Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I am sorry but I see nothing wrong with the letter. What do you guys see that is wrong?

I think they are tyring to protecting their interests...ahould of thought about that before they signed on with Xerox. We have that letter from Ricoh/Tom that I carry around and that seems to work just fine.

I never bad mouth the competition....I just provide the facts and let the customer decide. People like Ricoh and will go to where Ricoh is not where they were. But lets get real... there is a lot of mud slinging.

My 2 cents

RS
From a marketing perspective, the letter should have never even mentioned the competition at all. It should have talked about general event (Global being bought) and how their business has responded.

By mentioning the competitor, the letter writer leaves the impression that they are playing catch-up to the competitor (ie., the letter writer is reactive and the competitor is proactive). Do you want your clients thinking that your competitors drive your business decisions? Not a good impression or comparison!

Oh, and do not waste your toner to give your competitor free advertising!

BTW, JasonR, you had it right the first time. See good plain English explanation at http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel.shtml (ignore the sales pitch at the end). "Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the written act of defamation, vs. slander, the oral act of defamation."

Does the letter (written distributed document) libel the former employees? There's some pretty charged language in that letter, but is it absent of provable fact and does it damage the former employees? Sounds like a case study for the lawyers.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×