Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Company Advertising

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I'll second that.

Michael Donoghue
Austin, Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: Caldwell, Stan <scaldwell(--nospam--at)>
To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)' <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: 19 February, 1998 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: Company Advertising

>Hey, that's not fair!  What about those of us who are not members of
>SEAoC?  There actually are structural engineers that live and
>in other, more stable locations.  What special deal do you have for
>members of SEAoT?
>Stan Caldwell, P.E.
>Dallas, Texas
>>From: Joe Deppe[SMTP:Joe.Deppe(--nospam--at)]
>>Sent: Thursday, February 19, 1998 4:30 PM
>>To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)'
>>Subject: RE: Company Advertising
>>Too late....
>>We have already purchased advertising in your on-line newsletter and
>>made a special offer exclusively for SEAOC members (you will have to
>>wait until you get it to hear about it...I don't want to turn this
>>an advertisement).  I hope my intentions were not misunderstood by
>>everyone...I was only trying to offer a suggestion. And, more
>>importantly, I hope Bill was just kidding!!!
>>>From: Bill Allen[SMTP:BAllenSE(--nospam--at)]
>>>Sent: Thursday, February 19, 1998 3:30 PM
>>>To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
>>>Subject: Re: Company Advertising
>>>Ok, participants. It's time for a vote. Is it time to draw and
quarter Joe
>>>Deppe and boycott EaglePoint software or to "encourage" EaglePoint
to buy
>>>advertisement at the SEAOC web site?
>>>Bill Allen
>>>> From: Bill Cain, S.E. <bcain(--nospam--at)>
>>>> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
>>>> Subject: Re: Company Advertising
>>>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 12:33 PM
>>>> At 13:21 2/19/98 -0600, Joe Deppe wrote:
>>>> >I have monitored this site for quite some time now and have
>>>> >information and solutions to many inquiries without advertising
>>>> >products.  The response to the Visio inquiries included
>>>> >about Eagle Point as a reference point for more information, not
to push
>>>> >the product
>>>> >
>>>> >I appreciate that this is not a 24-hour bulletin board for
>>>> >and never intended to use it as one.  Other companies, or
>>>> >representatives of their companies, plug their products on this
>>>> >site periodically and I see nothing wrong with it as long as we
>>>> >offering an answer or solution to a problem.  We, vendors as a
>>>> >are just trying to be of service in the best way
possible...forgive our
>>>> >seemingly forward approach.
>>>> Joe Deppe:
>>>> [Bill Cain]  I think your post indicates that you still don't get
>>>> SEAOC website is a far more appropriate place to push your
product (and
>>>> would help support the cost of the website and listserver).  I
>>>> four rapid fire messages from you and your colleague (Brent
Straka) in a
>>>> very short time was quite excessive.
>>>> As Dennis Wish mentions, others have mentioned their product from
time to
>>>> time but it has almost always been in the context of explaining a
>>>> that several list members have asked about (or else they got
flamed just
>>>> like you did ;<).  If you want to see how it is done in a classy
>>>> look in the archives for some of the posts that Bruce Bates has
>>>> the tone and timing of his messages.  They are informative,
>>>> and generally discuss a topic that goes beyond his product.  They
>>>> don't bombard the list with multiple "marketing" messages over a
>>>> time.
>>>> In general, it is better to respond to a person's question
directly with
>>>> product information (their email address is in the header) rather
>>>> "shotgun" the list with advertising.  My organization does buy a
>>>> amount of structural software.  However, I, for one, would be
>>>> reluctant to do business with your organization if that
"pushy-ness" is
>>>> characteristic of your approach.  Regardless how good your
product might
>>>> be, I prefer to deal with people who act like professionals.  The
>>>> the information (beyond the value to you as a vendor) you
provided in all
>>>> four posts was marginal at best IMHO.
>>>> _______________
>>>> _______________