>John,
>
>>You are right... Let me re-phrase by saying that Code has the distinction of being one of the only sources of predominately non-VFP information that has a decent amount of the VFP-population as its audience.
>
>How do you arrive at that conclusion? Have you seen the reader surveys of MSDN Magazine, Visual Studio Magazine, XML Magazine? I suspect that MANY VFP developers read the above magazines, although the magazines may not track that percentage in their statistics.
>


Bad wording on my part. As a percentage of total readers, I think Code has a higher % of Fox developers than other non-traditional sources of VFP info.

>Let's see... MSDN Magazine has somewhere around 85,000 to 100,000 paid subscribers (I haven't seen the very latest numbers). If 10% of those happen to be developers who use VFP as a development tool (not a stretch, in my opinion), that would be a significant audience.
>

8,500 to 10,000 Fox developers???? I guess we would need to differentiate those who use Fox as a dev tool and who uses Fox as the development tool. If your numbers hold water, then MSDN should be eager to accept Fox-based submissions. When was the last Fox-related article??? I think your numbers may be a bit high..., at least as far as the % of Fox readers go as a % of total readership..

>
You can imagine that, but you may not understand. :-) We don't want to be ID'd as a magazine for any particular development tool or language, because our focus is on Microsoft technologies and good development practices.
>

Oh I understand... ;-)


>
It still goes to my point that if Code did not have a signifcant amount of VFP readers, MS would not bother with a VFP advertisement. It goes to my point that MS markets VFP to VFP customers.
>
>You're probably right on that one. I have not seen much intentional targeting of advertising to non-VFP people. They just get some as a bonus if they advertise in CoDe. :-)
<

Thanks...that was the point I was making...