TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:FW: Marketing vs. Engineering From:Jim Purcell <jimpur -at- MICROSOFT -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:50:08 -0800
Michael Wing offers:
>
>>I agree with you up to a point. That point is that Marketing should
>>have a greater input than Engineering on what is said. However, they
>>should step out of the way on how it is said.
>
>>Most Marketing groups with whom I have associated like a lot of
>>graphics; lengthy, flowery introductory text; lists; and so forth. They
>>also like two manuals; a thin one that they could hand out at trade
>>shows and send as "freebies:, and a nice, thick, fluffy one they could
>>plop down on the customer's briefcase. They also like writers to
>>"sensationalize" what they write. How many more times do we have to use
>>trite phrases like "leading edge", "state-of-the-art", "top-down", "low
>>maintenance", and so forth. When left under too-much Marketing
>>influence, an exorbitant amount of time is spent on wording the
>>trademarks section, positioning graphics, and making sure the company
>>name appears 20 times per page (and bold face).
>
>I would no more let Marketing turn my manual into a brochure than I would let
>Engineering turn it into a spec. Both departments are useful for the
>information they can provide. I wouldn't cede editorial oversight to either
>one.
>
>That said, a good Marketing department is an invaluable source of information
>about the intended reader. Tech writers are rightly fond of emphasizing
>audience analysis. Marketers are the people in the company who actually talk
>to customers, tell them what the product will do for them, why it's a good
>thing--you know, the kind of information we need to motivate readers and
>slant our procedural text to real-world users in real-world situations. If
>the manual tells a different story than marketing is telling, the best thing
>that you can say about the result is that customers will suffer some
>cognitive dissonance.
>
>You cannot write an accurate manual without engineers, but you cannot write a
>useful manual without knowing what Marketing is telling the public about your
>product.
>
>And while we're on the subject, don't overlook the motherlode of user
>information: product support. If you're working on a product upgrade, the
>support people can tell you in excruciating detail the kinds of things that
>users can't do because they are either not documented or badly documented.
>
>Jim Purcell
>jimpur -at- microsoft -dot- com
>My opinions, not Microsoft's
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
