Early on, I was leaning toward a more confrontational ad, but a couple of
postings has me thinking twice.  While I would love to grab HP's proverbial
lapels and shake the crap out of them, I was moved by Winston's posting.
Call it wishful thinking, but I detected frustration in his words that seems
as deep as ours.  I also think that Chris Bartram, among others, has
injected a dose of professionalism to the quest.  So here are some quick
thoughts:

I would not want to make Winston's or CSY's job harder than it is.  For the
time being, divide and conquer may not give us what we want.

If we take the confrontational/emotion approach, we really must be honest
with ourselves and make sure it doesn't come off as a bunch of whining
losers.

If we try to set the fight up as MPE vs. them (the other OS's), we'll lose,
IMHO.  The HPe3000 is the computer that plays well with others and it should
be marketed that way.  "Worried about choosing the wrong computer system?
The HPe3000 works with all of the current fads...and beyond."  (This would
appeal to the lemming managers who read the WSJ and have a difficult job
making decisions).

What is our real goal?  Call HP stupid in public or make those wimpy
managers comfortable with adding a e3K to the computer room?  Whatever we
choose, we should consider giving HP management a path to "save face" and
use this as an opportunity to get some positive notoriety for the e3000 in
the press.  I think including the examples of the air-lines, e-commerce,
Samba, Apache, etc. like Birket posted would go a long way to this end.

Finally, while I agree with the web-site idea, ilovempe or welovempe or even
mpe4ever is a little too emotional to end a well-reasoned ad.  Oddly enough,
what is available, much to my surprise, is "inventedbyhp.com", .net, .org.
Now, wouldn't that be a coup for CSY?

OK, I have to send my check in.  I will go with the majority - whatever that
may be.

Mark Wonsil
4M Enterprises, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Wirt Atmar
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] HP's Multi-OS strategy includes MPE (2nd try)


Chris writes:

> I'd add that I personally believe that Winston and the folks at CSY are
>  trying to get the word out... It's always been a challenge at HP and I
have
>  no doubt that it's become even tougher of late. I view the WSJ ad we're
>  talking about as something to help the CSY folks get their message out.
I'd
>  like to see it portray a positive message (not a shot at HP).

I suspect that there are a fair number of people who would agree with Chris
about the tone of the ad. There are two distinct approaches that the ad
could
take: one would be confrontational and plain-spoken, the other would be a
straightforward advertisement for the HP3000, but paid for by the users. I
believe that the mistake would be to pick a middling ground: an
advertisement
for the technical glories of the HP3000 combined with a bit of sniping at
HP's management.

If we're going to do this, it should be one way or the other. And it should
be done in a manner appropriate to the general readership of the WSJ (no
jargon, no great details, just get to the point as quickly as possible). One
of the company presidents that has been one of our customers for nearly 20
years now has a clock behind his desk that reads: "1, 2, 3, etc." The rest
of
the clock is blank. I've always liked that clock, simply because it says
everything about him, and about a great many over people in similar
positions.

There is historical precendent to take either tack. If it is to be
confrontational, saying something like "Wake Up, HP!" as the primary tag
line
allows a reader to get a grasp of the basic concept in a split second (and
that's generally all you're going to get for $150K). I can say that that tag
line will get probably close to 100% readership of all those who see the
page.

The confrontational approach is not uncommon for those who spend the money
to
buy a full-page ad. They know they have one shot at it, and they want to get
their money's worth.

The second approach is exactly the opposite. It would be a straightforward
advertisement extolling the virtues of the HP3000 (in the form of English
that a company president would understand and appreciate, not
jargon-filled),
mentioning that the ad was purchased by HP3000 users, not HP itself, in
small
print near the bottom of the ad. Doing something like this is not unheard
of.
Delta employees a few years back donated sufficient money to buy a new
passenger jet for the airlines, and it got a lot of play. However, my
feelings at the time when I heard the story were a little mixed.

A third approach would be somewhere in the middle. The tag line in this sort
of ad would be something like "We love you, HP!" or "We love the HP3000!",
but the great mistake would be to extol the virtues of the HP3000 in
detailed
technical jargon, intermixed with a list of whining complaints.

All three approaches will get the HP3000 noticed. My preference is for the
first. It will get the HP3000 noticed for a great deal longer than the
second
-- and it will set the tone for a great number of future conversations with
HP. Clearly it will infuriate some and embarass others, but if you read the
sample text that I wrote, it obviously indicates that the 30000 is something
that HP should be proud of, something I think we all believe.

The second approach will be only mildly embarassing to HP (and when I say
HP,
I am excluding CSY). But it also may have the potential to be seen by
upper-level management as the resort of a bunch of wimpish geeks and easily
dismissed as the complaints of a bunch of losers. When I said that the
reaction from middle-upper-level management at HP ten years ago, after years
of gentlely trying to persuade HP on the technical merits of doing a few
things for the HP3000 (adding CIU, adding b-trees, putting an SQL shell on
top of IMAGE), was that "it's just a bunch of noisy vars trying to save
their
own asses," I didn't make that statement up. It's a direct quote. That
reaction was the point at which my own personal relationship with HP
matured.

These one-sentence dismissals are easy to come by, and that's the primary
reason that I tend to favor the first approach. But that's only me. I am
more
than pleased to do whatever the majority wants to do. The question that's
before the house is: Has HP changed since then? In many ways, the answer is
a
resounding yes, and we all know the names of the people who are (or were)
part of the new CSY: Jim Sartain, James Hofmeister, Jeff Vance, Craig
Fairchild, Harry Sterling, Winston Prather, Tien-You Chen, Jeff Bandle, and
many, many others.

But other attributes, particularly so those outside of CSY, seem ineluctably
stuck in the mud. Sasha Volokh wrote these lines in 1990 in regards to Steve
Cooper's comments back then. They still seem as appropriate now to the
continuing problem with upper-level management:

  Cooper said that, next to actions, HP's words speak very soft --
  This commitment from HP I don't believe.
  For I cannot say that changes have been implemented oft.

Wirt Atmar