> I can't imagine why we'd want this approach. We aren't trying to
sell
> the 3K to the Fortune 1000; we're calling out HP to account for why
> *they* aren't trying to sell the 3K to the Fortune 1000.

I'm going for something much more basic.   I'm calling HP to account
for misleading statements by company officials.   I'm calling them to
account for marketing that I believe is downright damaging to the HP
e3000.

- Cortlandt

"Steve Dirickson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:399d8510$1_1@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
> > 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.
>
> I can't imagine why we'd want this approach. We aren't trying to
sell
> the 3K to the Fortune 1000; we're calling out HP to account for why
> *they* aren't trying to sell the 3K to the Fortune 1000.
>
> Steve
>