Time to gut the network - thoughts?
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
So in your mind the perfect company would not market at all because of this statement
How did you get this from anything I said?
Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.
Right. Which in no way leads you to what you said. You are making an illogical leap. That the buyer should be wary of advice says literally nothing about the company.
It does. If the company uses marketing, you should be wary. So if they don't market, you don't need to be wary.
Yes exactly, you should be wary. Wary of advise is totally different than a company being bad. UNrelated. 100%
And I NEVER suggested that you stop being wary when they don't advertise.
See what I mean? I have no idea where these statements come from. Am I saying something wrong? I can't find anything I've said that would even remotely suggest these thoughts.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
So if they don't market, you don't need to be wary.
What is the quote that led you to think that I even implied this?
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.
That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?
That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.
The part that I think we both have a problem with is that general people, that includes the crappy IT person and the NORMAL SMB business owner (as you said, most SMBs fail, and well just one look at SW shows how many not great IT people there are out there). These are the normals - the expected situation. I would NEVER expect them to question a recommendation because it matches ads on TV, again, because they are normals and don't adhere to good business practices. When you run into that 5% who aren't normal and who do realize that if it's advertised you should be wary, it's pretty easy for you to switch gears to deal with those people.
But, if you're dealing with normals... they would never question it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
So in your mind the perfect company would not market at all because of this statement
How did you get this from anything I said?
Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.
Right. Which in no way leads you to what you said. You are making an illogical leap. That the buyer should be wary of advice says literally nothing about the company.
It does. If the company uses marketing, you should be wary. So if they don't market, you don't need to be wary.
Yes exactly, you should be wary. Wary of advise is totally different than a company being bad. UNrelated. 100%
And I NEVER suggested that you stop being wary when they don't advertise.
See what I mean? I have no idea where these statements come from. Am I saying something wrong? I can't find anything I've said that would even remotely suggest these thoughts.
No, you didn't say wary of advice. You said wary of marketing. The company is doing the marketing. So if you need to be wary of the marketing, then you must be wary of the company. They are directly related.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.
That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?
That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.
The part that I think we both have a problem with is that general people, that includes the crappy IT person and the NORMAL SMB business owner (as you said, most SMBs fail, and well just one look at SW shows how many not great IT people there are out there). These are the normals - the expected situation. I would NEVER expect them to question a recommendation because it matches ads on TV, again, because they are normals and don't adhere to good business practices. When you run into that 5% who aren't normal and who do realize that if it's advertised you should be wary, it's pretty easy for you to switch gears to deal with those people.
But, if you're dealing with normals... they would never question it.
Right, I don't expect them to do their jobs well either. But here is the problem....
You confuse that people wont' do a good job with whether or not we give them good advice. What difference does it make if the average person is going to do a bad job? That logic says we should cease giving all advice, we should in fact not care about doing a good job or improving... because "many" other people won't. So the whole thing should be thrown out? The entire concept of business, IT, consulting, doing a good job?
I don't understand why anything you said relates to why it's not good advice or needed advice?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Of course the reality of any suggestions should be - Please tell me why you choose this vendor/product line and the next one or two alternatives, and why this one was the one you picked to recommend to me.
Obviously if you question absolutely everything, you don't skip questioning the most likely bad case. BUT it's unreasonable to question every single thing, that's a good way to push people over the edge and to raise costs. THat's why we take the time to highlight cases where we should be more questioning, rather than less or even keel. What does the pattern for being taken advantage of look like?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Personally I agree that anything I see on TV I personally am very Leary of, what's the angle, how are you trying to screw me, what else can I buy to get something for less cost? But normals don't think this way.
This would be like walking into a BB to get the best computer, but as we all know the best computer can't even be purchased in BB, it must be ordered online - but how would you expect normals to know that?
OH I know.. because that person looking to buy a computer hires a consultant to make a recommendation... and what you're now saying is that if the recommendation from that consultant was to go to BB and buy X, that that normal person should question the consultant because you know.. BB advertises... yeah.. normals just don't do that.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
So in your mind the perfect company would not market at all because of this statement
How did you get this from anything I said?
Nothing wrong with marketing, but it should always trigger a wariness reaction mentally. Things to look out for.
Right. Which in no way leads you to what you said. You are making an illogical leap. That the buyer should be wary of advice says literally nothing about the company.
It does. If the company uses marketing, you should be wary. So if they don't market, you don't need to be wary.
Yes exactly, you should be wary. Wary of advise is totally different than a company being bad. UNrelated. 100%
And I NEVER suggested that you stop being wary when they don't advertise.
See what I mean? I have no idea where these statements come from. Am I saying something wrong? I can't find anything I've said that would even remotely suggest these thoughts.
No, you didn't say wary of advice. You said wary of marketing. The company is doing the marketing. So if you need to be wary of the marketing, then you must be wary of the company. They are directly related.
The marketing should make you wary. All marketing should, it's that simple. This is life advice. Has nothing to do with IT. Always assume that marketing is designed to mislead you.
That misleading you through marketing makes you wary of a company is not a connection that I see. There is a social contract in marketing and that means that the company is not responsible for your emotional responses to their marketing.
This is the same as when I tell people that sales people are not their friends or working on their behalf. That doesn't make them evil, that's a misunderstanding of the roles and social contracts.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
But you're not saying that - instead you started by saying that we should all know that if we get a recommendation for any product that we've ever seen an ad for, we have to instantly be suspicious of that recommendation. I think you're taking the wrong approach here.
I'd be very interested to hear why you feel there is room to not scrutinize in that obviously "red flagged" case?
How do you not imply the inverse if what you're saying here is true.
i.e. if you haven't seen an ad for it, then it must be OK, and you have no reason/need to question or be leary of it.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Personally I agree that anything I see on TV I personally am very Leary of, what's the angle, how are you trying to screw me, what else can I buy to get something for less cost? But normals don't think this way.
Exactly. Marketing's purpose is to convince you to buy something. You should be naturally wary, just a little, of any of that. That doesn't make the company evil, it is just the job of marketing. And it is the job of the consumer to be wary.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
But you're not saying that - instead you started by saying that we should all know that if we get a recommendation for any product that we've ever seen an ad for, we have to instantly be suspicious of that recommendation. I think you're taking the wrong approach here.
I'd be very interested to hear why you feel there is room to not scrutinize in that obviously "red flagged" case?
How do you not imply the inverse if what you're saying here is true.
Simply by not implying it. That's a standard logic rule. One true does not imply the inverse. That's basic logical progression.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?
Yes, because you change from a grey area into a black and white one. You make them legally and morally obligated, you remove any social contract of sales, marketing or other. Nothing allows them to lie, ethically or legally. It also removes you having missed or them not disclosing a financial connection. You say that it won't help because if they are not up front... but you've totally changed the scenario. Not being "up front" is not disclosing voluntarily a connection. That's totally different than flat out lying. Absolutely different.
Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it a really, really big deal, yes.
I'm giving advice on how to improve things. There is no answer on how to be perfect. But we don't skip doing a good job just because we can't do a perfect one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.
That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?
That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.
It's not. This whole thread is you expecting people to listen to you. You just said "this is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it."
It is, I'm literally unclear why it is being questioned? I'm uncertain of what the counterargument is.
Well one counterargument is that you're assuming you recall every add for every IT thing you've ever seen. Only by having this perfect recall can you be sure that you question the right products.
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
I know I can get behind this logic - the normals still won't do it... because as humans we are trusting by nature, and this question while being good business practice flies in the face of nature trust.
-
Remember, for example, if your salesman lies to you flat out... you don't owe them money for the work. It's worse than bad fail, it is intent to defraud. You would be under no obligation to pay them and could sue the poo out of them if you found out later.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Well one counterargument is that you're assuming you recall every add for every IT thing you've ever seen.
Nope, I'm really not. If you don't see enough ads to have any emotional reaction then the effect isn't large enough for most consultants to leverage it. It's not perfect, but perfect is never relevant.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Only by having this perfect recall can you be sure that you question the right products.
The idea that you can never make mistakes is not correct. It's about improving the process, not about avoiding any mistake ever.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
