[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

decline in MS/Gateway relationship ..


To: Ted Waitt, Bill Elliot
From Penny L. Nash
Date July 11, 1997
Re: MS relationship Issues for Steve Ballmer
Cc: Jim Collas, Jim Von Holle
	Kathy Skidmore & Jim Wharton
Per your request here are a list of Relationship issues concerning Microsoft. Please review and provide your comments as to how much of this should be sent to Steve Ballmer.

In the past six to twelve months we have seen a steady decline in the over all business relationship between our two companies. The below examples show this decline

* Obvious negative treatment due to our differences regarding Office

- Competitor continued Sales of Office 95 beyond contractual cut off dates.

- Adding new application titles/bundles to support our Software Strategies has becoe burdensome and time consuming. This has created unwillingness to use MS content in our bundles or our software strategies.

- MS causing delays in software PO shipments (due to licensing issues in MS ' Troika System), which have caused Stop Ship situations (UK & APAC) and risks little or no inventory levels globally. This had rarely happened in past years but became noticeable in the last 3-6 months on a "global basis". This has created negative feelings toward MS and unwillingness to use MS content.

* Lack of support/responsiveness from our Account Mgr on addressing/resolving issues.

- When issues are communicated they are immediately delegated. Very little communication (takes days or with no return call or mail) or ownership of issue resolution.

* When issues are delegated, the person(s) to which the delegation is given do not have decision making authority, thus causing delay in resolution. Often requires escalation to get immediate attention ot issues.

- Ofter are referred to others within MS to get movement on things and are frequently told "this is not my responsibility you need to talk to ..." (eg. Agreements with other divisions of MS). When issue reach a higher level (either at GQ or MS), we then see movement (CYA mode begins)

- RFQ for a mouse - MS was one of three Mouse Suppliers that was sent this RFQ. MS did not reply. BF stated that he felt that they did not need to reply because of our current contract and commitments.

* Very Little Trust in our Account Mgr or OEM team

- Net PC specification. GW involved in discussions but not part of the OEM Team in drafting this specification (Dell, Compaq, HP & Intel) with MS.

- Country Store Proposal provided to incorrect contact after being specifically informed of correct contact and Cc's

* No copy to Supply Management (for tracking) or correct contact for timely reply. Appears that MS is trying to divide us. Causes frustration on both sides and creates a negative opinion of MS on our side.

* Very Little Trust in our Account Mgr or OEM team Cont'd

- Often get mixed/numerous mixed messages/communication. Causes delays in action. no accountability on either side and frustration on both sides (but yet this continues even after communication of GW's Supplier Policy from GPO & Supply Mgmgt).

- Sets up meetings with GW representatives with no communication to Supply Management or GPO, and inconsistent messaging from GW (but yet this continues even after communication of GW's Supplier Policy fromGPO & Supply Mgmgt).

* Limitations on GW Flexibility

- Changes in policy witth no communication

	* Changes to Windows 95 CD
	* Funding for Premier Support Services Contract

- MS dictates how GW should deliver product to our customer even when supplied with compelling proof of our customer needs/frustrations on their product(s).




court documents in the case of Comes v. Microsoft.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index