Sizzle vs. smoke
All marketing communications attempt to cast their subject in a favorable light. I get that. But when your claim is obvious nonsense, you’re just doing yourself harm.
My best example this week (it’s only Tuesday morning) is an email from Vitria, which reads in part:
The world’s first Operational Intelligence (OI) app …
While it seems like everyone is jumping on the big data bandwagon, only OI can claim to be purposely built for tackling big data in motion …
That’s utter nonsense. We’ve had a CEP/stream processing industry for years. We’ve had stock-quote and network-monitoring systems for decades. Maybe Vitria has a good story, but the core claims in their email are obviously false. If you think I’m overreacting, it’s only because so many other companies also pitch blatantly untrue claims.
So do I want to talk with them? Well, their email suggests that if I do, they’re likely to start out by emphatically saying untrue things. Blech. I think most serious reporters, bloggers and analysts would feel much as I do on the matter. Even the ones who do take a briefing are likely to go in with a more negative attitude than they might if the pitch email had been more closely based on reality.
And if I do ever talk with Vitria anyway, they’ll need to start by climbing out of a credibility hole.
Comments
27 Responses to “Sizzle vs. smoke”
Leave a Reply
Duh
Didnt they even read Gartner reports.
This has been a category for so long … And The company I work for has a purpose built big data engine for the same for over 4 years now ( in production deployment)
Not naming my company as I dont want to be accused of marketing here but just making the point clear
At least they could have come up with a better name
Will look them up…
I visited their website and they actually have a quote from Gartner …. So that’s where they got this from
Also they use the terms ” big insights” on some page
Wonder where that comes from 🙂