OK Cisco, we get it

Single-vendor good, multivendor bad is becoming marketing overkill

There is such a thing as over-marketing. And over-marketing can be dangerous. Anyone who cries "Wolf!" over and over again, or who repeatedly claims he or she is not something or other is likely to be eventually disbelieved and tuned out altogether.

Cisco is in danger of over-marketing. The company has been on an all-out assault against a Gartner study from 2010 that took issues with single-vendor networks in general and Cisco in particular. Since then, Cisco has issued no less than three unanswered counterpunches in an effort to refute, or get the media to refute, the Gartner study claiming that the TCO benefits of a single-vendor network are illusionary.

This week, Cisco is at it again, having issued a study by Deloitte Consulting - commissioned, of course, by Cisco - that again attempts to shoot holes into any benefits, real or perceived, that could be derived from a multivendor network. The study will serve as the bullet-scarred wall behind the public execution of multivendor networking tomorrow by Cisco via webcast.

The Deloitte study groups consisted of CIOs and director or leader level networking executives at enterprises with 1,000 to 20,000 or more end users. Most were in the 2,000 to 10,000 end user range.

Most organizations had more than 30 remote sites; some had less than five. Study/interview preference was given to sites with ubiquitous wireless, desktop virtualization, and VoIP capabilities. And those interviewed were presently using Cisco products along with other vendors'products in their networks.

Among the survey's findings were that, within the context of total IT spending, the use of single-vendor or multivendor architectures does not present material cost differences on a long-term basis -- initial cost savings realized in multivendor network implementations are mitigated by the incremental operating costs over the life of the equipment.

It also found, not surprisingly, that customers prefer a single vendor to be responsible for all network components and services. The operational risk associated with network support, not the cost, is the primary factor when influencing the decisions to use single or multivendor architectures.

And this was surprising: when using multiple vendors' products, customers frequently do not recognize the interdependencies of functionality, long-term costs, and impact on operational risks. So buyers and designers of multivendor networks don't know how the equipment will work together or what the implications and risks will be of their decisions?

Yet, they do know all about that when it comes to procuring gear from a single vendor:

The potential risks of large losses caused by failure of critical infrastructure services causes most organizations to forgo the relatively small initial cost savings of multiple vendors and stay with a single network vendor.

And they'll gladly pay more for it:

Organizations stated that even though they consider the possible savings in direct costs, having a single long-term network supplier with a broad array of diverse products and services to support their needs is worth paying a "risk reduction" price premium, particularly to reduce the possibility of operational issues which present large business risks.

And the clincher is the last sentence to the Deloitte study:

We expect enterprises to continue to favor strategies which use a single network vendor, in order to minimize operational complexity and manage business risk.

OK. We get it. Cisco good, multivendor bad. But a couple of points: Those surveyed already HAD a multivendor network. One of the criterion was to have Cisco products running alongside other vendors' products in their network. So it's shocking that they were unaware of the risks or long-terms costs or interdependencies of their infrastructure components if they were already operating, maintaining and managing them in their networks.

If they didn't investigate these matters before they made their purchasing decisions and were surprised by the results, they should not be in that job.

Anyway, a beautiful return fire to the Cisco/Deloitte multivendor hit squad is provided here by Mike Fratto at Network Computing. In a nutshell, single-vendor vs. multivendor is all in the eye of the beholder. IT organizations will know what's best for their environment - they don't need Cisco or Deloitte or Gartner or HP to tell them which way to turn.

Look, Cisco. You're winning. You have 70% share in Ethernet switching, and that or more in enterprise routing. There's gotta be better ways, smarter ways to spend your marketing dollars than beating this same drum over and over again. The same loud, repetitious beat can be deafening.

More from Cisco Subnet:

30 events that shaped Cisco in 2011

New Cisco cloud computing framework pushes management, collaboration

Cisco data center forecast very cloudy

Cisco reorgs again, folds net mgmt into new cloud group

Chambers: Cisco's Q1 solid, but access routers, Nexus 7000 lagging

Cisco taps former VMware exec to head security push

Huawei gunning for Cisco in the enterprise

Cisco upgrades WAN optimizers

Gasp! Cisco and HP collaborate on blade switch

Cisco unveils latest Nexus data center switch

Follow all Cisco Subnet bloggers on Twitter.
Follow Jim Duffy on Twitter

 

• Ethernet Switch
• Router
• Gartner
• multivendor network
• network architecture