Reseller Redux

Are you a reseller or VAR?

Do you buy your IT from resellers or VARs?

Or are you like me, and fascinated in independent comparisons of different vendors?

Then read on -- I've got a ton of useful data for you with some interesting conclusions.

What's This All About?

CRN/VARbusiness just published their 28th Annual Report Card (ARC) for different categories of vendors.

EMC completely dominated in two categories: network storage and storage management software.  Usually, different vendors have different strengths, but not this time.

The people conducting the survey told us they'd never seen such a complete and differentiated preference -- in any category -- in recent memory.  They said they were amazed, to put it mildly.

You can download PDFs of the lengthy results here and here.

Although there's a fair amount of justifiable pride in this latest accomplishment, I think there's more to the story than meets the eye -- and has direct implications for larger consumers of IT as well.

First, resellers and VARs get to see it all.  Everyone wants their business, but not everyone earns it.  They're directly familiar in a hands-on way with products, support, pricing, etc.

Second, the ARC methodology is no slouch.  Look at sample size, qualifying questions, how vendors are selected.  This is most definitely not one of those "pay to play" deals we see so often in the industry. 

Others who are contemplating industry surveys would be well served to look at the ARC process.

Third, we get a sense for what's ahead: the survey captures sentiments about "loyalty" and "future prospects" that paint a picture of what they see coming in the future from various vendors.

So, let's dig in, and see what we can learn?

Network Storage

Let's start with "what's important" for this audience, captured well on this slide here:

 

Notice how "quality and reliability" jumps to the top of the list.  And how "compatibility and ease of integration" makes the #3 spot.

Just a note on interpreting this graph: the darker red speaks to the "product innovation" cluster, the pinkish color speaks to the "partnership" cluster, and the grey speaks to the "support" cluster.

If we look closer at the "Product Innovation" scores, here's the picture:

 

As you can see, EMC outscored the next closest vendor (Netapp) by a considerably significant margin.

Now let's look at the "support" category, which includes both pre- and post-sales:

 

Once again, EMC comes out on top.  Once again, EMC outscored the next closest competitor (again, Netapp) by a considerable margin.

Yes, there's a pattern here.  We're just getting started, folks.

Next up, the "partnership" category.  This is all the ease-of-doing-business stuff, including the all-important "managing channel conflict".

 

Yes, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.  Once again, EMC is on top.  Once again, we're ahead of the next-closest competitor by a good margin.

If we stack things up, a predictable picture emerges with an interesting conclusion:

 

Note how the two storage specialists (EMC and Netapp) are above average, and all of the more traditional server/storage vendors are below average?  I see this as a bit of confirmation of my premise that the server guys really aren't all that serious about storage.

If we look at each individual sub-category behind the big three, an even more compelling picture emerges:

 

Yep, you're reading this correctly. 

EMC was #1 in each and every subcategory that VARbusiness surveyed for "Network Storage".

So, there shouldnt' be too much surprise about who won the overall award:

 

So much for storage hardware.  There's more in the big download if you're interested.

Now, let's move on to storage management software ...

Storage Management Software

Actually, it's more than just management software -- this category include data protection, remote replication as well as storage virtualization.

The finalists were a slightly different bunch: CA, EMC, HP, IBM/Tivoli and Symanted/Veritas.  Some of the vendors who made finalist in the hardware category didn't make it to finalist in this category (e.g. Sun, Netapp).

Once, again, let's start with what's important to this audience:

 

If you compare with the previous results, you'll see that it's a different ranking of subcategories, and the "quality and reliability" aspect is much more pronounced than before (counterintuitive to me, but there you have it).

If we take a look at "product innovation" as before, here's the view:

 

Yes, EMC came out ahead, and by a more pronounced margin than before.

What's surprsing to me is that the server guys (HP and IBM) did better in this software category than the ostensibly software-focused vendors (CA and Symantec/Veritas).    But if you look at the averages, it's not by all that much -- one could say that (except for Symatec) they're all running in the same league.

Now let's look at support.  Not an especially pretty picture: we all seem to have room for improvement in this category, don't we?

 

Yes, EMC came out head, and by quite a large margin, but compared to the 90's and 100's we got in other categories, this is a sign of more work to do, rather than a cause for celebration.

I suppose we could take some solace in that we're not as bad as the other guys, though.  And our friends at Symantec/Veritas have their work cut out for them, don't they?

And, finally, there's the "partnership" angle as well:

 

I know, this is getting repetitive, but it's rare that we see such fine-grained qualitative surveys, so I think it's worth the time to keep going along here.

Now, for a small surprise -- check out the overall scores:

 

Simply put, EMC is wrecking the grading curve in this class.  But, at the same time, the overall scores are lower (as an industry) so we all have some hard work to do.

Especially you, Symantec ...

If we do the breakdown of each subcategory as before, here's what we get:

 

Yep, once again, EMC sweeps each and every subcategory.

Which leads to the inevitable award results:

 

And, with that, you'll have to get the rest of the gory details here.

What Does All Of This Mean?

Well, I've been at EMC a long time, and I never, ever imagined I'd be looking at results like this, given our long and challenged history with channel partners.

Congratulations are certainly in order for the EMC team(s) that took on this challenge to make us #1 in the value-added channel world, and appear to have done an exceptional job indeed.

But a heartfelt "thank you" is in order for all the EMC partners who helped us get there.  You were patient with us when we were figuring all of this out.  You told us (in detail!) what was working, and what was not.  As we got good at one thing or another, you pointed us to the next thing to focus on.

We hear many interpretations of the word "partner", in this regard, you all were truly partners.

Even if you don't buy your IT from value-added partners, there's something in this for you as well.  What you're seeing is a survey from professional IT people who make a living doing this.  Sure, not every category applies to your situation, but it's strongly indicative of what you're likely to see.

Finally, despite our progress here, certain areas jump out as logical areas for additional focus.

And, if you work for an EMC competitor, you clearly have your work cut out for you here. 

May I make a suggestion?  Investing in winning this sort of competition makes so much more sense than parading the latest SPC benchmarketing results, or paying some "independent analyst" to flog your latest message, or cooking up useless "guarantees". 

Winning at this sort of competition is hard, gritty process work from end-to-end.  We're not done demanding the very best from ourselves, and you shouldn't be, either!

Thanks again!

Courteous comments always welcome ...

Comments

[Calvin Zito]

Hey Chuck,

In the words of my favorite U.S. president, "There you go again". I'm guessing that the fact that HP won all of the CRN Channel Champion Awards in storage (as well as several other categories) conveniently slipped your mind. The Channel Champion Awards is based on solution provider ratings of their satisfaction with vendors in particular product categories. HP won every storage category we were in - EMC won nothing. Specifically, let me refresh your memory:

>> The Storage Management Software category (http://www.crn.com/storage/207401510?pgno=3)
>> Network storage which includes NAS and SAN (http://www.crn.com/storage/207401510?pgno=2)
>> External backup (http://www.crn.com/storage/207401510?pgno=4)

And those are just the storage categories HP won.

Your continued bloviating on how server vendors don't make good storage vendors is getting tiresome. You and your readers are very well aware that HP isn't just a "server vendor".

I'm bored - looking forward to a more interesting topic. Would love to hear you talk more about Maui, especially since summer has come and gone and Joe committed that you'd launch it by the end of summer. Of course that was after he promised it would be announced by May.

Happy Tuesday,
Calvin

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Calvin -- my, aren't we tetchy these days?

Well, many of us see the Channel Champions event as just that -- an event, complete with nice tuxes, lucite awards, red carpets, chicken or beef, etc.

Seems to be targeted at people who spend money advertising with CRN. Which HP most definitely does. I'd feel bad for you if you didn't win something.

Solid research with a transparent methodology, it ain't. Kind of like the SPCs you're so fond of.

As far as my premise of server vendors making haphazard storage investments, you're just giving me more ammo. E.g. the LeftHand acquisition, the OEMing of the LSI storage virtualization, and the prime example, the Oracle/HP database machine, somehow positioned as "storage".

Can't wait for your dedupe play ... I'm sure it's coming at some point.

Don't take it from me, go see Martin at http://storagebod.typepad.com/storagebods_blog/2008/10/57-varieties-of-hp-sauce.html

If you didn't give me such good material, I wouldn't have anything to write about, should I?

As far as Maui, it is coming in good time. I think you and the rest of the industry will find it mildly interesting -- when it gets here.

As to your boredom problem at work, well, I'm not going to touch that one.

Cheers!

[Calvin Zito]

Sorry Chuck - your explanation is more bloviating. I have pictures from both events (Channel Champions and ARC) that show people enjoying good food in tuxes and gowns. What would an award be without such an event. By your measure, one could only conclude the ARC awards were bought and paid for by EMC - but I won't begin to suggest that.

Should we ask the good folks at CRN if the Channel Champion results are based on advertising spend?

I sure hope someone from CRN sees what you've accused them of.

[Chuck Hollis]

Calvin -- indeed, you must be truly bored to have enough time on your hands to look up new words (e.g. "bloviating") and to feebly try and stir up trouble.

If you really think the Channel Champion thing carries some weight, why don't you post the same level of materials that I shared for the ARC awards?

Share the detailed methodology and the results, rather than press releases and back-slapping pictures?

Really, Calvin, you should get back to work. Clearly, the storage group at HP has some catch-up to do in a few areas.

As yet another recent example, we missed you and HP at the recent industry-wide FCoE announcement at SNW.

No, wait, I'm guessing HP will post a nice web page discussing the "FCoE debate", expressing "serious concerns", stating with beard-stroking sincerity that "HP is studying it" and you're working on an "end to end solution".

All of this at the same time as other vendors (e.g. EMC, Cisco, Emulex, Qlogic) are shipping GA products for customers to evaluate.

Kind of like HP did with enterprise flash drives?

Best regards ...

[Calvin Zito]

The data for the CRN Channel Champion Awards is out there - you can find it starting here: http://www.crn.com/it-channel/207401846;jsessionid=XGYGQ2WEH2QK4QSNDLPSKH0CJUNN2JVN?pgno=1.

It carries weight - the methodolgy is solid.

Congrats on EMC's results today.

[Chuck Hollis]

Tell you what, Calvin

Why don't YOU explain why HP fared so poorly in this latest thorough survey from CRN?

And why they felt compelled to write an article on how HP doesn't manage channel conflict well?

http://www.crn.com/it-channel/211200393

Thanks

[Shaun Edwards]

Hi,

Why isn't HDS listed in these metrics?

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Shaun

I can't speak for CRN, but I guess HDS wasn't significant enough of a player in the market.

-- Chuck

[Calvin Zito]

Hey Chuck -

The channel conflict that HP has to manage from the link you provided is for HP Workgroup Color Printers. I'm not in that business so I can't address it. I'm hoping you didn't bother to read the article before you threw that one in.

I am confident that since the ARC Executive of the Year (http://www.crn.com/it-channel/211200636) is HP's Adrian Jones, lots of progress will be made. And please, don't try to claim that HP winning that award was because of advertising spend with CRN or VARBusiness.

But now we're a long way from the original concern I raised in my first comment - the scores in the ARC don't prove that server vendors don't make good storage vendors. It proves that EMC won the award this year. Congratulations.

BTW, HP's revenues exceed $100B a year and this may be a shock to you but server revenue is not all of it.

[Chuck Hollis]

Calvin, just to be clear, I didn't say that HP did not sell significant amounts of storage.

I just said that I thought you guys weren't all that good at it, due to your primary focus on servers, printers, etc. Storage seems to be the poor stepchild at HP, and IBM, and Sun, and ... well, you get the picture.

[Calvin Zito]

Hey Chuck,

You know nothing about the importance of storage to HP and really, stop pretending that you do. HP's portfolio is broad but there are no step-children, only children. You've tried to make this point countless times yet customers speak for themselves. Customers are buying significant amounts of storage from HP and the customers who use HP StorageWorks products do because it addresses their needs better than EMC.

And guess what, there are lots of customers that like buying their storage and servers together.

You are wrong. Technology companies like HP who offer customers a full portfolio of products, services, and solutions make great storage vendors. And obviously you know that or you wouldn't be trying so hard to convince your readers otherwise.

Next topic.

[Chuck Hollis]

Calvin -- this really isn't about what you or HP believe -- it's about how you're perceived outside your corporate bubble.

No one I ever talk to ever thinks of HP as a "leader" in storage technology or capabilities. At best, you're fast-followers to the discussion, but never, ever out in front on anything interesting.

There's just not a consistent pattern of coordinated investment that would indicate that HP intends to lead the market, rather than opportunistically participate.

Let's look at some recent examples.

Flash? Stall tactics by HP.

FCoE and converged fabrics? HP was a complete no show on the entire discussion.

Dedupe? Nothing really significant.

B2D? Nothing memorable.

Tiering and ILM? Yeah, sort of, kind of.

Any sort of interesting, unique or advanced storage technology in the marketplace?

Not from HP, thank you.

That's what I'm talking about.

Sure, acquiring bits and pieces here and there will help (e.g. LeftHand, the LSI OEM of their storage virtualization, etc.) but y'all have a long way to go before people will start taking HP seriously on this topic.

If this is an uncomfortable line of discussion for you, I fully understand, but the best way to improve the situation would be to change the reality, rather than trying to mask the perception.

-- Chuck

[Calvin Zito]

Chuck,

I'm compelled to respond because of your twisting of facts. Its funny how you keep changing the issue - I've conclusively shown that HP has faired well (and in fact better than EMC) in the CRN Channel Champions but you're credibility is really slipping when you write comments attacking HP without really knowing the facts. Almost every post about HP isn't even close to being factually accurate and I hope you decide to thoughtfully consider this in your next comment or post.

Since you have selective memory, I'll be happy to point out a few things you've forgotten:

>> DDS, DLT, and LTO tape formats all invented or co-developed by HP (of course since according to EMC tape has been dead since 1999 that really doesn't count in your book).
>> HP has been shipping a virtualized array since 1994 (starting with AutoRAID and now EVA). And virtualization in the EVA makes it far easier to manage than your comparable Clariion arrays. This has been well documented so would love to hear your spin on this point.
>> As to your claims of HP stalling solid state, that’s really funny. HP will ship more solid state technology drives in our first three months of shipments than EMC will in a year. What you keep dodging is that EMC can only address solid state technology in an array. In fact an article on the topic just hit Byte and Switch late last week: http://www.byteandswitch.com/document.asp?doc_id=166666&WT.svl=news2_1
>> As for deduplication, our SMB targeted D2D Backup System uses deduplication technology from HP labs.

I could go on, but I'll stop here.

[Chuck Hollis]

Calvin, to be frank, that's an exceptionally weak showing. I'd retreat if I were you ...

[Calvin Zito]

Hey Chuck,

I find it ironic that while you’re making some weak arguments why server/storage vendors don't make good storage vendors that EMC is trying to become a server/storage vendor by announcing server management software. Of course, HP is much more than a “server/storage” vendor and our Business Service Automation portfolio has a huge advantage over EMC.

It was nice to see your own product management team admitting that you don't have the portfolio that HP has. EMC senior product marketing manager Jeff Abbott said, "We understand that HP has a very large number of products. We don't have as many as they do."

In April of this year, Forrester Research didn’t seem to know that EMC had any products. The Forrester Wave report on Data Center Automation confirms HP's leadership and EMC's absence from the market: http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA1-9305ENW.pdf

Best of luck.

[Chuck Hollis]

Calvin, you really must do something about your boredom problem at work. While you're at it, you might want to brush up on your reading and critical analysis skills at the same time.

First, no one at EMC ever claimed that we were a "leader" in server management. It's a new area for EMC. We've made some nice investments, and have some interesting capabilities, but can't quite claim "leadership" unless it's around very specific functional requirements.

Watch your back, though ...

So, amigo, you're reacting to something that was never said, nor never implied. You must be seeing ghosts!

I appreciate that you're trying to change the subject away from storage.

If I were you, I'd do the same thing.

[Calvin Zito]

Chuck - I'm not changing the subject or seeing ghosts. My point is your hypocrisy. Clearly you guys are running into customers that want a technology partner that can do more than storage. Sounds like you've seen the wisdom in what HP's already doing but I'm sure you won't admit to that.

Trust me, we aren't watching you at our back on this one.

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Calvin -- in one sense, you're more right that you might think. They DO want more than storage.

They want server virtualization, they want orchestrated resource management, they want security, they want content management, they want cloud infrastructures, they want consulting services, etc. etc. Good thing EMC does all of that, and does it in a relatively integrated manner.

But -- strangely -- they see servers as almost commodities. The differences between one vendor's x64 server and another's is increasingly narrow, isn't it?