"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Discuss functionality of QuarkXPress 10, 9 & 8 (and before) (excluding Digital Publishing).
For Digital Publishing functionality please refer to forums in the "Digital Publishing" group.

As QuarkXPress 1 thru 10 are not supported by Quark anymore, please upgrade to a newer version of QuarkXPress if you are looking for official support. Support options for supported versions are here: http://support.quark.com
soupfighter
Posts: 14
Joined: 27 May 2005, 15:07

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by soupfighter » 17 Oct 2005, 12:18

Did any of you read the Will Adobe Manage to Replace Industry Work Horse Quark Express by Giving Adobe InDesign for Free? blog on the Quark.com main page?

Well, if you did it was very professionally written and well-researched with lots of numbers and comparisons. Who could have written this, I wondered? When I checked the profile information for this person and it had absolutely no info about them other than they first started their blog page in September of 2005. Hmm, that's pretty recent, I thought (and very conveniently timed for their Quark 7 PR initiative). What else has this blogger written, I wondered?

The only other blog I could find that this author wrote was titled "Liquidity or Liquidation. How Body pH Can Affect Your Energy Levels.", a very researched article about the role of PH balance in how your organs function. Again, it was very professionally written. How could somebody have such indepth experience not only in page layout but also body PH issues?

I'm not saying that it is impossible but I think that the far more likely answer is that Quark has paid some writer to put their spin on the Quark vs. InDesign contest out there into the blogosphere in hopes of "creating" a faux source of grass roots Quark lovin'.

Quark is not the first company to disguise a press release as a blog but, if you ask me, it sure is a weasley (sp?) tatctic to use. Shame on you, Quark.

migman
Posts: 2936
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 16:17

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by migman » 17 Oct 2005, 12:38

It sounds to me like you are speculating. You don't know if your conclusion is correct, but you throw out your shame as if you had proof. It reminds me of a line from a movie that went something like: Hell get a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.

soupfighter
Posts: 14
Joined: 27 May 2005, 15:07

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by soupfighter » 17 Oct 2005, 16:27

Yes, I am speculating, but that doesn't mean that I am not right.

I'm sorry, but it is just too polished and glowing for me to believe that Quark did not have a hand in its creation. It couldn't tow the company line any better if an in-house Quark PR person had written it themselves.

To me, it smacks of some contracted PR guy getting paid to push the party line in the form of a blog which would be sneaky and dishonest and beneath the much-improved Quark of today.

Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by Jim Oblak » 17 Oct 2005, 22:06

Hmmm... a blog that has been online for about a month and it appears as a link from the main page of quark.com? Quark.com has historically placed article links to established media outlets from its main page. This is clearly some sort of marketing pigshit.

But the blog is so poorly written that it does more to indicate the foolishness of wearing Quark-blinders. Sure, CS2 is written for OSX. QuarkXPress 7 will need a faster computer as well if one expects transparency and QuarkVista to play well.

The blog asks if there is a reason to switch. Most definitely if the Quark marketing department thinks this kind of drivel is worth posting from their homepage, whether they authored it or not. Quark needs to realize that much of its user base writes crap like this and we can easily tell when it is being served back to us. Serve us better software instead.

How is that hardworking clown to know what software suits me better?

Please excuse the language but I suspect it is the only way that a Quark representative will read this and reconsider the lame links they post on their main page.

EDIT:

Okay. After further research I may be off a bit. Notice the end...

[quote:b0e73d9e63]Please feel free to publish this article and resource box in your e-zine, newsletter, offline publication or website. A copy would be appreciated at articles@ptedu.com and articles@valorcrossmedia.com

Valor Crossmedia is an ad agency that states on their site:

[quote:b0e73d9e63]Valor Crossmedia brings together cross-platform teams that specialize in building brands offline and on.

We have the creative expertise, marketing intelligence and business experience to help you implement a marketing strategy across media. Whether creating logos and sales materials or e-commerce sites and rich media, our customized solutions integrate seamlessly with every aspect of our clients marketing strategies.

Everyone is using blogs these days to help with buzz and to pump up link popularity. Oddly, there is not a single link to quark.com. Nor does it spell QuarkXPress correctly in the title. This makes me think that this is either a hoax put on by clever Adobe marketers to make Quark look stupid, or Quark is making itself look stupid by having Valor Crossmedia post this pigshit. Either way, if I were the administrator of quark.com, I would not be linking to this pigshit. It just craps on any kind of credibility that Quark may have.

PS: Please add 'pigshit' (and maybe 'apeshit' too) to phpBB's list of censored words. Thank you!

longtimedesigner
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 11:01

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by longtimedesigner » 17 Oct 2005, 22:31

Quark's getting desperate, posting a garbage article like that on their home page.

Anyone who's interested in some very well researched comparisons between the applications, especially productivity comparisons, should check out http://www.pfeifferreport.com.

That moron's opinion on the blog, is so full of errors, misrepresentations, and misinformation, that it's nearly comedic.

Plus, this poorly-written blog was written by a professional marketing firm? They ought to learn proper grammar before they unleash themselves on the public.

Besides, most professional DTP software reviewers recommend InDesign, not Quark.

Whenever you think Quark can't go any lower, they take another step down.

Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by Jim Oblak » 20 Oct 2005, 08:27

I wrote to Quark to advise them that posting the title 'Quark Express' on their main page was pretty silly. Here is what I got back...

[img]../../themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif"> [strong]JENNIFER CHURCHILL:[/strong]
Hi Jim!

Thanks for writing. You are correct that I posted the link with the original website's error intact. It's not really my preference to alter another site's content--I don't want to be accused of any impropriety. Good point you raise, though. I'll check with my editorial team and see what they think as well.

Kindest regards,

Jenn

JENNIFER CHURCHILL
Public Relations Manager
Corporate Communications

Quark Inc.
1800 Grant Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80203-1131
Phone: 303.894.3931
Fax: 303.894.3983
Mobile: 720.987.7151
jchurchill@quark.com
http://www.quark.com


I went on to look at other online articles that misspell QuarkXPress. What does it say about the intelligence and credibility of the professional writer when they cannot spell a product's name correctly? What does it say about Quark when they post this kind of fluff on their site?

Here are links to a pathetic promotional campaign utilizing bogus professional writers:

Author: S Steele
"Will Adobe Manage to Replace Industry Work Horse Quark Express by Giving Adobe InDesign for Free?[/img] http://ezinearticles.com/?Will-Adobe-Ma ... ?&id=59887

Authors: Galina Arlov and Sherwin Steele
"Will Adobe Manage to Replace Industry Work Horse Quark Express by Giving Adobe InDesign for Free?"
http://ezinearticles.com/?Will-Adobe-Ma ... ?&id=60826

Author: Dina Giolitto
"Seven Quark Express Tricks Every Copywriter Should Know About"
http://ezinearticles.com/?Seven-Quark-E ... t&id=83729

Authors: G. Arlov and S. Steele
"Will Adobe manage to replace industry work horse Quark Express by giving Adobe InDesign for free?"
http://www.valorcrossmedia.com/2005/08/ ... ustry.html

#####

And to anyone who thinks that Quark reads these forums: wise up. It has been several days and no one has added 'pigshit' to phpBB's censor word list. I am beginning to wonder if there is even an audience of Quark users on this forum as no one has reported this profanity to Quark. This kind of language would get shot down in less than an hour by a moderator on the other design software's forum. Go figure.

longtimedesigner
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 11:01

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by longtimedesigner » 20 Oct 2005, 12:24

It looks as if they decided to truncate the title.

Wow.

Now, perhaps they should post accurate articles instead of this type of poorly-written garbage.

Arlov
Posts: 2
Joined: 22 Oct 2005, 12:42

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by Arlov » 24 Oct 2005, 15:49

Thank you for your response to our article. Some more flattering than others.

I find it hard to believe that you have actually read our detailed comparison of the two systems (Quark vs Adobe InDesign). If you had, you would see there was no bias to one system or another, except for the fact that Quark is the industry standard, it is simple to use and does the job well.

As to whether we were paid by Quark to influence the industry against InDesign, I suppose we could use the money but we werent asked by anyone to make the comparisons we did. We are just sick of companies like Adobe and Microsoft trying to influence the market with overly expensive bundles and misleading advertising. So, we decided to do something about it by writing our own article to clear up whatever misconceptions Adobe advertising has created by touting InDesign as a better, system than Quark. The fact is, in six years of trying, InDesign, like its predecessor Pagemaker, runs a distant second to Quark Express in design simplicity and popularity and nothing we have seen changes that opinion.

On the other hand one gets the feeling that some thou dost protest too much. Could it be you are working for Adobe and trying to pick up whatever you can in the Quark forum to use against it? That seems much more likely, since our motives were purely to inform people on the inequalities of one system (InDesign) over the qualities of another (Quark). Thats fair, surely.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3273
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by eyoungren » 24 Oct 2005, 16:14

Arlov, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I have to wonder just how much of an Xpress user you are. Anyone familiar with the program and who actualy uses it knows how to spell the name properly. Quark has fixed the spelling on the home page, but apparently you are still MISINFORMED. You STILL refer to the name of the program as Express, even in your response here. It's properly spelled Xpress. How does anyone take you or your company seriously if you can't even get the name right! Even the InDesign people who frequent these forums spell it correctly! Sorry, but I thought part of being a journalist meant researching your topic. If you had, you might have picked up the correct spelling of the program......

Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

"In the News" Blog posting = article paid for by Q

Post by Jim Oblak » 24 Oct 2005, 16:48

[strong]Arlov:[/strong]I find it hard to believe that you have actually read our detailed comparison

[strong]Arlov:[/strong]...a distant second to Quark Express...

I find it hard to believe that you think you can be taken seriously about any topic when you cannot spell the name of the subject correctly. For goodness sake: learn how to spell QuarkXPress!!! You really come off as a fool with shoddy copywriting like that.

Of course QuarkXPress is better in terms of 'simplicity'. If you want a dumbed-down, simplistic program, go for QuarkXPress 4.1. If you need an integrated tool instead of an afterthought patchwork of 3rd party XTs like ShadowCaster and PSD import, you need InDesign.

No one here works for Adobe. I use both QuarkXPress and InDesign and I recommend both to others depending on their workflow.

People are not moving to InDesign because of its price (or lack of a price in a bundle). People move because of features and productivity. If you had done any true research before trying to form an opinion, you would know which applications excel at which tasks. InDesign and QuarkXPress each have their own strengths and should be recommended according to specific needs.

Training is not as much of an issue as you allege but I can understand your position since you train and need to scare folks into needing your service. I hope that those that you train have enough intelligence to discern your fact from your uneducated fiction.

Post Reply

Return to “QuarkXPress 8, 9 & 10: General”