News Intel to outsource marketing to Accenture and AI, resulting in more layoffs

[Admin]

Intel is outsourcing much of its marketing work to Accenture, aiming to cut costs and automate tasks using AI, which will reshape the company's longtime approach to customer engagement.

Intel to outsource marketing to Accenture and AI, resulting in more layoffs : Read more

 

[bit_user]

So, perhaps we will notice certain forum members being replaced by AI chatbots? You can bet I'll be waiting for July 11th, to find out. I'd be extra suspicious of any overtly pro-Intel accounts registered after that date.

 

[Findecanor]

believing that Accenture's AI will do a better job connecting Intel with customers.

Please excuse me if I don't believe that this strategy will pay off.

I wouldn't be surprised if it would instead backfire spectacularly.
Customers don't appreciate hallucinations being lied to.

 

[scottslayer]

I assumed they had already rolled out new marketing and bots because of the poor quality discussion surrounding the 265K price drops.
Its real cool if you make 100 posts about the product alone per day but dont expect me to want to buy the product when its obvious someone (Intel) is paying you to post.

 

[SomeoneElse23]

Please excuse me if I don't believe that this strategy will pay off.

I wouldn't be surprised if it would instead backfire spectacularly.
Customers don't appreciate hallucinations being lied to.

Maybe there's a way to market without "stretching the truth", borderline lying...

But I sure haven't seen many examples of it.

I generally assume marketing is hype at best.

Maybe AI would be good at this?

 

[rluker5]

So, perhaps we will notice certain forum members being replaced by AI chatbots? You can bet I'll be waiting for July 11th, to find out. I'd be extra suspicious of any overtly pro-Intel accounts registered after that date.

I wish there was some sort of reward from Intel from being pro Intel. If they are listening I would like early access to the b770 please.

I just think the tech media as a whole is largely advertisement financed and have to be biased towards AMD and against Intel to maximize clicks and views for their paychecks. Some reason there are a lot of unusually active and conformist AMD fans out there. They don't buy as much as they click or comment but they sure do the latter.

This isn't something AI can fix unless they do start an army of bots to sway the clicks and views numbers to more balanced so the media in general returns to a fair and balanced state. So maybe you do have a point there. Imagine if tech reporting more closely followed typical real life use in their testing. It would be like an insurrection.

The senior contributors at Tom's are quite good at being impartial though.

 

[bit_user]

I wish there was some sort of reward from Intel from being pro Intel. If they are listening I would like early access to the b770 please.

Just to be clear, I wasn't thinking of you. FWIW, I do appreciate most of your contributions, around here.
; )

 

[TerryLaze]

So, perhaps we will notice certain forum members being replaced by AI chatbots? You can bet I'll be waiting for July 11th, to find out. I'd be extra suspicious of any overtly pro-Intel accounts registered after that date.

????????
Why would they replace them?!
New members often have long lasting restrictions.
They would be replaced without changing the member to keep the seniority and to seem more legit.

Also doing forum "adds" by pretending to be a member arguing for a company is the stupidest thing ever for a big corpo.
There is a whole philosophy on how you can't change someone's mind online.

 

[TerryLaze]

Please excuse me if I don't believe that this strategy will pay off.

I wouldn't be surprised if it would instead backfire spectacularly.
Customers don't appreciate hallucinations being lied to.

Wrong version of AI.
This will just be automated replies so that real people don't waste their time telling customers the same thing 1000 times.

Therefore, Intel intends to use Accenture's AI in various aspects of marketing, including information processing, task automation, and personalized communications.

 

[thestryker]

Curious which marketing employees they're dropping the axe on now. Intel's current position in the market is largely due to all of the support they've provided which was handled by marketing. People always wonder why AMD hasn't taken more of the CPU market and this has had a lot to do with it. If it is limited to the more rote actions it shouldn't be too bad for the company itself, but given the decisions the public has seen so far under the new CEO I wouldn't make any bets.

I wouldn't be surprised if all that "stay tuned" nonsense regarding graphics before Computex was the first indicators of this marketing shift.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

So, perhaps we will notice certain forum members being replaced by AI chatbots? You can bet I'll be waiting for July 11th, to find out. I'd be extra suspicious of any overtly pro-Intel accounts registered after that date.

🤣

 

[JRStern]

I assumed they had already rolled out new marketing and bots because of the poor quality discussion surrounding the 265K price drops.
Its real cool if you make 100 posts about the product alone per day but dont expect me to want to buy the product when its obvious someone (Intel) is paying you to post.

I've seen what looked like Intel-sponsored posts on at least one investment discussion group, for some time.
Going to replace them with a Chatbot? SMH

 

[JRStern]

Outsourcing to Accenture? Can you even do that? Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.
The part of Intel marketing that has failed has been the top echelon, and the board of directors, and general management.

 

[Lewinator56]

I wish there was some sort of reward from Intel from being pro Intel. If they are listening I would like early access to the b770 please.

I just think the tech media as a whole is largely advertisement financed and have to be biased towards AMD and against Intel to maximize clicks and views for their paychecks. Some reason there are a lot of unusually active and conformist AMD fans out there. They don't buy as much as they click or comment but they sure do the latter.

This isn't something AI can fix unless they do start an army of bots to sway the clicks and views numbers to more balanced so the media in general returns to a fair and balanced state. So maybe you do have a point there. Imagine if tech reporting more closely followed typical real life use in their testing. It would be like an insurrection.

The senior contributors at Tom's are quite good at being impartial though.

Come on, don't push those userbenchmark conspiracy theories on here. There's no financial incentive to reviewers and media to give AMD a better review than intel. Intel simply fucked up, spent years screwing over consumers, got caught with it's pants down by zen and has fumbled around trying to play catch up ever since. AMD simply makes better products at this point, that's why they get favourable reviews. Let's not forget intel literally knowingly sold consumers faulty silicon in the hope they wouldn't notice, that's something it takes a lot to regain trust from. The intel core 100 and 200 series chips are terrible performers in the general scheme of things, so why would reviewers say they are great? It looks like intel has a new architecture in the works for the next gen chips, hopefully this is more competitive against AMDs offerings.

 

[TerryLaze]

Come on, don't push those userbenchmark conspiracy theories on here. There's no financial incentive to reviewers and media to give AMD a better review than intel.

That's not what was said, if you don't like conspiracy theories then don't start them, read what they wrote exactly and comment on that instead of commenting on what you think they said based on your bias.

Intel simply ... up, spent years screwing over consumers, got caught with it's pants down by zen and has fumbled around trying to play catch up ever since.

It took ryzen 3 years to even make a bump in sales and then that was during human malware so even that is arguable.
That is not being caught with the pants down, that is waiting in bed for a few years before taking the pants off yourself.

AMD revenue:
2020 $9,763
2019 $6,731
2018 $6,475
2017 $5,253
2016 $4,319
2015 $3,991
2014 $5,506
2013 $5,299
2012 $5,422
2011 $6,568
2010 $6,494
2009 $5,403

Let's not forget intel literally knowingly sold consumers faulty silicon in the hope they wouldn't notice, that's something it takes a lot to regain trust from.

Intel had a bug in the bios that used more voltage than needed, amd used a voltage protection who's idea of protecting was to blow up when it got too much voltage, often taking the mobo with it.

The intel core 100 and 200 series chips are terrible performers in the general scheme of things, so why would reviewers say they are great?

Maybe because the number one complaint about the previous gen was the high power draw and this gen is extremely more power efficient at lower power ?! ( "Lower" power meaning 100w and below)

But since you don't believe in conspiracy theories.....have you ever seen any youtuber or article that actually just showed this, I'm not even saying for them to say that intel is great or anything but just show it.
Of course not, the only thing you have seen is 100% objective reviews that showed 300+ watts on intel because it's impossible to use less power than that...


This is from computerbase.de

 

[rluker5]

Come on, don't push those userbenchmark conspiracy theories on here. There's no financial incentive to reviewers and media to give AMD a better review than intel.

Ads pay the bills. The more clicks, views, comments on a piece of content, the more the ads pay for space. Check out the comments sections and tell me they are 50/50. Or the views on an AMD hype video vs an Intel hype video. Make the audience that pays the bills happy gets you money and upsetting them loses you money.

I know it seems complicated if you don't want to think about it, but a lot of things are that way

 

[bit_user]

AMD revenue:
2020 $9,763
2019 $6,731
2018 $6,475
2017 $5,253

2020 is also when they launched Zen 3 and the corresponding EPYC (Milan, IIRC). Furthermore, it takes years to build a presence in the server market. So, while Zen 2 EPYC (Rome) caused the industry really to sit up and take notice, they couldn't turn on a dime and start cranking out lots of new server designs based on the CPU in that same year.

2020 is also when they launched the Ryzen 4000 series of laptop processors, which combined up to 8x Zen 2 cores with their integrated graphics. This came at a time when Intel's laptop offerings still consisted of either Ice Lake quad cores or Comet Lake 6-core CPUs.

In other words, you're weaving a narrative that omits many key aspects, in order to deprive AMD of the agency of its own success. Yes, they benefited from Intel's misfortune in ramping up their 10 nm nodes, but even that only happened because AMD had a ready and viable alternative. Then, AMD built on that success, instead of squandering it.

So, I'm not endorsing everything @Lewinator56 , but I think your take errs at least as much, in the other direction.

this gen is about twice as efficient as anything else, at least at low power?! ( "Low" power meaning 100w and below)

No, it's not 2x at 100W! At 100W, the 9950X is about 85% as fast! In fact, at no point in that graph is the 285K ever 2x as fast as the 9950X!

Also, you're singling out their chiplet-based CPUs and overlooking their monolithic products.

 

[TerryLaze]

2020 is also when they launched Zen 3 and the corresponding EPYC (Milan, IIRC). Furthermore, it takes years to build a presence in the server market. So, while Zen 2 EPYC (Rome) caused the industry really to sit up and take notice, they couldn't turn on a dime and start cranking out lots of new server designs based on the CPU in that same year.

2020 is also when they launched the Ryzen 4000 series of laptop processors, which combined up to 8x Zen 2 cores with their integrated graphics. This came at a time when Intel's laptop offerings still consisted of either Ice Lake quad cores or Comet Lake 6-core CPUs.

In other words, you're weaving a narrative that omits many key aspects, in order to deprive AMD of the agency of its own success. Yes, they benefited from Intel's misfortune in ramping up their 10 nm nodes, but even that only happened because AMD had a ready and viable alternative. Then, AMD built on that success, instead of squandering it.

How am I weaving an narrative?!
I'm saying that it's arguable, that means both sides could be right.
"It took ryzen 3 years to even make a bump in sales and then that was during human malware so even that is arguable."

Also you are supporting my argument, it took amd a lot of time for ryzen to start making any difference so it's the exact opposite of being "caught with the pants down"

""Caught with their pants down" is an idiom that means someone is caught in a compromising situation, often one that reveals something embarrassing or shocking about them. It implies they were unprepared for the situation and are now exposed in a way that they would likely prefer to avoid."

No, it's not 2x at 100W! At 100W, the 9950X is about 85% as fast! In fact, at no point in that graph is the 285K ever 2x as fast as the 9950X!

Yes, sorry.

Also, you're singling out their chiplet-based CPUs and overlooking their monolithic products.

The poster I replied to did not specify, what I showed is part of "The intel core 100 and 200 series chips"