Re: The client sales pitch

Subject: Re: The client sales pitch
From: Chris Morton <salt -dot- morton -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:33:02 -0500

The original IFU was copyrighted in 2013. I've been told that they have
product throughout the US, EU and Turkey. Remodeling inside their facility
is going on like mad, apparently to accommodate additional hires.

So, no, I don't believe the company is in a last-ditch mode to get
something to market or a show, per se.

Think about this, please, if the IFU is solely regarded as nothing more
than a requirement, that they rely instead on individual training (they do
have a training facility), then why was I carefully selected to come on? My
contract is substantial (although I have yet to see the actual PO and be
paid anything).

Meanwhile, my handler (who I surmise is a newly-minted PM who was directed
by higher-ups to "get some help") is out until the 11th to attend to a
family matter. I am reticent to approach anyone else within the company,
although the person I sense is her boss met with me during my interview and
we get on quite well.

Questions, questions, questions....

As the Fab Four sang, *"I gotta feelin'..."*

Chris Morton

â Substantive Editing â Technical Writing â Proofreading
â Marketing Expertise â Mentoring
Click to

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Gene Kim-Eng <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> wrote:

> I think it's pretty unlikely that the company's management doesn't know
> this. So either they don't really care because they've already sussed that
> they're not going to make it past the angel stage, or they're being pushed
> by their investors to get something out to present to potential customers
> ASAP. Is there a trade show for that industry coming up in the next month
> or so?
> If their product is going to be FDA regulated, see if you can find
> something about document requirements here:
> If you can convince them that the FDA is not going *allow* them to ship
> product without adequate documentation, that will be much more effective
> than trying to pitch image issues to a company that hasn't got one yet.
> Gene Kim-Eng
> On 1/4/17 3:38 AM, Chris Morton wrote:
> I'm looking for some pre-existing verbiage from somewhere that explains why
> a company's image can be irreparably damaged by publishing and distributing
> such junk.
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo]
> <>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> <>
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development |


You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @


The client sales pitch: From: Chris Morton
Re: The client sales pitch: From: Gene Kim-Eng

Previous by Author: Re: The client sales pitch
Next by Author: Re: The client sales pitch
Previous by Thread: Re: The client sales pitch
Next by Thread: Re: The client sales pitch

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads