productivity increase.

For those with lower cost software this may seem, or be, a little more difficult but if they wish to lay claim to be the innovators of the industry then that is their challenge. Their flexibility is their greatest asset and they are not really using it effectively; their eye is on the wrong ball.

The first step, for 3D CAD vendors, will mean getting much closer to existing customers; vendors need to close the 'physical' gap they have created between themselves and their users. It is the vendors that have created their problems and that use FUD, but it also time users started standing up for themselves.

Caveat venditor! FUD doesn't work on a thinking informed customer.

R.Paul Waddington.

[SolidWorks User]

Hello Michael,

I have been using software made by your competitor at work. Overall it does do the job. After giving Alibre a try, and giving up my first impressions, I find that your product is just as good in every way. It’s a good product, and because of its price, many more companies can now do 3D CAD. What led me to your software is your unique marketing approach. When I begin my own business, Alibre will be my first choice.

[James Carrington]

Love that Don Strimbu nozzle!

cheers
James Carrington
ex-Autodesk

[Sim Pern Chong]

I have been playing with the Alibre express and I found it quite easy to use.

I am thinking of getting a copy for personal use...

[Rich]

that's funny because when I just google searched "SolidWorks" Alibre came up for paid search... yet when I google'd Alibre, SolidWorks did NOT come up in paid search.

[Douglas Bartelt]

I own a metal fabrication and machine shop and have been using very old CAD software Ashlar Vellum for about 15 years. I had Autocad before this and found it to be very UN-user friendly. Actually I began to hate it so much I returned to my manual drafting table for most of my parts. None of my business associates had even heard of vellum and were amazed at how much easier this software was to use.
I had heard all the Hype about solid works for years and contacted them two years ago for a price quote. I actually laughed at the sales guy. And there licensing agreement was insane.
After Google searching 3D solid modeling software I came across Alibre. I tried the free download with the free tutorials and was fairly competent at it's operation within a couple of hours. I purchased the Expert version and have not looked back at Solid works since.(Solid works sales people still call me to this day)
The point of my little story is this: If you listen to your fears in the world of business sales (FUD) you will never reach your full potential. Because at least half the time you let some of the most innovative profitable products slip right through your fingers.