Re: A direct attack on TW?

["Huber, Mike" <mrhuber -at- SOFTWARE -dot- ROCKWELL -dot- COM>]

Should we be concerned that an ad uses an annoying little dog to attack
cheeseburgers?

The existence of the ad proves nothing. If it works, that's another story.
But if my company were involved, I might take the opportunity to re-examine
the document set, and decide which components help and which are legacy. Is
that user manual an albatross?

I'm not being pointy-haired or sarcastic when I call it an opportunity. Your
company (particularly the marketing department) has been softened by the ad,
and now may be a great time to propose changes.

---
Office:
mike -dot- huber -at- software -dot- rockwell -dot- com
Home:
nax -at- execpc -dot- com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burke Michael [SMTP:miburke -at- WSICORP -dot- COM]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 1998 2:11 PM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      A direct attack on TW?
        ...

> A recent ad run by one of our competitors directly attacked our product
> because of the existence of a user manual, essentially implying that
> since we supply a manual for out product, then our product must be
> terribly complicated. The manual in question runs a scant 50 pages, 30
> of which are installation instructions, but this is hardly mentioned in
> the ad.
>
        ... But, should we as TW be concerned about a
> direct attack on a product based on the existence of a manual?
>
>