Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Category: market research

The Internet Marketing Start Page

It’s time to clue you all in about another nice resource I’ve run across on the Web. This site is called the Internet Marketing Start Page. It’s a great place to start your day, if you’re a professional Marketer, Entrepreneur, or otherwise just want to keep up with the latest tools and trends in marketing online. The Internet Marketing Start page basically is just what is says it is: a great start page, with anything and everything to do with marketing that’s available on the Internet. For anyone that doesn’t already have a favorite page, I’d recommend that you configure your browser and start your day on this page. There is so much information available, that it can actually give you a “creative push” to consider new things, rather than just being a passive resource that you refer to from time to time.

Included are entire sections on portals, search engines, marketing discussion forums, Webmaster tools, Business/Marketing/Technology News sources, Marketing & Advertising references, Industry Stats. It’s a resource with a truly rich array of great stuff for the High Tech Marketer. Give it a test drive and let me know what you think!

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting

Share Button

Free Web Analytics

For those of you involved in Internet Marketing, you know that you just can’t get enough data. Most of you, I’m sure, are already using a web analytics package today. Certainly anyone with an ecommerce site is a very heavy user of web analytics data. There are many popular commercial packages out there, including websidestory, websense, urchin and omniture to name a few.

But even if aren’t selling directly from your site, say you have a B2B site, in a niche market with high-priced products, you should still be tracking your sites traffic with a web analytics package. It is still very important to measure your traffic, and see the effect that various online and offline marketing campaigns are having on visitors to your site. Or it may be very helpful to see what content on your site is getting the most attention. If you don’t measure what’s going on with your site, you might as well just have a paper brochure–you aren’t taking advantage of having an intelligent, electronic home for your company.

There are a number of free (advertising supported) services out there, which do a good job of tracking basic data on the visitors to your site.

I use a service called statcounter (

It is one of the free sites I referred to earlier. I’ve been using it for a couple of years. It works great, and is very easy to use. I set it up on my entire site in a couple of hours, and was off collecting data about my website guests. If you have a modest budget or just don’t have a need for extremely detailed analytics, I suggest that you check out StatCounter.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting

Share Button

High Tech Product Planning

There are many ways to skin a cat, so the saying goes. Planning high technology software and hardware products seems to fit in the same category.

While there are some models that you tend to see over and over again, there are a lot of ways that planning of products occurs in the technology industry.

Developer-driven Product Planning

One typical way is what I call “developer-driven”. That’s when an engineer, software programmer, or inventor comes up with a new way to apply an existing technology in a novel way to a different, unsolved problem. Or in some cases, the developer is a true visionary, and actually invents a new breakthrough technology, that blows away the existing way of doing things.

While this developer-driven model is very common, and when it works it can lead to blockbuster successes, this approach is rife with problems—I have repeatedly been brought in to clean up the results of this approach in my consulting practice. The reason for this is that companies using this approach usually have a technology or product-centric view of the world. And what’s missing in the view?


Now I don’t want to insult all the technologists out there who have taken the lead in developing products. Of course, technology professional understand the need for customers, and the importance of getting their feedback in the product development process. Some have a natural knack for product planning, and are highly effective. Yet the reality is that product developers aren’t trained to, nor do they generally derive any pleasure from—trying to extract product preferences, unsolved problems, and workflow issues from potential customers. Often customers don’t really know what they want, or have some other agenda which can lead a product planner in the wrong direction—unless the planner is experienced and savvy in uncovering the desired information. Let’s face it, developers are trained to design hardware and write software code. Many do pick up product planning skills—but in my experience, it’s far from the majority.

The end result of a developer-driven product is often one that is launched, gets a few customers, but then stalls long before gaining traction and critical mass in the marketplace. Precious cash has been burned through, and the typical lament is “it’s a great product, if we could only find someone to sell it”. What is frequently believed to be a customer-facing sales and marketing issue, is quite often a product that doesn’t meet customer needs—as a result of flaws in the product planning process.

Customer-centric Product Planning

Another common way that I’ve seen products planned is what I call the customer-centric approach. This method is characterized by using a few “model customers”, with a fanatical devotion to using their input to develop the product. Often you will see this in a company that has previously failed using the developer-centric model discussed above. Sometimes, it’s the same technologists on their second try. Now, you may be thinking, this is the way you do it! But while this approach is definitely an improvement in some ways over a purely technological approach—it too has some limitations.

The customer centric model works well if you are developing for a very limited, niche market—or at least one that is quite homogenous. The problems occur in two areas. First, if your target market is of a heterogeneous nature, it is easy to miss that part of the market that isn’t represented among your select few model customers. Secondly, this approach can sometimes stifle innovation. In high technology, customer input is very important—but customers shouldn’t be doing your product planning for you. Each has their own quirky agendas, unique to their individual companies. In addition, customers often can’t see far enough past their current problems and needs—to imagine how to apply technology to make a radical improvement in their workflow, 2-3 years down the line. So if you only build what they tell you to build, you will often end up with a mostly mundane product, and also one that contains a few features that the greater market will scratch their head over why they were included. Worst of all, the product may be nearly obsolete by the time it hits the streets, because you haven’t looked far enough ahead of the market, and built-in what’s possible and desired for the future. These products get stuck in the present of when they were planned—which in the tech world, is the distant past by the time they are introduced.

Market-centric Product Planning

Finally, let’s talk about the way product OUGHT to be built. I call this approach a market-centric model, although it includes elements of both the customer and technology-driven approaches.

The most basic requirement for success in this approach is to have a skilled, balanced product planning team. The core of this team consists of an experienced Product Manager with a marketing background, and an experience Engineering Manager or Technical Project Leader. I call this the “2-headed monster”.

Having two leaders to a project sounds like a prescription for design-by-committee, which usually satisfies no one. And there are definitely dangers to this approach. The most problematic (and frequently encountered) issue is when the Product Manager and Engineering Lead clash, or just don’t like each other. Then you have a real problem—and one that must be dealt with quickly. But that’s a topic for another article. The important thing here is that to make a truly GREAT high tech product, both the Product Manager and Technical Lead possess key expertise that needs to be brought to the table.

The Product Manager is the market expert, and customer proxy when necessary. He is the one who is trained, experienced and skilled at uncovering the true needs and latent desires from potential customers. He also has a market perspective, so he will ensure that all important segments of the market will be canvassed to ensure that the resulting offering is MARKET-driven—not shaped by love of a cool technology or requests from a few key individual customers.

The Technical Lead brings a couple of critical skills to the table. He keeps the discussion centered on what’s POSSIBLE, ensuring that you don’t plan a product that can’t meet the required timing and budgetary constraints—or worse yet, can’t be built at all! In addition, he or she can “see ahead” and inject the use of new technology to solve a problem, in a way that those less technical might not be able to envision.

I won’t pretend that this approach to planning products is easy to implement. In truth, it’s hard to pull off. The key ingredients to success for this model are an honest, open process and culture, where everyone is motivated by the success of the product and ultimately, the company. In companies with a high degree of politics, or rivalries between departments, the process tends to fall apart quickly, to no ones benefit or satisfaction. Mutual respect is critical. Anyone should be allowed an opinion on any aspect of the product.

An engineer can express an opinion on the customer base, or marketing approach. A marketer can have an opinion on what technological approach is most appropriate. This cross-fertilization of ideas is very valuable, and can lead to innovative approaches that just aren’t derived from orthodoxy. But at the end of the day, after all the discussion has taken place, there must be mutual respect and trust in the competency of each functional area. Marketing people must be trusted on marketing matters; developers must be trusted on engineering matters. If that trust isn’t there or is lost during the process, a successful product is unlikely.

Best for Success

When done right, the Market-centric approach to product planning is optimal. It usually leads to solid singles and doubles, with the occasional home run. It reduces your risk of an outright flop, while increasing somewhat the normally long odds of creating a blockbuster, market-leading product. Once a company has evolved their product planning process in this manner, it’s poised to introduce a succession of market winners.

That’s my take on planning great high tech products. What’s yours? Post a comment or drop me an email message.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at

Share Button

CRM Blog

For you marketers and CEOs out there, I wanted to share a great resource to educate and keep you up to speed about this important topic. Jim Berkowitz is a long-time CRM expert, and his CRM Mastery E-Journal is just packed with information on the topic. This blog does a great job of tracking industry events within the CRM space, in addition to Jim’s enlightening commentary on customer management. In my experience, high tech companies (particularly early stage) spend shockingly little time “managing the customer experience”. I find that for the most part, high tech companies aren’t even doing a good job of gathering and organizing basic data on their costomers–let alone using the data to its full potential. Maybe it’s the focus on gathering new customers, since technology changes so quickly. Anyway, I recommend to take a look at Jim’s E-Journal–let me know what you think.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting

Share Button

Technology Acceleration

Technology is a GOOD THING. Well, most of the time it is.

I’m sure you’ve seen articles bemoaning the NEGATIVE role that technology advancement has played in our lives. I have recently joined the ranks of those doing the bemoaning.

Gadgets are Great

Don’t get me wrong—I’m a tech guy through and through. I’ve chosen to work in the technology industry for 20 years, and I love gadgets as much as the next guy. I’ve got TIVO, a laptop, a mobile phone, Wi-Fi, all the standard Hi-Tech fare. I’m an email fanatic. With great anticipation I’m eyeing the latest and greatest Home Theater equipment,  just waiting for prices to drop a little more. I love many of the things that technology does to enrich our personal lives, and I embrace the productivity improvements that it brings to doing business. And I believe that those who create new technologies and products ALMOST ALWAYS have good intentions, from a societal perspective.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

But I also believe that the law of unintended consequences is alive and thriving in the technology marketplace. In creating products and services that didn’t previously exist in our world, the good is sometimes offset (and occasionally overwhelmed) by effects on the negative side of the ledger.

Take automobiles, for example. Certainly cars are no longer an example of new technology. But at the turn of the century, they represented one of the greatest leaps forward in technology, and have had wide-ranging, positive societal effects. Autos provided a completely different level of personal mobility, with too many positive effects on our daily lives to list. For businesses, the enhanced business productivity was so enormous that it not only lowered costs, but also allowed totally new businesses to be conceived. Autos and the internal combustion engine that enabled them, are truly among the great inventions of all time.

However, do you think the inventors of the internal combustion engine and the automobile had the foresight to envision the amount of pollution this invention has ultimately created? Not to mention the greenhouse gas effect, which is causing significant warming to our global climate, with potentially devastating consequences?

Of course, they couldn’t. I think this should cause those of us in the technology biz to pause and reflect a bit.

Negatives with Positives

There are many more innovations that one could list as having major negatives associated with great leaps forward. Cell/Smart Phones are another such example. They have provided a leap forward in society, that while not quite as profound as automobiles, approaches the same level. They’ve provided great productivity gains for businesses, and have allowed us to stay connected in our personal lives, like never before. But haven’t they also contributed negatively to our ability to get away, relax, and enjoy some uninterrupted privacy? I feel this has been a big negative for society, and it’s one of those steps that probably can’t be undone.

I think even the most driven Type A’s among us believe that human beings need at least SOME time to recharge our batteries. Just to get away from it all and relax. Technological advancements have connected us to the extent that it’s very hard to do that. You used to be able to take a vacation or a day off, and honestly say you didn’t have a phone or an Internet connection available. If you say that now, people might begin to question your veracity. It’s possible to be connected nearly everywhere—as a result, it becomes less acceptable than ever be “disconnected”.

This leads to the biggest complaint I have about the unintended consequences of the technology revolution:

The general speeding up of our lives.

I’m exhausted–I’ll bet you are too
For context, most people would consider me a type A personality. So this isn’t the complaint of some mellow, laid-back surfer dude. I generally embrace a fast paced life, and particularly enjoy the ability to make progress in business in a rapid-fire matter. But honesty compels me to admit that, at times, the pace of modern life even overwhelms me.

I live out the most gnawing example of this “Acceleration” of our lives every day on the freeways of Southern California. I live in San Diego, which granted, is a big city. And big city traffic has, of course, never been much fun. But San Diego isn’t New York or Paris by any stretch of the imagination, when it comes to congestion, or the attitudes of the locals. So I don’t think I’m reaching for the extreme here.

Compared to even 10-15 years ago, life on the freeways has become hell. I am a pretty fast driver, but on the freeway, it’s never fast enough. No matter how fast you want to go, there is always someone coming fast upon you—tailgating and itching to get past you. And it isn’t enough to just get around you. The guys in the BMW 3 series have to accelerate and weave in and out of traffic, like it’s the 20th lap at LeMans.

Those guys have always existed on the highway, you say. And you’re right. But the lack of common sense and courtesy seems to have spread throughout the driver-sphere like a bad flu. These days, you try to move into a lane in front of a soccer mom, in a huge SUV, at your own peril. She may be toting two kids in the back, and of course is talking on her mobile phone (those phones again!). But she’s also caught that LeMans mentality, and no way she’s going to intentionally concede that position to you—let alone the extra ten feet of highway to a “competitor”.

I find it especially ironic how the technology acceleration has made other pieces of useful technology obsolete. My favorite example is how the speedup on the freeways has eliminated the need for what was once an essential piece of safety technology for drivers: the “indicator”, or “turn signal”. It no longer serves a useful purpose on the road. Should you put your indicator on before changing lanes in front of that soccer mom? Fifteen years ago you certainly should have. But now soccer mom puts the pedal to the medal, and cuts you off to prevent you from “moving up a spot” in the unofficial freeway race. These days, using this once essential technology now only “indicates” to everyone else that it’s time speed up, to prevent you from making that lane change! God forbid if you need to get to that lane to exit the highway; that next exit down the road better suffice if you don’t want to risk a crash. Soccer moms don’t glare at you menacingly while cutting you off like the guys in the BMW 3 series will, but the effect is just the same. It’s a jungle out there.

So what’s the takeaway to this rant?

Can downtime make a comeback?

Once again, I believe that the law of unintended consequences is hard at work. There is a big market being created that while not completely ignored, is under-served. That’s the market for enabling our lives to “efficiently” slow back down. Don’t misunderstand. I don’t mean “giving us more time in the day”. That time generated by productivity-enhancing devices, seems to just fill back up with more frenetic activity. I mean actually slowing us down, so we can re-charge, to sprint another day. This might be a difficult concept for companies to get their arms around, so that they can create new products and services to capitalize on it. But business formation and product creation around this theme would be really revolutionary, and potentially very rewarding.

So the next time you’re sitting on the side of the road with a flat tire—and a dead smartphone battery— write me a note or post a comment. Assuming your wireless Internet connection is still up. I’d love to get your thoughts.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at

Share Button

US Government Sales & Marketing

What’s the difference between selling to the US Government and selling to the Commercial market?

It’s like night and day.

Sales and Marketing to the government is truly the flip side of commercial activities. You really can’t believe how different these markets are–until you’ve actually come from one side–and tried to go over to the other. I emphasize tried, because it usually doesn’t work out very well!

First of all, in the Government world the term “marketing” is a standard term. But its meaning in the government world is very different from its definition in the commercial world. When you hear someone talk about “Marketing” to the government—they really mean SELLING. That’s in large part because those businesses that deal primarily, or exclusively with the government really don’t do much in the way of marketing in the commercial markets sense.

Everything’s Different

In a traditional government contractor, there is usually no one with a sales title. There are often a couple of people with grand titles like “Vice President of Marketing” or “Vice President of Business Development”. These people have very little in the way of real marketing responsibilities–they are the chief sales people of the company. They are often former government employees, and in the case of a military contractor, frequently an ex-general or ex-colonel. Key to their hiring was that they are very well connected in the government or service branch that the company is targeting. Included in their charter are some “light” Marcom activities–putting together data sheets, and coordinating a few targeted trade shows.  That’s the extent of activities a commercial company would consider to be “marketing”. In addition to the dedicated “Marketing People”, much of the technical selling of individual deals is done at the project manager level.

Of course, it’s not just the sales & marketing functions that are so different in the government world vs. commercial. Almost everything is! The typical government contracting business model more closely resembles a grocery store, than it does a typical high tech company. Margins are very thin, but profit is pretty much guaranteed once you’ve secured a contract. Up front R&D (“IR&D;” in government terminology) is generally discouraged, as it’s a great way to lose money. IR&D; can also be funded by the government; that is utilized heavily but it has limitations. Spending an amount(without government funding) that would be modest in the commercial world on up front R&D can easily wipe out the thin margins that the government contracting business yields. The government contracting model works like this: Hire an ex-employee from the agency that you are targeting your “marketing” at. Leverage that relationship to secure the contract, with a minimum of up front product development expenses. Then hire the people to staff the project, and of course do a good job executing the project. Add new “marketer” from another agency–rinse and repeat.

So for those purely commercial readers out there, this must sound pretty different than what you’re used to. That’s only because it is! There is no Product Marketing/Product Management function in a true government contractor. In the government world your “market” is one customer, or a small number of customers, who are basically specifying the product for you. There are a few sales people, but as I mentioned earlier, they’re called marketing people. The actual marketing tasks are few and far between—collateral creation, trade shows, a party here or there.

Difficult to make the Jump

As you imagine from the discussion above, it’s difficult to move between the two worlds. That’s the reason that nearly EVERY government contractor that has tried to enter commercial markets in any major way has failed abysmally. Government-oriented companies typically don’t have the entrepreneurial cultures found in commercial high tech companies. They lack fundamental Market Evaluation and Product Planning skills required for success in the commercial world—because it’s not required in their core market.

Senior managers at Government contractors are often profoundly aware of all of this. They may intellectually understand that they need to do things differently for their companies to make the jump to the commercial side. But especially if they have been very successful in the government business, a difficulty emerges that won’t be obvious on the surface. And this can be the worst of all: Successful senior managers tend to fall back on their what I like to call their “Common Business Sense” when they encounter new or stressful situations. Often they don’t even realize that they are doing it. Unfortunately, when an executive with a government contractor utilizes their “common business sense” to make a decision involving a commercial business, the results can be disastrous. The “right way” of doing things in the two businesses are so fundamentally different that it might work out better if they took the OPPOSITE path from what their instincts told them. Not an easy way to do business.

Commercial to Government

So what’s a C-level manager in a commercial company, which would like to secure some government orders, to do? Given the different business cultures of the two markets, it seems pretty daunting. Those poor government guys who have tried to go commercial have had their hats handed to them—does the same fate await me?

Fortunately, it doesn’t necessarily need to be so bad. If you are selling services, or highly customized products, you may need to closely replicate the government-contracting model, if you are going to be successful. If you are selling fairly standard products, however, it may be possible to gain significant government business leveraging your normal commercial marketing efforts.

A few years back, I was running a startup commercial software product group within a company that was otherwise a pure government contractor. It was a diversification effort for the company. Our sister groups within the company were all very successful, and extremely well connected within government contracting and procurement circles. I expected, and was promised, a lot of help in placing our products in large quantities within various government agencies and military branches. For a lot of different reasons, that help never materialized. But a funny thing happened—this startup software product group ended up with 40% of its revenue from US and foreign governments. This was without a government-specific product, no real marketing advantage provided by our well-connected parent, and no special government emphasis in our sales and marketing programs. Contrary to popular belief, if you have a great commercial standard product that has use within the government, the agencies and branches will find a way to purchase it. Our product was aimed at Network Administrators, and their needs were similar to their commercial counterparts. The government market is huge, and we did well in the government sector. With a few modest investments, however, we could have done even better. So what steps should a commercial company do to maximize its penetration in the government marketplace?

Tips for Success

Create a great product—Above all, your market research and product planning are the starting point to success. Make sure to include a few potential government customers in your upfront planning, which should ensure that you don’t miss any special requirements they might have. This is a huge market you don’t want to miss.

Have a modest entry-level price for your product—Even if in a production environment your product costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, it’s very helpful to have a low entry-level price– ideally less than a thousand dollars per unit. This will allow a motivated prospect to acquire your product initially by “going around” the laborious, lengthy, confusing—and often competitive—contracting process. Even if you have to go through a contract later to secure the full production purchase price, the bidding process may then be “written to your specifications”.

Hire an experienced government sales executive—This can NEVER hurt. It really helps having someone who knows his way around your target agencies, to head your Government Sales Division.

Place your products on the GSA schedule via an established Government Reseller—Getting on the GSA (Government Services Agency) via your own company is a long and complex process. For most commercial entities, it isn’t worth the effort. It’s much easier to give up a few margin points to a reseller already on the schedule. It’s much easier for him to add your products. They won’t do much for you in the way of promotion, and I’ve found that being on the GSA schedule in most cases isn’t REQUIRED to buy your products (although some will tell you otherwise). But it does make it easier for the customer inside the government, and if nothing else, raises their comfort level. They will know that they won’t face a major hassle to buy your product.

That’s my take on selling to the US government. Hopefully there’s a nugget or two in there that can help you. Post a comment with a few of your own tips.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at

Share Button

Pricing High Tech Products

Pricing is always an interesting topic, but even more so in the Hardware and Software worlds. In the consumer products business, if there is a package of frozen peas from Green Giant that’s priced at $3.99, you’re not likely to see someone else offering the same-size package of peas priced at $14.99. But in High Tech, things are different.

Things move fast in tech markets

The pace of innovation in the High Tech world leads to pricing that’s all over the map. It’s not unusual for a brand new competitor to come out at a higher price than the current established market leader—especially if their product is based on market-changing advances in product functionality due to a new technology. This is unheard of in most other markets. Then there is the PC business, where rapid technological advancement over a long period of time has led to continuously lower prices—with great benefit to consumers but squeezing margin (and indeed many competitors) out of the market.

Again, things move fast in Tech.  Sometimes it’s a high initial price to harvest profits while you have a feature advantage, other times aggressive discounting based upon your lower cost structure due to less expensive technology. Whatever the case, you can often count on pricing moves to be dramatic and to have a profound effect on technology market segments in the long-term.

Value-based pricing

So what’s the best way to price High Tech products? Is it best to add up your fixed costs and, allocate them to a forecasted number of units to ensure you are recovering your investment? Or is it better to take your variable product costs and use a standard multiplier derived from history? Maybe you just set your pricing based on the prices of your competitors. Or let your customers tell you what they’re willing to pay. While all of these approaches have merit and a place in pricing policy, none of them should be the over-riding factor in your pricing strategy.

And the most important factor to consider in Pricing? The most important thing to focus on in setting prices is VALUE. What is the value of your product to your customer as an economic, functional or emotional return? And how does the customer value the benefits of your product relative to your competitors?

Market segmentation

So let’s talk about the nature of Value. Value is the underlying need or want that drives a customer to purchase a High Tech product. If the benefit that the product provides closely fulfills that want or need at an acceptable price, you have a sale! The most important consideration in value-based pricing is to SEGMENT your market properly prior to the pricing decision. Segmentation, by definition, is the process of separating the total addressable market into “buckets” or segments of potential customers who have similar values and therefore will react similarly to a specific offer. What this means is that once you have divided your marketplace into appropriate market segments, you will be able to charge individual segments different prices that are based upon the perceived value the product provides them.

Let’s look at an example of this segmentation approach, marketing a security software product to Corporate IT departments. Through your market research you have concluded that the potential customers with the highest pain threshold for the particular security problem you are solving are banks. By adding only a few important banking-specific features to build a “fence” around this market segment, you may be able to charge a price for a banking-specific version of your product that far exceeds what other segments might pay. If you extend this model to multiple segments and do it properly, this approach will lead to far higher total revenue than if you set just one price for the entire market. The process of establishing value for each market segment, pricing to that full value and communicating this value to the marketplace is the essence of Value-based pricing.

Don’t price in a vacuum

Finally it’s important also to remember that pricing actions should not be done in a vacuum. Pricing is one of the 4Ps of marketing, and all four are inter-related. You cannot properly price a product without at the same time considering the features and benefits of the product, how it will be promoted and distributed–and most importantly what the competition looks like. The price for an Internet-distributed software product will almost certainly  be in a lower range than one distributed via a sophisticated direct sales force or VAR channel. If you aren’t going to have much of a promotional budget, you most likely will need to be a price leader to have any chance of being successful. If your product is at a perceived value deficit, your price relative to the market leader will probably need to be very aggressive. I’m sure you get the picture.

Pricing is a complex topic that many books have been written about. This post is meant to be an introduction to pricing in the software and hardware world and to get you thinking a bit more creatively about pricing tactics. So when your next new product comes out, you’ll look a little harder before just pulling a price out of the air. Leave a comment with your own pricing observations and experiences…

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at

Share Button

Structuring High Tech Product Management

Product Management–what does this mean in a Software or Hardware company? What is the function, and where does it belong? I have a broad view on this as I’ve held permanent positions in a number of high tech concerns, as well as with many more software and hardware companies in a consulting capacity.

Product Management graphic

Product Management sits in the middle of important functions

Wide Variety in emphasis and strength of role

Product Management is resident all over the organizational map in High Tech. Most often it resides in the marketing department. Sometimes, it’s in the engineering/product development department. Occasionally you will see it as it’s own separate function. Again, what does the term mean in a High Tech company? Sometimes it is used interchangeably with the term “Product Marketing”. In this case, it means responsibility from cradle to grave for the product planning and outbound marketing functions for a particular product or product line. In other words, working with the developers to define the product (product planning), as well as driving the other “3 of the 4Ps” for the product–setting pricing, distribution strategy and promotional strategy.

In larger companies you will often find this function separated into two distinct jobs: Product Management as the new Product Planning portion, and Product Marketing as the function that manages the product after it is released into the market–driving pricing, promotion and distribution as stated above. In this case both functions may still reside in the marketing department, or the Product Planning portion is sometimes in the engineering department.

The last variance on this theme that is sometimes seen is that the Product Management resides in the engineering department, but it only vaguely resembles the traditional definition of the term. In this case it is “Product Planning”, but the job and skill set more closely fit the definition of an engineering project manager, with very little weight put on exploring the market to match marketplace needs with engineering capabilities.

In High Tech, the Product Management function is most typically a “matrix” position: lot’s of responsibility for a product’s success, with very little actual authority to ensure that success. Normally a Product Manager’s success will be decided based upon his/her ability to convince other stakeholders in the organization that the path laid out is the best thing for the company (and the individual stakeholders as well!) People skills are therefore just as important as having technical & marketing skills in a Product Manager’s ultimate success.

In consumer markets, the Product Manager typically holds much more direct power–much like a mini-GM for his product line. Often product development will even work for him. The term Brand Manager is most often used in consumer businesses instead of Product Manager. (In a big High Tech company, a Brand Manager titled individual will fulfill more of a Marcom role).

The ideal product management role from my perspective

So what’s the best way to structure the Product Management role in your business? Well there really isn’t one best way. It depends upon your business, culture and personnel. But I do have my biases:

I believe strongly that most high tech businesses would benefit by structuring the Product Management function to be on the strong end of the scale in terms of authority. And there is generally much to gain by putting a savvy, experienced Marketer with a strong technical background in a Product Manager role, where they are graded and compensated by the results of the P&L of their product line. Along this line of thinking, I prefer that both the product planning and outbound marketing functions be unified under the marketing department. In larger companies there may be separate individuals fulfilling these role for an individual product line, but there is significant synergy in unifying these functions as they should both be market-focused.

Lack of strength of product management function can hurt the company

I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that Product Development should report to the Product Manager in a High Tech company, but I would give them discretionary budgetary authority on at least a portion of the marketing budget for the product line.

I would also make sure they have management backing to deal with the developers from at least an equal position of strength. A lack of strength in the product management function is a real problem in many software and hardware companies, particularly those founded and run by developers.

The Product Manager’s mentality should be that of a “mini-CEO” of  his product line analogous to the overall company for a real CEO. He doesn’t have the same type of authority, of course, but a similar mindset is useful. And as implied above, it’s very important that the position does need to have some “teeth”.

Strong product management should limit product disasters

Too often in technology companies the Product Management/Marketing functions do not have the ability to stand on an equal footing with Engineering. This can lead to a culture of building what suits someone’s fancy, not building what the market needs and will buy. This can sometimes work for a product or two, but is a very dangerous thing in the long term. A strong Product Management function should serve as the customer’s voice in the product development process, and be an advocate for that product line.

The Product Manager’s sole business “purpose in life” is for his product to succeed. This outlook ensures that the big picture will always been looked out for, eliminating the potential for a product line’s performance to be reduced by turf wars– or sub-optimal tactical moves due to poor inter-department communication. The Product Manager is there to rationalize conflicting agendas, and orchestrate events to ensure the product line has the best chance of “success”–whether that means hyper revenue growth or maximizing cash flow for investment elsewhere.

That’s my take on how the Product Management should be structure conceptually–what’s yours? Leave a comment below on your own experience and philosophy to enrich the discussion

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at

Share Button