I must disagree with Joseph's assertion that it is OK or even desirable to have readers believe that the proposed advertisement was published by HP.  The idea behind the proposal was to make it clear that users are taking matters into their own hands because HP is not doing it right.  The thought was that a grass-roots action might attract some press attention.

After all, the issue here is not that CSY needs to advertise.  They already do.  They have a strategy for promoting the HP3000.  Some of us may debate their approach, but at least they are the "choir" in that sense.  The problem is that announcements by Carly and others that seem to delegate MPE to the status of an antique that HP would rather forget serve to undermine the efforts of CSY and third-party vendors who are trying to sell MPE-based solutions.  All we need is for HP's leadership to acknowledge that MPE is still a product that HP believes in and supports.
 ----------
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Publicizing the e3000; Plan B: I'll
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 9:35AM

<<File Attachment: ENVELOPE.TXT>>
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