Re: software reviews that mention the documentation

[Alex Ragen <alex -at- CHECKPOINT -dot- COM>]

>From: Jane Torpie <jstorpie -at- ma -dot- ultranet -dot- com>
>To: "'Alex Ragen'" <alex -at- CheckPoint -dot- COM>
>Subject: RE: software reviews that mention the documentation
>Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 14:01:35 -0400
>
>Alex -
>
>I'm sending this directly to you.  If you think it's interesting, feel
free to repost it to the rest of the list.  (For some reason, I can't post
directly).
>
>Your (Alex's) and Geoff's postings point to the role and value of PR
(public relations) in any industry in which products or services are
reviewed in the trade press.  My husband works in that industry, and I'll
pass on a few things I've learned from him and from my marketing professors.
>
>Geoff advocates individuals contacting trade press editors to create a
demand for a type of information.  It probably helps if those making the
requests can link publishing that information to an increase in revenue for
the publication (e.g., more subscriptions, more advertising).  Asking for
something is definitely part of the process.  But reading the trades and
following up on stories that DO include doc reviews is the other half.  And
to have the most impact, you'll want to show that the information caused
you to make a purchase.  You're right: customers' money talks. But PR
strongly influences those customers to choose one product over another.
>
>Alex approaches from another angle, discussing his experience with doc
reviews, particularly the accuracy of the review.  In both cases, Alex has
a tremendous opportunity to get in touch with the person who handles PR for
his company, for a few reasons.
>
>* The PR person's job is to try to have the information in print be as
accurate and positive as possible.  If a trade writer gets the information
wrong, the PR person might want to follow up to correct or clarify the
misinformation. But the PR person needs to be aware of the error.  As the
expert, the doc. writer can let the PR person know.
>
>* When "pitching the story" to the trade press, PR people present the
features, advantages, and benefits of the product or service.  The trade
writer or editor is looking for the most interesting, late-breaking news
and is often under weekly deadlines for stories.  Every company wants to
get their news into print.  The PR person will try to focus the trade
writer on the company's offering, and educate the trade writer about any
area of it the writer might not thoroughly understand . If the PR people
don't know about the new features of the doc, they can't even consider
presenting them.  This could be a costly missed opportunity for your
product or service to shine amongst the competition.
>
>* PR people build relationships with trade writers and editors; they
exchange good information for good exposure.  Doc writers and PR people can
benefit from similar relationships.  PR can be a conduit for information
going into and out of the company. As a doc writer, you can offer timely
information about new doc content or features for the product/service, and
suggest illustrative examples.  You can also offer to take screenshots,
proof-read press releases for technical accuracy, or contribute to
reviewers' guides (which PR people often send along with products to be
reviewed by the trade press).  In return, you can get access to another
source of customer information, a chance to use your skills in a different
way and learn new ones, and more visibility in the organization.
>
>Jane
>
>
>
>----------
>From:  Alex Ragen
>Sent:  Monday, June 23, 1997 2:17 AM
>To:    TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject:       software reviews that mention the documentation
>
>Techies--
>I've had some good reviews and some bad ones, but two stand out in my memory:
>1) A reviewer said that the documentation of one particular feature was the
>worst he had ever seen, so I wrote him, asking that he be more specific so
>that I could fix it in future versions. What I really wanted to know was
>what is his home address so that I can come by with some friends and break
>his legs, but in the interests of professionalism I took the humble pie
>approach. His answer was basically this: "I don't know. The guy who
>actually tested the software for me said he had a problem here, but he
>didn't say what it was." And there are really people out there who make
>purchase decisions based on this stuff?
>2) One review said the online help was even better than the printed user
>guide, for which he had only good words. This eagle-eyed reviewer did not
>notice that the online help was built from the user guide and was almost
>word-for-word identical to it. Well, I'm glad to hear a little praise now
>and then, but I would like to have some respect for the reviewer dishing it
>out.
>My conclusion - the only reviewer that counts is the paying customer. No
>one else (and especially not a magazine's reviewer who got the product for
>free) is as highly motivated to actually read and try to understand what we
>write.
>--Alex
>===================================================
>Alex Ragen - Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
>Home of FireWall-1 - the planet's leading FIREWALL
>alex -at- checkpoint -dot- com - http://www.checkpoint.com
>===================================================
>
> TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
>to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
>   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
>  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
>browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
>
>
>
>Attachment Converted: "C:\EUDORA\TEMP\RE software reviews that menti"
>