What is the purpose of our message? Is it for the single purpose of
protesting HP policy re the 3000 or to take a poke at Carly, no matter how
gentle? If that is the case then  we should have a short  message with no HP
URLs or anything that might make the reader think that  HP had a hand in it.
I now question my assumption that we have a single purpose. After all we are
talking marketing. Marketing, like legerdemain, is the art of misdirection.
*Let the reader think that this is an HP sponsored ad.* Extol the virtues of
the 3000. Print the HP URLs. Carly, Ann and Winston will know that they
didn't place the ad. The very fact that the ad was printed will taunt them.
(Though I am not against throwing in a taunt line or two perhaps by way of
an inside joke.)
This type of ad would have three effects. The first is that those that know
that HP is not responsible for the ad would see the ad for what it is, a
taunt. The second effect is that those that don't know that HP is not
responsible for the ad would think that HP was advertising the 3000, which
is what we want after all. The third effect is that it will be a goad to
action for either category of reader.
I also would like this ad to sell a few 3000s but more importantly it should
sell *the* 3000. If some C(fill the blank)O that reads the Times or Journal
turns to his/her IS manager and says why don't we use these great computers,
then we've won. If somebody at HP rethinks (or reinvents their thoughts) re
the 3000 then we have really won.
Joseph Rosenblatt