[SunRescue] [OT] Sun TV commercials

[Eric Ozrelic]

I'm not exactly sure what Sun TV commercials we're all talking about, but
the ones I've seen,
like the big rolling dot.com ball, and the one that looks like a sci-fi,
outerspace, star trek like
one are pretty cool. Sure they're somewhat vague, but I think visually
they're cool, they get
my attention, and I'm sure they probably get big name mangers attention for
having a cool,
upbeat, young and cutting edge dot.com look.

I really like IBM's TV marketing campaign too, I think too many computer
companies in the
past have had dry "this is a computer...this is what it can do" type ad
runs.

I say, cheers for Sun, for taking an original and cool, albeit vague
marketing campaign.

Just my two francs,

Regards,

Eric Ozrelic



----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Leblanc" <gleblanc at cu-portland.edu>
To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: [SunRescue] [OT] Sun TV commercials


> On 21 Dec 2000 17:27:00 -0600, scohen - Stephen Cohen wrote:
> > David Rouse writes:
> > >Sometimes the only meaningful information
> > >is buried in technical papers.
> >
> > This is not by accident.  It is actually by design.
> >
> > Those who understand what is found in the technical papers are very
> > typically NOT those who make the purchasing decisions.  Sun isn't
marketing
> > its wares to those who know - it is addressing a far, far larger
audience.
> >
> > There used to be a saying "No one has ever been fired for purchasing IBM
> > computers."  While this is no longer true, it underscores that, all too
> > often, the quality of a purchasing decision is made by unqualified
> > observers.
>
> I thought of quoting this in my first message... :)
>
> > If, for example, a large financial institution had purchased something
other
> > than IBM just a few years ago, its stock price may have suffered because
> > Wall Street may have seen a huge risk that the institution's data
processing
> > would no longer be stable.
> >
> > Sun (and other companies) is trying to leverage the perception (one
which it
> > created several years ago) that it 'powers the internet'. The unstated
> > message being conveyed is that business can consider Sun to be a
low-risk
> > purchase decision.
>
> So, let me get this straight...  Sun is trying to be seen as the sure,
> safe computing purchase...  Sun runs an add, in which some is called a
> (and I quote) "loose canon".  This "loose canon" purchases Sun
> computers.  Hmm, ok, so buying Sun == Loose Canon.  Offhand, I'd say
> that's a bad association to be making.
>
> > Here is another example of how certain brain-dead decisions are made.
> > Despite the fact that Apache has hordes of developers working all over
the
> > world to incorporate the latest advances into this web service, my
company
> > purchased Netscape Enterprise Server and runs it on WindowsNT!  The
> > executive making the decision to reject Apache (on Linux, DEC Alpha, Sun
> > SPARC & Sun on Intel) said that it is too risky to rely on something
that
> > isn't supported.
>
> At least they're not using IIS (that's idiots information server) on NT.
> :)
>
> > One can lead horses to water . . .
>
> But cannot force them to drown in it.  It's good to know I don't work
> for the only company with stupid politics.
>
>     Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Rescue maillist  -  Rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue