Winston,

I just reread your message of the 16th with great interest.   There
were two aspects of your message that concern me.

First, your comments were mostly restricted to "executive
communications that
have taken place in the past months."    You wrote that "I believe the
biggest cause for some of the miscommunication is related to the
Reinvention of HP."    These comments are confined to recent events
yet many of these issues concerning HP 3000 marketing have been going
on for years.   You are no doubt aware, for instance, that the HP 3000
community has been requesting a minimal acknowledgement of MPE/iX
and/or  the HP 3000 in the fine print of ads for at least three years
now.    It seems reasonable to me to assume that the problem is more
deeply seated than acknowledged in your message.

Second.
> However I've read a few posts and gotten a few
> emails that I think are not productive.  Wild accusations of
political
> infighting, strategies to kill the 3000, etc., are absolutely untrue
and I
> believe are counter productive.   Letting HP executives know more
about
> the loyalty and passion MPE customers have is not a bad thing, but
when
> it's done is a non-professional manner I personally think it hurts
our
> mutual cause.

As your comments were in the abstract one can't know for sure what
words you considered "wild accusations" and in a "non-professional
manner".    I do know that much of the recent conversation in the
3000L has been in the context of the impressions and impact that the
recent "not accurate" and "unacceptable" communications has had on us.

As productive marketing and communication must be concerned with
impressions and feelings,our sharing them in this forum therefore,
seemed not only appropriate but important    I propose that the
marketing strategy of focusing or targeting the message carries a very
real risk of backfiring.    When the strategy backfires there are
consequences.   Even the "wild accusations" illustrate what those
consequences can be.     Everything that was written is now a
documented data point, a source of free raw market data.     I am
concerned that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater, and
that the comments - the good, the bad, the "wild" and the
"unprofessional" - will not reach the people who need to hear them.

A major question remaining in my mind is whether the reactions of the
3000L are typical or atypical of the rest of the target market.     I
would hope that our reactions are not dismissed as being atypical
without reference to additional, properly conducted market research.

Cortlandt Wilson
Cortlandt Software
Mountain View, CA
(650) 966-8555
http://www.cortsoft.com    (MANMAN Resources Guide)










"Winston Prather" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:399b22c4$1_1@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Although I regularly read 3000L I have very rarely participated in
the
> discussions.  With recent threads around HP's Multi-OS Strategy and
HP
> e3000 positioning I feel the need to add my perspective.  Sorry for
the
> length of this post, but I have very strong opinions about this.
>
> Over the years I have met many customers and partners and developed
> lasting relationships.  For those of you who I have not personally
met,
> let me provide a bit of background on myself.  I'm currently the
general
> manager responsible for the HP e3000 business within HP.  My history
with
> the HP 3000 dates back approximately 25 years.  I first used an HP
3000
> when I was in 9th grade, then all through college, then as a
customer, and
> the past 16 years with HP.  My entire career (actually my entire
adult
> life) has been related to the HP 3000.  I jokingly tell folks that
I've
> either been playing with the 3000 (a bit of hidden computer geek in
me),
> or being paid to play with the 3000, or more recently leading teams
of
> people playing with the 3000, for most of my life.  I'm a strong
believer
> in the value of MPE and IMAGE and proudly display my MPE Forever pin
in my
> office.
>
> Having said all of that, let me now also say that I understand your
> concerns.  Believe me, I do.
>
> So let me give you my perspective on the executive communications
that
> have taken place in the past months.   There have been many
> communications, press releases, quotes in interviews, etc., that
have not
> appropriately mentioned the HP e3000.  This is NOT by design.  I
guarantee
> it.  This has been caused by a number of factors that I'll try and
> explain.  This is not intended to say it's acceptable, it's not, but
> rather just to provide some facts to the emotional discussions.
>
> I believe the biggest cause for some of the miscommunication is
related to
> the Reinvention of HP.  In the past HP was a very distributed,
> diversified, company of many product lines.  Each product line was
wholly
> responsible and did not interact often with other product lines.
Each had
>  it's own market strategy, communication plans, sales, etc.  Each
product
> line communicated entirely about itself.  This led to many problems
in how
> HP interacts with customers.  HP has been viewed as having fantastic
> products but very hard to work with.    So, over the past year HP
has been
> focused on restructuring the way we interact with customers, market
our
> products, etc.  Customer facing organizations are taking on
responsibility
> for all HP products.   This has caused the number of HP employees
that
> need to be very familiar with our HP e3000 business strategy to grow
> considerably.  In the past, communication about the 3000 was very
> contained within CSY.  Now many parts of HP are involved in
advertising,
> marketing, and executive speech writing, etc.   Now, combine that
with a
> company of >80,000 employees, and remember that the HP e3000 is
relatively
> a smaller product line than HP-UX and HP Netservers, and the result
is
> that you have miscommunication about the platform.
>
> Even prior to the recent 3000L discussion threads, my staff and I
have
> been working closely with other parts of HP to ensure that the HP
e3000 is
> appropriately positioned   I have had many personal conversations
with HP'
> s top executives and they are all very supportive of the HP e3000.
They
> recognize the history, value the product, even more so value the
> customers, and truly feel bad about the miscommunication.   I feel
> confident that you will see a difference in the coming months.  This
> however doesn't mean that MPE will be mentioned every time HP-UX is,
or NT
> is, or whatever.  I do believe there are times when HP needs to
tailor the
> message to the specific audience.
>
> The majority of the feedback that has been sent to me, Ann, Carly,
etc.,
> has been very constructive and I really appreciate that.   We are
all
> supporting the same cause.  However I've read a few posts and gotten
a few
> emails that I think are not productive.  Wild accusations of
political
> infighting, strategies to kill the 3000, etc., are absolutely untrue
and I
> believe are counter productive.   Letting HP executives know more
about
> the loyalty and passion MPE customers have is not a bad thing, but
when it
> 's done is a non-professional manner I personally think it hurts our
> mutual cause.
>
> My quick summary would look something like this:  The recent HP
> communications regarding HP's Multi-OS strategy that did not mention
the
> MPE operating system are not accurate and are unacceptable.  HP
recognizes
> this and is working hard to improve our internal processes to ensure
that
> MPE is appropriately positioned in future communications.  A bit
less
> polished and more to the point way of saying this would be:  Yes,
MPE has
> been inappropriately missing from HP communications and we are
working
> hard to fix it.
>
> So, thanks for listening.  As always I'm very interested in your
ideas and
> feedback.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you at HP World!
>
> Winston
>
>
> **********
> Posted from www.3kworld.com
>