For the record: "product" was not anyone's root metaphor when the process/product dichotomy was created by process people during the "sixties." "Product" is a derrogatory term/metaphor invented by those who opposed it. That is, a metaphor designed to direct attention to what is wrong with the "current traditional" / formalist approach. So it is not surprising that "product" has undesirable implications (as Russ points out). Nonetheless, there is a crucial distinction (that I have, as Doug suggests, made various times in the past) between those who believe in process-for-process-sake, the value of which is largely in what students discover/learn in the process (i.e., a very valid and valuable kind of school writing, writing to learn), and process-for-product sake, where the value of working on writing process is that it leads to writing that works (i.e., to a completed piece of writing [a.k.a. "product"] that effects/influences readers). In the latter case, the assumption is that if our students learn certain processes used by "effective" writers, they can use those processes (e.g., heuristics, audience analysis) to make the writing they produce more effective (i.e., more likely to accomplish their purposes with their intended readers). The attack on "process" in Australia, like the mid-1970s attack on "creativity"/"during" that literacy "crisis," was an attack on process-for-process-sake. And the basis of that attack was that. whatever its educational efficacy, it did not lead to the kinds of worldly writing abilities students need for purposes other than self-discovery. (There were other bases, e.g., "back to the basics" too, but that's another story.) At any event, to foist a derrogatory metaphor on a faction and then critique the implications of that metaphor seems somewhat tautological, even if we do it because we have forgotten the source of the metaphor. "Current traditional" formalism has enough of its own to critique. And "genre" approaches are in constant danger of being reduced to decontextualized formalism in the hands of students looking for a quick fix, teachers who don't fully understand, and conservatives who want the reduction. (But that, too, is another story; cf., again, Australia, which the "technology" of linguistics is a major contributor to "teachers who don't fully understand.") Rick Coe