I think every softimage user would concede to the arguments given by autodesk if we had all witnessed them try their utmost in the marketing of softimage in the past 5 years. However, it's been obvious from the outset of their plan and I believe that the fact this has occurred 5 years post acquisition us no coincidence. It was on the cards all along. Making excuses about sales is a nonsense considering the effort to drive those sales. And if softimage was doing so badly why buy it? Nothing adds up in autodesks favour.
> On 25 Mar 2014, at 19:13, Perry Harovas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Maurice, > > I appreciate the detailed answer. It does help to know the details, and of > course, you certainly know your own business better than we do. > One thing that just seems odd, why did I never see ads for Softimage? I > understand that percentage wise, it was getting more ad dollars than > Max or Maya (which in and of itself is weird, because they seemingly don't > need advertising as much as Softimage did, but anyway). > I would expect that I am more likely to notice a Softimage ad than a Maya > user, because it already is something that I like and accept. > Maybe that assumption is incorrect, but it seems to make some sense. > > I don't recall ever seeing an ad for Softimage. > > Ever. > > I don't doubt they existed, just that I never saw one. I have an almost > insatiable thirst for CG news/content. It has been that way for 25 years now. > Every day (multiple times per day) I scour the internet for information on > 3D, Softimage, new CG innovations, software, articles, reviews. > I read all the magazines I have time for, and even if I don't have time to > read them, I flip through all the major ones, putting aside what I want to > read later. > > With all of that, I would have thought I would have seen SOME advertising > about Softimage. But I didn't! > The only things I ever saw were articles about Lagoa (not ads, but articles), > or articles about the acquisition. > > Why was that (I am honestly asking, I am not being snarky)? > > Also (and this has been asked so many times I feel that the answer to it is > being withheld because it includes the location of Jimmy Hoffa's corpse), WHY > WASN'T SOFTIMAGE PROMOTED ON YOUR HOMEPAGE? > Seems like free advertising might be the best advertising when you are trying > to bring up the sales numbers of a fledgling product, no? > > Thank you (and Chris) for answering these questions. > We don't always like the answers you give, we may not always believe the > answers you give, but that does not mean that I don't appreciate that you and > Chris are > trying to answer them anyway. > > > Perry > > > > >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Maurice Patel <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi Perry, >> >> Softimage was marketed. It was marketed in ways that have, in most cases, >> actually proved successful for other Autodesk products but there are many >> factors at stake here. Hindsight is 20-20 but we used a model that actually >> worked extremely well for the Alias integration. We had one rapidly growing >> product (3ds max) added Maya and because of Autodesk's sales and >> distribution channel we were able to scale the Maya business dramatically >> without cannibalizing 3ds Max. Was it unreasonable not to expect the same >> results with Softimage? At the time of the acquisition all three product >> lines were growing fast and so it was assumed so - not that we did not know >> that it would not have its own set of problems - but we felt we could tackle >> them. When that did not work out we changed strategies to focus on Suites. >> >> Marketing is a mix of things: product, price, promotion, place. As mentioned >> above 'place' is critical. It is the means of distributing your product - it >> requires all kinds of investment to do probably including a lot of systems >> integration. We invested in making it available in every EDU bundle, through >> student downloads, Suites etc to get it into the hands of as many people as >> possible. Another is price. We kept the lower price and that initially was >> to see if this would broaden adoption - it did not. The third is product and >> the product is a great product. >> >> For promotion, we invested in integrating it into Autodesk systems and we >> actually invested more than other Autodesk products typically get given the >> revenue tier Softimage was in. What we did not do was maintain a separate >> web site for the product (we don't do that for any of our products). People >> often ask us why there were no campaigns to try and get Maya or 3ds Max >> users to switch to Softimage but the answer to that should be self-evident - >> and it was certainly never going to be a serious option for us. The main >> purpose of marketing campaigns is to generate revenue and so they tend to >> focus on the where there is a revenue opportunity such as getting Maya or >> 3ds max users current (upgrades). Once we introduced Suites, the best >> revenue opportunity for Softimage was to get customers to upgrade to Suites >> and that was the focus. >> >> >From a business (and therefore marketing) perspective the question was >> >always: could Softimage bring in net new business and how? Not how could it >> >replace Maya or 3ds Max revenue. Given that it was actually cheaper, >> >replacing 3ds Max or Maya would actually have meant a revenue decline not >> >just a swap. Ultimately the hope was always that ICE would offer enough >> >value to 3ds Max and Maya users drive Suite adoption. That was very much >> >the product strategy and where the development team focused and so that is >> >what we marketed. And yes I know that Softimage is more than just ICE and >> >that it is a very capable all round animation solution - as did Marc Petit >> >and the other execs in charge - but the strategy was to build, market and >> >sell a suite of interoperable products (which we spent a lot of money >> >doing). As a percentage of revenue Softimage got more investment than other >> >products. In total dollar amounts a lot less (because it was a higher >> >percentage of a much, much smaller base) . So whether we invested or not is >> >relative to what point of view you take. >> >> Maurice Patel >> Autodesk : Tél: 514 954-7134 >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Perry Harovas >> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:39 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Carl Bass >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> My appreciation of the effort you took to write all that, and the thought >> that must have went into it is considerable. >> I truly and honestly appreciate that you did that, and I look forward (more >> than before) to your second part where you explain >> why Autodesk can't just keep Softimage around (and perhaps why doing that is >> diffeent than doing that with Toxik and MatchMover). >> >> Does this solve everything? Does this make me a renewed Autodesk customer? >> No, but your email really helped a lot with regards to understanding the >> lay of the land as it has been leading up to now. >> >> One other thing that would be helpful is: >> >> Why Softimage was not marketed. Yes, you can blame (or partially hold as >> culpable) Microsoft and Avid as to the small sales numbers for Softimage, >> but after Autodesk >> acquired it, in many ways the marketing was FURTHER reduced. This, I >> believe, leads mostly towards the mindset people have that either Autodesk >> was trying to kill it, or Autodesk didn't care if it died, or Autodesk only >> bought it for the technology and if it sold that was icing, but that it >> wasn't a goal. Those things directly come from a couple things: Lack of >> Softimage appearing on the home page, lack of advertising, lack of features >> while under Autodesk. >> I would be interested in knowing how you respond to that. >> >> Again, much appreciated, Chris. >> >> Perry >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Emilio Hernandez >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Thank you for taking the time to response Chris. >> This is all clear to me as I bought a couple of Digital Studio stations at >> version 2.0 while it was still Microsoft. If it wasn't because they were >> dependable on the Intergraph video board that eventually got fried after 15 >> years, and they lacked of HD support, I will still be using them. Those >> turnkey systems were the ones that kept me out of the Inferno, Smoke, etc. >> solutions more expensive by far than the DS solution. >> >> I agree that Avid did not a lousy but a terrible job with the Softimage >> asset as they were running like headless chickens towards anywhere but where >> the useres needed, and that is when Final Cut got in. >> I understand where Autodesk is going, nothing I can do about it, even though >> I tried far beyond this list in ways that this is not the arena to talk >> about it. >> Still in your response I can't read the answer of: >> Why Autodesk is not willing to continue ship Softimage 2015, unsupported >> with an open SDK along Maya/MAX 2020? >> Maurice said because the inherent costs. You answered because of Autodesk >> wants to focuse in developing Bifrost or whatever new technology Autodesk is >> bringing. >> What is that inherent cost? >> Thinking of some... >> 1. Packaging Softimage into the Maya/MAX download, self extract for each new >> year release. >> 2. Server space for holding a larger file. >> 3. Keep the SI online help file >> In which way Softimage will drive your development resources away from >> focusing into the new tools if there is no one that moves a single line of >> code? >> I not doing so, you started to loose clients already... >> So what is costing more? >> At this moment seeing several users of Softimage becoming ex-clients of >> Autodesk at a faster pace, even faster than I think Autodesk expected. I >> seriously would reconsider the no Softimage policy after April 2016. >> Two years of uncertainty of what will be Autodesk decision... It is a long >> time. By then, I don't think that you will be able to get back what you are >> loosing now. >> But anyway, this is thing how they are now. And that is the decision of >> Autodesk on Softimage for now. >> To bad to end in an "Only time will tell..." statement. >> Thank you again. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> Perry Harovas >> Animation and Visual Effects >> >> http://www.TheAfterImage.com<http://www.theafterimage.com/> >> >> -25 Years Experience >> -Member of the Visual Effects Society (VES) > > > > -- > > > > > > Perry Harovas > Animation and Visual Effects > > http://www.TheAfterImage.com > > -25 Years Experience > -Member of the Visual Effects Society (VES)
