Come on, John. . .

Do you mean to say that no company ever spent money that returned less than costs in order to *PROMOTE* a product????

Do you mean to say that one 1996 TechEd where there were 10 poorly attended VFP sessions - when VFP wasn't even a part of VS - wrote off VFP at TechEd for ever????

Marketing's sole real objective is to INCREASE demand, and what has been "justified" for VFP's TechEd presence is nothing short of a feeble attempt to feign marketing while all the while fully intending to discontinue it. Did they really expect wide attendance??? Did VB get similar attention on its first showing at some similar 'shows'??? I'll bet it did, but that MS didn't give up.

And with help like yours it will keep repeating this for VFP, even though VFP is now a component of VS and deserves the exposure even if not a single VFP-type attends.

Jim N

>>>What I'm saying is that M$ should have given *EQUAL* treatment to marketing VFP itself
>
>Why does VFP deserve equal treatment. The attendance numbers have been far less than equal than the other tools. Again, why should VFP take up a session slot where 10 folks attend at the expense of another session where 100-200 folks would attend. It is about supply and demand. Without the demand, there will be nor should there be a supply.