<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A response to Alan on those &#8220;lying no-goodnick&#8221; vendors</title>
	<atom:link href="http://infosecplace.com/blog/2007/06/10/a-response-to-alan-on-those-lying-no-goodnick-vendors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://infosecplace.com/blog/2007/06/10/a-response-to-alan-on-those-lying-no-goodnick-vendors/</link>
	<description>Commentary on the State of Information Security</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:22:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: An Information Security Place &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Does selling make you guilty?</title>
		<link>http://infosecplace.com/blog/2007/06/10/a-response-to-alan-on-those-lying-no-goodnick-vendors/comment-page-1/#comment-19317</link>
		<dc:creator>An Information Security Place &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Does selling make you guilty?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://infosecplace.com/blog/2007/06/10/a-response-to-alan-on-those-lying-no-goodnick-vendors/#comment-19317</guid>
		<description>[...] OK, now that I am settled in my hotel room in Dallas, I have some time to respond to Alan&#8217;s post calling me a hooker (like I said to Alan, at least he called me high-priced).  I will also be responding to a comment left by a reader who goes by the name of Shaneo.  You can read that comment here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] OK, now that I am settled in my hotel room in Dallas, I have some time to respond to Alan&#8217;s post calling me a hooker (like I said to Alan, at least he called me high-priced).  I will also be responding to a comment left by a reader who goes by the name of Shaneo.  You can read that comment here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shaneo</title>
		<link>http://infosecplace.com/blog/2007/06/10/a-response-to-alan-on-those-lying-no-goodnick-vendors/comment-page-1/#comment-19307</link>
		<dc:creator>Shaneo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://infosecplace.com/blog/2007/06/10/a-response-to-alan-on-those-lying-no-goodnick-vendors/#comment-19307</guid>
		<description>You make me laugh!  A VAR is still always a VAR - a sales engine.  If you were an Independent consultants and didn&#039;t sell any product, then I could support some of your statements.  However, your in the food chain, the benefit is that you can choose more than one product for the customer as you probably have more vendor relationships.  But you are STILL a seller that needs to sell product to win.

It&#039;s great that you have morals and I have found a lot with dubious morales being both Vendors and VARS, but geez, don&#039;t put yourself so high and mighty above all the rest...When your a part of the food chain.  Maybe you have been walking around too long in the emperor&#039;s new clothes</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You make me laugh!  A VAR is still always a VAR &#8211; a sales engine.  If you were an Independent consultants and didn&#8217;t sell any product, then I could support some of your statements.  However, your in the food chain, the benefit is that you can choose more than one product for the customer as you probably have more vendor relationships.  But you are STILL a seller that needs to sell product to win.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s great that you have morals and I have found a lot with dubious morales being both Vendors and VARS, but geez, don&#8217;t put yourself so high and mighty above all the rest&#8230;When your a part of the food chain.  Maybe you have been walking around too long in the emperor&#8217;s new clothes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SamVR</title>
		<link>http://infosecplace.com/blog/2007/06/10/a-response-to-alan-on-those-lying-no-goodnick-vendors/comment-page-1/#comment-19300</link>
		<dc:creator>SamVR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:46:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://infosecplace.com/blog/2007/06/10/a-response-to-alan-on-those-lying-no-goodnick-vendors/#comment-19300</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a balance on all 3 sides. (Oh, and I also have been on all sides of this argument.) The customer first needs to define their needs before they embark on a product hunt - at the same time, the &quot;bring in 3 vendors&quot; approach is somewhat archaic. The reseller would like to be a trusted advisor - and in many cases is - but at the end of the day (or quarter, as it may be) revenue rules. As noble of a stance you may take with your customer, the salesguy&#039;s compensation is grossly tied to sales, so a sale must be made or (s)he doesn&#039;t eat. The vendor, at the same time, cannot let his marketing folks go off and create some story - it should be based on real experiences - so case studies are done. And although some case studies may be done in pristine environments (tip: ask to speak with those folks to find out), many are not - I know during my time at StillSecure, the case studies were not baked and I can say the same for my current gig (because I know the real stories behind them). Product reviews may be biased (same situation on the evaluation criteria - if the vendor is involved in setting up the criteria, the competitors will not shine - this happens with customers all the time - or if ad revenue is an influence) but most are not. I have seen the battle at bakeoffs at several vendors and it is no picnic - it&#039;s just as hard as fighting to win a customer. There is a lot more to the above than I care to puke at one time, so, my final word: It takes three to tango in this case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a balance on all 3 sides. (Oh, and I also have been on all sides of this argument.) The customer first needs to define their needs before they embark on a product hunt &#8211; at the same time, the &#8220;bring in 3 vendors&#8221; approach is somewhat archaic. The reseller would like to be a trusted advisor &#8211; and in many cases is &#8211; but at the end of the day (or quarter, as it may be) revenue rules. As noble of a stance you may take with your customer, the salesguy&#8217;s compensation is grossly tied to sales, so a sale must be made or (s)he doesn&#8217;t eat. The vendor, at the same time, cannot let his marketing folks go off and create some story &#8211; it should be based on real experiences &#8211; so case studies are done. And although some case studies may be done in pristine environments (tip: ask to speak with those folks to find out), many are not &#8211; I know during my time at StillSecure, the case studies were not baked and I can say the same for my current gig (because I know the real stories behind them). Product reviews may be biased (same situation on the evaluation criteria &#8211; if the vendor is involved in setting up the criteria, the competitors will not shine &#8211; this happens with customers all the time &#8211; or if ad revenue is an influence) but most are not. I have seen the battle at bakeoffs at several vendors and it is no picnic &#8211; it&#8217;s just as hard as fighting to win a customer. There is a lot more to the above than I care to puke at one time, so, my final word: It takes three to tango in this case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

