In <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] writes:

[snip]

> 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

I agree 100%.

[snip]

> 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.

I would think that the first [confrontational] ad would be more likely to be
dismissed as "whining"... ?

We have to realize that a one-time ad (even a full page one) in the WSJ
isn't going to change many minds, and statistically won't be seen by "that"
many people. What will really make a "difference" is the potential for the
OTHER press to pick up on this "story" and start writing followup pieces in
the other rags. To this end I think the message we imply in the ad is going
to set the tone for all these follow up pieces. I see two choices likely
to occur:

  1) HP3000 users in a panic over HP's lack of committment to/abandonment of
     their platform
or
  2) HP3000 users so proud of their platform they take up a collection to
     advertise it themselves

Both will get HP's attention (and lots of other folks). The first though, is
more likely to fuel the "downward spiral" of HP[e]3000 systems being "left
out" of...well.. everything.

> 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 think it's important that the ad state (in not TOO small letters) that it
was paid for by contributions from individual "customers" of HP. I'd like to
see all the names on the page (in very small/light type - perhaps as the
background to the ad) to reinforce that. No one (but those placing the ad)
is going to read all the names, but 1000+ names visible on the page is bound
to impress even someone flipping past the page. (no company names or URLs,
just names)

>  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.

Unquestionably these folks are doing a great job. It's "HP Central" that
needs a kick in the pants. Better for us to demonstrate to the world that
we're behind the folks [CSY] that created and nurtured this platform
loyalty, than to tell the world that "we're p*ssed at HP".

Heck, even a little tagline stating that HP Corporate should hold CSY up
as an example of a TRULY customer-focused and responsive organization.

"You catch more flies with honey..." (or something like that... ;-) )

  -Chris (faxed in my CC#!) Bartram