-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re[2]: CorpRel thread of a few weeks ago
To: Jared Buckley <[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! :)

______________________________ 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

        Great input!  Thanks for your thoughts.  Yes, we're still interested
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?
>      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]

Reply via email to