mike_mccue
Hey Strummy... I see you've been reading
[apparent sarcasm that isn't actually sarcasm]
Have you noticed how PR terms like "most successful ever" turned out to mean "stagnant" when the beans got counted?
Did you notice how PR phrases like "follow up to the most successful ever" actually described a "decline in sales" when the beans got counted?
[/apparent sarcasm that isn't actually sarcasm]
I don't know about you, but every time I was told by PR that my complaints were unfounded because X1 was in fact the most successful version ever, and every time I read that PR was disgruntled because I was just not getting with the flow, I smelled the rotting fish.
I know it was part of the job... but I feel like there was a lot of customer "good will" squandered in order to make the X series seem like a success.
LOL Mike - fair play to you for lightening that up
To be honest, I think you have a valid point. If you remember from a while back, it was me who actually pursued the "most successful release ever" thing upstairs like a dog with a bone until Brandon (IIRC) finally came on and actually qualified that this statement referred to
sales. As I said at the time, "successful" is a very vague and subjective descriptor and could apply to a lot of things.
But even then, I don't for one minute think Brandon would have gone on record and said anything that was provably incorrect. So to be honest, I don't think we're really any the wiser when it comes down to the bottom line (literally). Let's be honest, even "Sales" can mean a few different things. It could refer to gross sales figures, net sales figures or perhaps just to the number of units sold. In any case, the "most successful" tag applied to X1 could only be used to compare like with like.
Of those three interpretations, and as anyone who's ever run their own business will tell you, the most important is arguably the net sales (be it pre-tax or after-tax profit). This figure is ultimately dependent on the number of units sold, how much you sell them for, and how much they cost you to bring to market. So, for all we know, the
gross sales figures might have been the "most successful" ever, but even if they were (as I say, I've no reason at all to doubt Brandon's word) it is completely possible that the whole X1 venture actually made a net loss.
I'm wondering though if those figures I quoted upstairs ("
In computer music equipment, however, sales of music production software and peripheral equipment were weak. As a result, net sales for this segment fell by 14.6% year on year to ¥2,249 million") refer solely to Cakewalk's accounts, or a combination of theirs and other parts of Roland - at current exchange rates, ¥2,249,000,000 is worth around $27,213,000 and £16,959,000.
Another thing I don't quite understand (and again, none of us will ever likely know the
real answer) is why the Cakewalk/Roland thing ever happened. I realise that they used to often collaborate on certain ventures before Roland's complete acquisition of Cakewalk, but I always end up asking myself what Cakewalk, and ultimately we, the customers, got out of the buyout deal. Every time the question is raised upstairs, Cakewalk staff have always been clear that it's Cakewalk that make the business decisions and develop the products and that Roland have little or no influence. But the naive side of me then wonders that if that's the case, why did they sell up to them in the first place then? The less naive side of me thinks that 'money' might come into the genuine answer to that question somewhere along the line.
The bad decisions made in the preparation of X were made to seem even worse when the bad decision to make make-believe about it's success was used as icing on the cake.
I'm thinking it's getting closer and closer to good decision time.
The X2 roll out seemed seemed appropriately humble.
I have got my fingers crossed.
Maybe all the old customers that split after getting sick of yearly updates with goofy new gotchas and unfixed issues will eventually come back.
It was bad enough having my favorite DAW ripped from it's dev cycle and replaced with a DAW I barely recognize as something I would have purchased.
Knowing that the changes weren't actually amounting to success in the market place made it seem doubly frustrating. I can not help but wonder how much better the classic SONAR could have been if Cakewalk had simply started working on it rather than tacking crap on it year after year until it abandoned it and it's admirers.
The idea that some people think it is just great that we dropped back 10 years to start over again doesn't seem to have added up to actual success.
I hope someone... someone that will remain employed at Roland/Cakewalk, got that message.
It seems like the message has been delivered loud and clear.
All valid, if subjective, views Mike. You have your opinions on both X1/X2 and on the Cakewalk marketing strategy, and you are, of course, fully entitled to state them. To be honest with you, if you always stated your views like you have in this post, without the often accompanying 'slant', you'd be taken much more seriously. As I mentioned to you before, you are one of the guys I always looked up to at one time in here - your advice and knowledge, as well as your informed opinion on all manner of subjects (especially the photography) were things I would actively seek out.
I believe you may have possibly acknowledged this in other threads around here, and I for one would be really glad to see the 'old' McQ back. Don't get me wrong though Mike, I actively want and encourage you to express, at every opportunity, any perceived criticism of Cakewalk's products and their business plan. It is, in my opinion, and to a lesser or greater degree (again, we will never know the real truth) that companies like Cakewalk can only improve by listening to their critics, and not by listening to the customers who tell them everything in the garden is rosy.