Re: Reality Check Time

[Kate O'Neill <kateo -at- CINEBASE -dot- COM>]

Good point, and I'll take it one step farther:
in the software start-ups where I've worked,
it's quite common to have a director or even
a v.p. of marketing with no marketing writers
in-house, while over in development, there's
only an intermediate-level tech writer, and
-maybe- they hire (or promote) a doc manager
once they've added another writer or two.
Usually, though, the marketing writing is
contracted out, while the lone tech writer is
left to provide all of the doc horsepower.

And I'm not even saying that's necessarily the
wrong way to go; having high-powered marketing
is a good thing for a start-up. But I'm of the
opinion that tech pubs should be a marketing
advantage when possible, and even if they're
paying over $50K to that lone tech writer, it
doesn't match the tens or even hundreds of
thousands in the budget for marketing--none of
which is spent on tech pubs.

--
Kate O'Neill: Manager of Documentation
Cinebase Software
kate -at- cinebase -dot- com ... direct -at- 650 -dot- 568 -dot- 7343

-----Original Message-----
From: Backer, Corinne
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Sent: 6/20/99 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Reality Check Time

They'd be foolish to do so. I know two companies in particular that
would
automatically hack 5-10k off the offer for such a change in job
description.

On the other side of the coin, compare the salaries you've seen for
Marketing managers to those of Documentation managers. I've noticed the
discrepancy lean the other way (bigger $ to Mktg folks).

I think this "title" thing has gone a bit too far, don't you? Don't
skills
mean anything?


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=