-------- Original Message --------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[2]: CorpRel thread of a few weeks ago
To: Jared Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure --- I've edited it down a little so it doesn't sound so much like
a rant! <VBG> Just wasn't sure if the discussion was still ongoing
--- sorry to be so late contributing! :)
njm
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: CorpRel thread of a few weeks ago
Author: Jared Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at internet
Date: 7/15/99 8:50 AM
Nancy,
Great input! Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, we're still interested
in
discussing the issue, but things have died off in the last week or two. May I
post your message to the list in hopes of stiring more discussion?
Jared
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Good morning, Chuck and Jared!
> New Riders been very active with the ICV program at MS, and as Angie
> pointed out, there are specific allocations of cost. The program has
> changed slightly, however. For one thing, they've increased
CONSIDERABLY the fee paid to the independent reviewer.
> The reason I bring this up, is that when the price went up, so did
the stringency of the review.
> The problem is that MS didn't follow up the price increase with a push
> to say "Hey! We've improved the process and now our approval really
> *means* something with regard to quality of content!" And by now ---
> several years into the program --- the audience has figured out that
> the earlier approval meant nothing.
> As a result, you'll notice that there are a LOT more companies NOT
> certifying their products. The best selling book product out there --
the Exam Cram series -- isn't "approved" which means they can publish
> a book for $19.99 and they sell millions! The cost of the approval is
not born out by increased sales numbers --- the audience doesn't care.
> My point is that there will need to be balance between the cost of the
> approval process, and what the vendors can expect that approval to
> earn for them. Right now, with the potential market numbers somewhat
> undefined, LPI will need to make sure that they can prove there is
> tangible value to going through the review process... that the
> audience will respond (or at least be made *very* aware of) the
> importance of that LPI approved logo.
> I do believe that there is value, and that an approval process can
> carry significant weight in the marketplace --- what that approval
> needs to convey (and which MS's approval lost when the audience
> discovered that the original approval was basically a rubber-stamp) is
> that this approval logo means the content has been reviewed by someone
> who understands the product, the process, and the importance of
> certification. The review MUST be done by Linux experts, and it must
> be a technical review --- not just checking to see if there's a
> section headline to match up to each of the objectives provided by
> LPI.
> Marketing to the audience is going to be very important in helping get
> vendors on-board for an approval process. If we, as vendors, know
> that LPI is pushing the value of the approval to the people who will
> be taking our courses and buying our products, (which MS does NOT),
> then we'll be much more accepting of the fee structures.
> I apologize for the length of this email. If you have any questions,
> please do let me know --- I'll continue to lurk and hopefully not miss
> the next thread! :)
> Best,
> Nancy Maragioglio
> New Riders Publishing
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-corprel mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
