I noticed a Google ad on a webpage the other day referring to a free IT review of small business networks. In principle, a free consultation is a good way for a service provider to get their foot in the door for customers. Sadly in the IT industry this is rarely the case.
The main reason is most prospective customers don't value the service. You can present them with a beautifully bound and presented report and it will, at best, be filed. It's highly unlikely the report will ever be read, let alone acted upon.
In the rare occasion it does get acted on, most companies will put the job out to competitive tender. Your free audit and the recommendations become the specifications and because other IT companies don't have the overhead of giving out free audits they'll be cheaper.
Word of mouth is the best marketing tool in the IT industry. The best way to grow your business is to provide quality service to the customers who value those services. Giving away your services, like system audits, for free is only attracting the customers who don't value what you can do for them.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Dumping on the competion
Criticising your competitors is always a risky proposition. The SMH Enterprise Blog discusses an example of this.
Valerie Khoo's experience with a real estate agent is pretty typical of what we see in the IT industry. The first agent did the right thing referring her to a competitor that could help. The competitor could resist dumping on the guy who referred her.
This sort of behaviour is unprofessional and most customers hate it. When I look at another technician's work I generally don't comment on the quality of the work unless they've done something seriously wrong.
Sadly, a lot of computer techs don't see it that way. They can't wait to big note themselves on how good they are and how bad the previous guy was. All this confirms in the client's mind is that we are all cowboys.
It's always best to be positive with a client. Even when recommending one product over another, I find it better to focus on the positives of the preferred product rather than the negatives of the the others.
There's karma in this too. Its too easy in the IT industry to be negative given the behaviour of many of the participants. By being positive, you feel better and so does your customer.
The simple rule is don't be negative: Don't dump on your competitors.
Valerie Khoo's experience with a real estate agent is pretty typical of what we see in the IT industry. The first agent did the right thing referring her to a competitor that could help. The competitor could resist dumping on the guy who referred her.
This sort of behaviour is unprofessional and most customers hate it. When I look at another technician's work I generally don't comment on the quality of the work unless they've done something seriously wrong.
Sadly, a lot of computer techs don't see it that way. They can't wait to big note themselves on how good they are and how bad the previous guy was. All this confirms in the client's mind is that we are all cowboys.
It's always best to be positive with a client. Even when recommending one product over another, I find it better to focus on the positives of the preferred product rather than the negatives of the the others.
There's karma in this too. Its too easy in the IT industry to be negative given the behaviour of many of the participants. By being positive, you feel better and so does your customer.
The simple rule is don't be negative: Don't dump on your competitors.
ZD Net interviews Kimmo Alkio the new CEO of Finnish security company, F-Secure, about the mechanics of online threats.
A very obvious point is malware writing is one of the few opportunities for a smart young programmer in the developing world. That's one of the reasons for the explosion in malware, phishing and spam. The Internet allows these opportunities from anywhere.
Where I would disagree with Kimmo is that mobile phone viruses and spyware are the stage now that PCs were at in the late 1980s.
In the late 1980s we were seeing the first viruses and they were spread by floppy disks with the odd ones lurking on message boards. The problem was there and the mass adoption of the Internet just took it to another level.
On the other hand, there's no reported mass outbreaks of mobile phone viruses which we would be seeing if there was a problem.
I suspect this is partly because mobile phones are used differently. People don't expect, or use, the functionality of a PC in a mobile and the telcos are reluctant to let their customers use such functionality because it allows the customer to break free of the Telco's content controls.
Kimmo makes a couple of other very good points: ISPs need to take more responsibility for protecting their customers and we need a .bank domain.
A .bank domain could be setup that only legitimate banks can sign up to. Having a reasonably secure domain means Internet banking because more secure.
On the other hand, were governments to make ISPs more responsible for security, we'd see a marked drop in spam, phishing viruses and compromised machines. I'd suggest making ISPs partly responsible for damages caused by compromised machines or swindlers on their network if the ISP can't show they've taken reasonable steps to close down errant account holders.
There's a few challenging ideas there that can be used to reduce Internet based crime.
A very obvious point is malware writing is one of the few opportunities for a smart young programmer in the developing world. That's one of the reasons for the explosion in malware, phishing and spam. The Internet allows these opportunities from anywhere.
Where I would disagree with Kimmo is that mobile phone viruses and spyware are the stage now that PCs were at in the late 1980s.
In the late 1980s we were seeing the first viruses and they were spread by floppy disks with the odd ones lurking on message boards. The problem was there and the mass adoption of the Internet just took it to another level.
On the other hand, there's no reported mass outbreaks of mobile phone viruses which we would be seeing if there was a problem.
I suspect this is partly because mobile phones are used differently. People don't expect, or use, the functionality of a PC in a mobile and the telcos are reluctant to let their customers use such functionality because it allows the customer to break free of the Telco's content controls.
Kimmo makes a couple of other very good points: ISPs need to take more responsibility for protecting their customers and we need a .bank domain.
A .bank domain could be setup that only legitimate banks can sign up to. Having a reasonably secure domain means Internet banking because more secure.
On the other hand, were governments to make ISPs more responsible for security, we'd see a marked drop in spam, phishing viruses and compromised machines. I'd suggest making ISPs partly responsible for damages caused by compromised machines or swindlers on their network if the ISP can't show they've taken reasonable steps to close down errant account holders.
There's a few challenging ideas there that can be used to reduce Internet based crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)