Adam Moore wrote:
I understand that. Where's eweek's report? Where's newsforge's report? I
don't think putting it on 2 sites and letting it see how it catches on is
the best way. I believe in more active communication with the media.
In this case 2 stories and now 33 related articles...every one of which
picked up the FT's incorrect point that "MA is dumping office."
(MA has done no such thing...MS can win the account back if the elect to
use OpenDocument. If not, they dump THEMSELVES.)
In this case, Adam, that was appropriate (it was big news as well as a
surprise). It didnt need 6 OOo people calling their press relationships.
On 9/1/05, swhiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Moore wrote:
On 9/1/05, Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 12:31 -0400, swhiser wrote:
BTW, we were talking about PR and OOo spokespeople with official lines.
Isn't this the type of thing OOo should be taking an official line on
and releasing it to the press? I mean its about as good as it gets for
setting a positive marketing environment.
--
Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ZMSL
Yep this is the reason why I think we need a Public Relations team. They
could have gotten together and started talking to the press.
Why?
This was generated from 2 stories, through the power of Internet
Syndication:
LXer.com
http://lxer.com/nw_viewvote.php?id=42442
Financial Times (a)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/80033a76-1a71-11da-b7f5-00000e2511c8.html
Here's a followup from the first one...more detail:
Financial Times (b)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3e8b2008-1b0d-11da-a117-00000e2511c8.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
