Progress, A Technology Company's Company

Last Thursday was analyst day at Progress Software, and while I wasn't there, I followed some of the activity on Twitter. I'd like to share a bit about what it's like to be at a product company, and some of the challenges we face getting our message(s) out - instead my usual rant about SOA.

WRT the conference, the tweet of the day was @rwang0's tidbit: "Did you know that Epicor, QAD, Infor, Consona, Sage, and others are using Progress technology in the back end?"

@neilwd's answer was: "@djbressler re: your @rwang0 RT - no I didn't know that - and that's part of the problem, perhaps?"

Perhaps? Neil's apparently an understated kind of guy.

I'll add a little nugget of my own. Can you guess how many SaaS customers we have? A few thousand. (Sorry I can't find the exact number but I think my point is made.)

Interestingly, @neilwd was right on the ball earlier when Judith said, "progress software - no differentiation" and he responded "jhurwitz v interesting Progress comment - I think Progress is a bit like Unilever - top-level brand is vanilla, sub-brands have chops".

We'd love for the Progress brand to have some chops, and we're trying but it's not trivial. To illustrate this point, and the challenge we face bringing all our brands together, here's a little visual riddle:



How many times do you see Progress on this screen shot? (Answer below)

Coincidentally to analyst day, I was doing some research in preparation for my upcoming presentation at the Cloud Computing Expo in NYC. When I saw this page I just had to email it to our new CMO, Gary Conway, to illustrate the problem we have.

No one knows who or what Progress is. And in part, it's our fault, but only in part.

You see, Progress is mentioned four times on that page but you'd never know it. Granted, there's one double-mention but still four times on one page, you'd think people would of heard of us.

I'll pat myself on the back for a second. Last year we had some moderated management meetings to tease out what we all thought Progress' core strengths were. My belief is that Progress is a technology company's company - that our core competency is creating software that, as Neil pointed out on Twitter after analyst day, others embed in solutions of their own. Our established network of partners is more valuable than gold, and having traveled the world talking to them, they really like us. Oh, and they're committed to our technology across the board. The exciting thing is that we're starting to realize that core competency in the Actional team here with our relationship with Software AG and their release of WebMethods Insight. It's amazing how when you do what you do well, it works well!

I'll say one last thing before giving you the answer to the riddle, since I suspect there are some important people at my company who might read this.

I'm a bit disappointed that we could have an analyst day without a social presence. Not a blog post about it, not a tweet, not a single conversation. Granted a lot of what was said is confidential but we've gotta be part of the conversation and we missed a good opportunity to do so.

Answer: The four places we're mentioned on the screen shot...

1. "Progress Software to Present at Cloud Conference" (top center bullet #2)
2. "FUSE on Demand: Webinars on Open Source Integration" (sponsored bullet top center)
3. "SOA Presentation, SOA, WOA, and Cloud Computing: The Frontier for Data Services" (top right)
4. "FUSE on Demand: Webinars on Open Source Integration" (bottom left)

DataDirect is what some would say is the core of Progress, FUSE is our open source ESB acquired with IONA. And, as mentioned above, I'll be presenting at Cloud Computing Expo in NYC. I'd love to meet you and have a conversation. Of course, you don't have to wait until then.

2 April 2009, @NeilWD has blogged his response/feelings about this topic. It makes for a good read. - db

Comments

[Doug Lucy]

Neil Ward-Dutton has hit the nail on the head, though. Progress Software is, effectively, a conglomerate of attractive technologies, but they don't resonate as a unified brand or family in the minds of customers.

The OpenEdge platform, which brought Progress Software to the point where it could acquire these other technologies and become a Unilever, has been an embedded technology from day one. Progress Software provided the business programming language and database that allowed thousands of Progress Application Partners to produce successful vertical market software. These APs love the Progress 4GL platform, but due to the embedded nature of the tool, the customers were completely unaware of the engine that was powering their supply chain management or enterprise accounting or travel management systems. At the time, they didn't really care as they were more focused on the results rather than the technology.

As technology matured and platform leaders emerged, these very same customers began requiring their vendors to reassure them the technology was a safe choice or less costly by demanding Microsoft or Oracle. It didn't matter so much which components were Microsoft or Oracle or even how much of the solution relied on one of these two. Progress APs, those thousands of SaaS customers you talk about, have since struggled to convince prospects that the Progress OpenEdge platform, something they've never heard of, is a safe bet and they won't need to worry they can't find OpenEdge-savvy staff to maintain it.

You won't find a single Progress AP who wouldn't love a brand or a technology family name that prospects would recognize and see as genuine competitors for the likes of Microsoft and Oracle. So long as the development and support staff could still enjoy the ease, power and lower TCO of OpenEdge, the sales staff would perform significantly better if the Progress moniker was recognizable and competitive in the small- and mid-market.

I can only imagine that the VARs and solution providers in the other subsidiaries at Progress will discover the same issue: they don't get the benefits of any other division's product's credibility as no prospective customer will know the products are related until they are educated by the sales team. We all know that's too late.

Mark Palmer has posted a response to Neil's blog and characterized the paths Progress Software must choose from to resolve this problem. From an outsider's perspective, the choice of ripping out the current names and unifying under one banner does seem to be the best long term decision. If Progress Software can successfully accomplish that daunting task, the VARs and APs in each division could count on greater credibility and customer awareness. However, from the perspective of a Application Partner Business Council member, the idea that it will take another fives years and yet another new moniker before I can count on Progress Software to aid versus hinder in my sales effort is not encouraging. Most APs have already added some technology component from other, more recognizable names and a huge rebranding that takes years to provide benefits will likely cause them to consider looking elsewhere.

The software development companies who have invested in developing with OpenEdge, those who I would argue are the core of Progress Software's success, genuinely love the products. They have been successful in selling their vertical market solutions despite the "Progress Who?" problem and the maintenance revenue from those hundreds of thousands of licenses represents the majority of Progress Software revenue. If preserving that revenue and retaining those APs is critical to the continued success of Progress Software, then communicating the plan, the expected benefits and the realistic timetable to the AP community is paramount.

Doug Lucy
Chairman, Board of Directors
Application Partner Business Council
http://www.apbusinesscouncil.org