I do know plenty of professionals who are conscientiously investigating their choices, to make limited budgets do the best possible job. I don't think that's "doing nothing at all."

The motivation of the large media companies, in my experience, isn't to "build their own technical infrastructure," it is that they want to purchase some technology for their own use, and seek to finance their internal consumption by selling the same technology to other newspapers.

When the product is well received, like the Associated Press' venture with the original Leaf transmitter, that plan works.

Of course, in other cases it can result in some members of a large media company getting technology that they are required to commit to, even if they think another product better suits their needs. This apparent restriction of free choice directly causes supplier flight from a market (remember all those picture desk suppliers that disappeared when AP distributed the AP Leaf Desk?) and certainly stifles the competitive process that brings about better solutions.

This seems to leave Mr. Tucker in a quandary: Is he suggesting solutions, or is he a cause of the problem he describes?

Given that, there is nothing unusual with it taking over a year for people to reach a decision, get budgetary support, review and confirm their decision, and order.

We've just closed some sales that started five years ago. It felt great, we're glad we stuck with it, and we're going to make sure the customers are really happy. After all, the people there are betting some of their job security on us.

Why? It makes a paper take a good look at its current workflow, and distill its notion of what it really needs.

Do away with on-site demos? Ask people to drop $100,000 on something they've seen only in a showroom? Stop me from learning the site-specific workflow details that make the difference between a successful install and a failure?

I have news for you: These are hard-working people doing the best job they can, in an industry they love, frequently for low wages; they are not identical automatons from a cookie-cutter.

We respect them enough to go to the expense and effort to pay them a visit, look around, and listen closely to what they need. And every site, even within a large chain, is different.

Tucker contends that "if product demonstrations are required, buyers should visit the sellers." Whatever happened to putting the customer first? Is it the customer's obligation to make life more convenient for the supplier?

These are people who want to feel comfortable that they are getting the right solution for their staff; that's very different from irrationally delaying all decisions.

If my mindset was to blame our potential customers, I'd expect to receive the advice a psychiatrist gave Bill Gates' mother, when he was treating young Bill and she asked how to deal with the stream of arguments she was having with her son:

"Get used to losing."

-- David M. Tenenbaum

From THE COLE PAPERS, April 1997, Copyright © 1997, All Rights Reserved.