Wirt writes:
> I am beginning to lean more and more to the idea of a
> well-written open
> letter. These letters are not uncommon in the WSJ or The New
> York Times when
> other groups have wanted to express their grievances.

I think this depends who the audience is and what we hope to accomplish.
First, an open letter is directed communication (to Carly, Ann and HP Mgmt)
where (un)interested parties may read it.  The audience is stated in the
beginning.  It does run the risk that the user does not identify with the
person or subject and moves on.  (Today's open letter in the WSJ from
Firestone was that way for me as I do not drive a Ford Explorer or use that
kind of tire.)  A non-letter format is open to all and one can "name names"
to make it more personal.  Second, what is our goal?  Do we want to educate
the "lemmings"?  Give HP a public scolding?  Do we want to "just get
something off our chest"?  Do we make our point no matter what bridges may
burn?  Do we want to make a starting point for HP to build on?  All of the
above?

> The advantages of an open letter are that it allows us (i) to be
> plain-spoken, (ii) more obviously serious and more detailed
> in our intent than any ad-like material would be,

I don't see these as mutually-exclusive.  See the Partnership for a Drug
Free America "ad" in Today's WSJ.  It is plain-spoken, even colloquial, and
the subject is serious and sincere.  I think we could use some famous
British understatement to help make our point.  (Mr. Dunlop?, Mr. Brown?,
Mr. North?, Mr. Vickers, Mr. Proudfoot, et. al.?)

> (iii) it eliminates any sense of
> silliness (and the owl has been worrying me),

I cannot speak to silliness, but I have other concerns about the owl.  Do we
have artwork that is in the public domain and that does not violate
copyright?  If we start to identify the owl with the e3000, will HP pick it
up as a brand image?  Do we just keep the owl as a representation of the
users of MPE instead?

> and (iv) it requires no great graphic skill, just good typography.

Every full page ad in today's WSJ has some graphic content.  I think it
helps catch the eye of the reader.  (It would also look good over the IT
manager's desk per Gavin.)  If we want to stay with all text, we could save
some money and just run a series of press releases.  We could coordinate a
press release with the ad's appearance too.

Wirt writes in an earlier post:
>I can see three outcomes. One is an outright failure. In that case, you get
>your money back (minus any transaction charges). In this instance, you
didn't
>lose any money, but you may have lost a great deal more.

Outright failure is running the ad, others view us as whiners and losers, it
causes in-fighting at HP and they choose to cut bait.  In this case, you
have no money and no future.  :-(  Sometimes you can be so right, you're
left.  (I guess I'll tear up that application for the Optimist's Club....)

As you can tell, I looked over all of the WSJ ads today.  Separately, I
posted a summary of each.  I will continue to do so if others feel it is
helpful.

Mark Wonsil
4M Enterprises, Inc.