I'm with Wirt on the tone of the ad.  We should be motivating HP to do their own
advertising rather that doing it for them.  What I'd like to see is something
that gets Carly's friends and associates talking next time they have lunch
together:  "Carly, what's this HP 3000 thing and why are your customers so
stirred up about it?"  Better yet would be to get writers asking the same
questions in trade journal columns and interviews.

Wayne




Wirt Atmar <[log in to unmask]> on 08/17/2000 03:09:01 PM

Please respond to [log in to unmask]

To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)

Subject:  Re: [HP3000-L] HP's Multi-OS strategy includes MPE (2nd try)



Chris writes:

> I'd add that I personally believe that Winston and the folks at CSY are
>  trying to get the word out... It's always been a challenge at HP and I have
>  no doubt that it's become even tougher of late. I view the WSJ ad we're
>  talking about as something to help the CSY folks get their message out. I'd
>  like to see it portray a positive message (not a shot at HP).

I suspect that there are a fair number of people who would agree with Chris
about the tone of the ad. There are two distinct approaches that the ad could
take: one would be confrontational and plain-spoken, the other would be a
straightforward advertisement for the HP3000, but paid for by the users. I
believe that the mistake would be to pick a middling ground: an advertisement
for the technical glories of the HP3000 combined with a bit of sniping at
HP's management.

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
of the company presidents that has been one of our customers for nearly 20
years now has a clock behind his desk that reads: "1, 2, 3, etc." The rest of
the clock is blank. I've always liked that clock, simply because it says
everything about him, and about a great many over people in similar positions.

There is historical precendent to take either tack. If it is to be
confrontational, saying something like "Wake Up, HP!" as the primary tag line
allows a reader to get a grasp of the basic concept in a split second (and
that's generally all you're going to get for $150K). I can say that that tag
line will get probably close to 100% readership of all those who see the page.

The confrontational approach is not uncommon for those who spend the money to
buy a full-page ad. They know they have one shot at it, and they want to get
their money's worth.

The second approach is exactly the opposite. It would be a straightforward
advertisement extolling the virtues of the HP3000 (in the form of English
that a company president would understand and appreciate, not jargon-filled),
mentioning that the ad was purchased by HP3000 users, not HP itself, in small
print near the bottom of the ad. Doing something like this is not unheard of.
Delta employees a few years back donated sufficient money to buy a new
passenger jet for the airlines, and it got a lot of play. However, my
feelings at the time when I heard the story were a little mixed.

A third approach would be somewhere in the middle. The tag line in this sort
of ad would be something like "We love you, HP!" or "We love the HP3000!",
but the great mistake would be to extol the virtues of the HP3000 in detailed
technical jargon, intermixed with a list of whining complaints.

All three approaches will get the HP3000 noticed. My preference is for the
first. It will get the HP3000 noticed for a great deal longer than the second
-- and it will set the tone for a great number of future conversations with
HP. Clearly it will infuriate some and embarass others, but if you read the
sample text that I wrote, it obviously indicates that the 30000 is something
that HP should be proud of, something I think we all believe.

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.

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 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.

But other attributes, particularly so those outside of CSY, seem ineluctably
stuck in the mud. Sasha Volokh wrote these lines in 1990 in regards to Steve
Cooper's comments back then. They still seem as appropriate now to the
continuing problem with upper-level management:

  Cooper said that, next to actions, HP's words speak very soft --
  This commitment from HP I don't believe.
  For I cannot say that changes have been implemented oft.

Wirt Atmar