Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits?
Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier, openSUSE community manager, looks at open source marketing on his blog. The subject came up at two meetings he attended last week (a Novell strategy session and the GNOME Summit) and he suggests that the benefits of open source (including software freedom) be the lead message, rather than starting from software freedom and eventually getting around to the concrete user benefits. "One of the things we talked about in the marketing meetings in Waltham is this idea: Logic leads to conclusions, but emotions lead to actions. You can make the logical argument about Software Freedom until the proverbial cows (or gnus
) come home, but if people arent buying it emotionally, theyll stick with their existing stuff."
(Log in to post comments)
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 15, 2009 17:29 UTC (Thu) by brinkmd (subscriber, #45122) [Link]
The obvious response is what RMS has been saying for years: If you try to sell free software for example by pointing out that it is better in some other aspect, those users will be gone when proprietary software is (or becomes) better in that aspect.
The truth is that free software is not always better in some particular technical aspect. But it is always free.
Unless Joe Brockmeier has a convincing story on how to make people who come for the "user benefits" to stay for the freedom, I don't think that the marketing approach is the right one here.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 15, 2009 18:00 UTC (Thu) by 0b11101 (guest, #57638) [Link]
If the person understands the value of the software being free, then they will also consider it an important feature, when comparing against a closed alternative. A person who understands the value of free software should even be willing to pay more for such software, than for a similarly featured closed-software solution.
But Zonker does say that software freedom is important to mention when describing a free software project. He goes on to say that explaining this one feature of liberty need not be the primary talking-point in selling the software. I would agree. While customer understanding of software freedom is extremely important, this feature alone is not enough to get them to purchase software alternatives.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 22:32 UTC (Fri) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]
Usually people care very little about an abstract concept like "freedom" until their other needs are met. But when they've actually gotten a taste of it, they tend to not like it being taken away.
I think we'd be more successful in making people understand why software freedom is important if they actually experience it first. Until they see it first hand, it's not something they're going to care about.
So right Posted Oct 17, 2009 23:21 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It is quite true. Even when people are utterly pissed off by the lack of freedom (like obnoxious license renovations, closed and useless devices, or stupid anti-piracy measures), they will stand everything because they know no better. Trying to get them hooked via the corresponding qualities of free software is completely justified, since they are just specific manifestations of the freedom they now have. Trying to get them hooked via some shiny features is not a bad idea either, as long as the freedom is pointed out. Some of them will be willing to trade the freedom for new, more shiny features, but that is inevitable -- I guess.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 15, 2009 18:47 UTC (Thu) by rworkman (subscriber, #47472) [Link]
My entry into free software usage (and later development) was primarily by the *features* of the software (which was Mozilla Thunderbird) - I was at that point a Windows user who absolutely hated webmail and Outlook Express, so I needed a better mail client. Thunderbird was free, so I tried it. I liked it much better than OE, and at the time, the fact that it was free software only mattered to me in the context of "it didn't cost any money." Later on, after a bug in my ISP's mail server caused TB to not fetch mail for a few weeks, during which time I corresponded with one of the TB developers quite a bit, I developed a real appreciation for the "you can have the source code" context of free.
Fast forward a few years, I've *never* convinced someone to use FOSS simply because it's free. All of the interest has been in the features first ("Ooh, that's cool/neat/useful/etcetera"), and that coupled with the ensuing discussion about how/why it's free software is what seals the deal. Long story short, it's not an either/or proposition - a successful marketing strategy must emphasize both areas, with the introduction being focused on benefits/features.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 15, 2009 21:42 UTC (Thu) by brinkmd (subscriber, #45122) [Link]
It may be that everybody who would use free software simply because it is free is already using it, so you won't find people to convince anymore by that argument except among the youngest. After all, the movement has grown up and free software is not an obscure thing anymore.
However, my feeling is that there is still a lot of potential for the "free argument" to win over users. Governments should have an interest in supporting the public option of software development over the proprietary. Schools and universities, too (the latter of course have always done so to some extent).
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 10:28 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] I corresponded with one of the TB developers quite a bit, I developed a real appreciation for the "you can have the source code" context of free.Have you actually looked at the source code? If not, then it doesn't have much to do with free software, it just means that you've find a competent ahd helpful developer.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 17, 2009 3:56 UTC (Sat) by rworkman (subscriber, #47472) [Link]
Well, at that time, no, I did not look at the source code. Since then, yes, even if it's still not too terribly useful to me most of the time :-)
I guess I should have been clearer, as it isn't immediately obvious how one leads to the other. What I was trying to say is that the "competent and helpful developer" was some random person working on TB in his free time. Not only did he care enough about the software to write code without getting paid for it, he helped users without getting paid for it, and all of the code (yeah, even the bugs) was free. I remember thinking "Wow, there's something weird about this; I must learn more." I started trying to contribute back to the community in the only way I could at the time - testing nightly builds and offering user support for the things about which I was knowledgeable enough; I noticed a lot of talk about the linux builds in the forums, and curiosity got the best of me - I had to try out that "linux" thing. We see how that turned out :-)
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 15, 2009 22:36 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
The gist of the article is that convincing people that freedom is valuable is hard, so let's do something easier. In the third quarter he exaggerates how hard it is.
No, you don't have to explain all those things in that list, you just have to say "This IM client doesn't have ads because this client was written by a community of computer users". Simple.
"This word processor won't stop working after 30 days because this word processor was written by community of programmers."
"My computer doesn't 'get slow' after a few months and doesn't have many applications uninvitedly taking over to open certain file types because I get my software from a bunch of projects that cooperate instead of competing"
And then you can slip in a "it's called 'free software'" along the way.
We've no shortage of corporate new best friends who change the subject from freedom to branding/features at every opportunity. We need more talk of freedom to counteract this, not less.
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 6:35 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] you just have to say "This IM client doesn't have ads because this client was written by a community of computer users". Simple.But that leaves no reason to switch from a proprietary IM client that doesn't have advertisements (of which there are surely lots).
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 8:33 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Are there?
Without some ulterior motive (such as profiting from ads), I don't see much motivation to work on a proprietary IM client.
People write proprietary software when they want to control other people's computing - because they want to make the software do something undesirable and leave the user in a "take it or leave it" situation, hoping that the features are good enough that the user will accept the undesirable parts.
To explain freedom, we just have to find the undesirable, unwanted behaviours of proprietary software and point out that they're not in our software.
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 9:32 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
I don't believe MSN messenger ("Windows Live Messenger" these days?) has adverts. Microsoft's
ulterior motive is to ensnare a large group of users and rely on inertia and network effefcts to keep them locked in to an all-Microsoft solution, It's harder to sell open alternatives to MSN users since they aren't directly annoyed by adverts in a way that ICQ users are.
Or at least were, back when I last used ICQ about a decade ago! :)
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 10:10 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Hmmm, you could be right. So, I wonder why so many Windows users use ad-ware IM clients (such as those provided by certain search engine companies).
MSN must have other undesirable features. So we just have to spot those.
In fact, he's a bit wrong Posted Oct 17, 2009 23:32 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] What if it's actually a nice, useful piece of software? (I wouldn't know, I haven't used it.) Is the freedom argument diminished by MSN Messenger then? I don't think so. It is the good features of free software that have to be peddled, IMHO; some of them come straight out of freedom (like the ability to make your own modifications), others not so straight (like user contributions -- proprietary software may have them in the form of plugins). But when some good features are quite unrelated to freedom (like more emoticons or more channels) then it is legitimate to use them to further free packages. And then tell the user all about freedom.
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 10:43 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
I've yet to see an ad in skype which is a _very_ common instant messenger.
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 12:10 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
I know very little about Skype, but I thought there was adware:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=99
Or if not, there seems to be spyware:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/technology/internet/02s...
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 12:30 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
Your first link is about some Skype-Kazaa package. Skype has nothing to do with
Kazaa, so that's probably just one of the millions of fake software packages infested with spy-, adware and trojans. Why Windows users keep installing any software from dubious sources, that they can get is far beyond me.
The NYTimes link is about Skype-Tom, some version done for the Chinese government.
I'm not in favor of Skype and I'd much rather have free applications taken over that niche
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 8:08 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
I wonder whether expressions like a "community of programmers" will not put off the average person who might be attracted by the general idea? It sort of conjures up pictures somewhere in-between flowery-shirted people sitting around a fire and smoking strange things, and thin, pale-skinned people staring into screens in window-less rooms :)
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 8:40 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
"community" could be replaced by "network" depending on who you're talking to, but I haven't found "community" to be a problem. Or you can highlight that it was written by other computer "users", or maybe "enthusiasts".
Given that they've already seen the software in question, there's maybe not that much room left for runaway imaginations about the lifestyles of the writers.
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 15:57 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I think "community" is a reasonable word. You could use terms like "activist" or "volunteer" to describe such people, or anything which suggests that people are doing such work to improve people's lives generally. Of course, the populace in many countries is indoctrinated to regard independent, volunteer efforts with qualified suspicion (hence the condescending usage of the terms "hobbyist" and "amateur" by proprietary software vendors and lobbyists) and to favour corporate products, initiatives and brands wherever possible, so you have to work against that in some way.
This brand fixation, combined with a mismatch between trust systems on and off the Internet, presumably results in people consuming as many "fake" malware programs as they can get their hands on, as people lap up the supposedly high-quality branded merchandise which is being offered to them "for free!", while their friends (whose judgement they normally trust) reassure them that "it hasn't done anything bad to my computer so far". This exploitation of people, who wouldn't know where to start unravelling the complicated technical story if they had to do it themselves, all to the benefit of proprietary vendors (every now and again, Bill Gates or his successors pledges to "improve security" as if he's saving the planet, as antivirus vendors push their wares) is highly infuriating, but it does help make some good arguments about software freedom, the right to privacy, and a number of related topics.
He's completely wrong Posted Oct 16, 2009 19:58 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] thin, pale-skinned people staring into screens in window-less roomsI'm sorry, this is inaccurate? (With apologies to large bearded people staring into screens in windowless rooms, and Suparna Bhattacharya, there's still a lot of accuracy in that particular stereotype). (windowless and dark rooms, for preference)
The set of pale-skinned, Posted Oct 21, 2009 0:43 UTC (Wed) by niv (subscriber, #8656) [Link]
nix said: "I'm sorry, this is inaccurate? (With apologies to large bearded people staring into screens in windowless rooms, and Suparna Bhattacharya, there's still a lot of accuracy in that particular stereotype). "
I'm assuming that you only want to apologize to Suparna, and that you're not implying she's the only non-pale-skinned open-source developer. The rest of us <cough> will survive not getting an apology <cough>.
The set of pale-skinned, Posted Oct 21, 2009 23:52 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Oh there are others, but I wanted to find someone who broke every nasty
geek stereotype at once and left it reeling, and Suparna was the first to spring to mind :) (of many, but not enough)
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 5:45 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
I think that the average computer user cares about as much about their freedom to program as about their freedom to speak Aymara (with apologies to speakers of that language). They probably could be sold on the benefits though if people really focussed on the benefits for *them* and not on the benefits for the person doing the selling. E.g., free software is good because "if there is something bad there, someone will end up fixing it", and bad things include ads, spying on the user and crippled features. And of course, the price is always a selling point for non-corporate users, much as many programmers wished it wasn't :)
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 10:40 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
It's not about them having the freedom to modify it, it's about everyone having the freedom to modify it.
I've no intention to tinker with the code of my web browser, but since it's being worked on by various groups with different interests, I can trust that there are no back doors, I can trust that they will follow standards rather than breaking things as a power-play to damage other browsers, I can trust that it will never turn into a "30 for he full version" package, etc.
You're right that most users don't care about the freedom for them to program, but it's a mistake to jump from there to the idea that users can never understand how freedom benefits them. Newspaper readers enjoy the freedom of the press without ever wanting to write their own newspaper.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 10:53 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
Exactly, but that would be the angle to sell - the practical consequences for them of the freedom of the software. It is also fairer in my opinion if done sincerely - I often suspect some free software developers promoting their stuff to non-programmers of a certain rather patronising and disingenuous attitude of "what is good for me is good for you". Or perhaps it is just that they don't see beyond their own horizon that other people may have other needs, and try to solve their own needs in other people. And while I think that free software does solve many problems of non-programmers, I also think that programmers are the main beneficiaries, which affects the way they look at (and talk about) it.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 11:03 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
The last was referring to individual users of course, not to organisations and companies, for whom different "rules" apply anyway.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 13:05 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
We both end up pointing at the features alright, but the difference is whether you point at the features and say "because we're better programmers", which is how the linked article can be paraphrased, or point at the features and say "because this is made by people who aren't trying to manipulate you", which is a more direct way of saying what I recommend.
The first approach fails as soon as the proprietary folk implement some other feature to counter balance the feature we have. The user has been invited to compare software based on features, so there's no longer any reason to choose the free software option. If, on the other hand, you tell people about the freedom, then we'll have an advantage that can't necessarily be counter balanced by some blingy feature in the proprietary app.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 21:44 UTC (Fri) by chromatic (guest, #26207) [Link]
More than that, if the proprietary application begins to compete on freedom, the amount of available software freedom has indeed increased -- even for people who haven't yet heard of software freedom.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 16, 2009 22:34 UTC (Fri) by socket (guest, #43) [Link] Agreed. I often use the following metaphor when describing the difference between free and proprietary software:Imagine if someone tried to sell you a car that had the hood welded shut, and only the dealerships could get in to fix anything. You wouldn't stand for it - you'd like to be able to get a second opinion, or someone you trust to fix it, or if you wanted to get your hands dirty and know how to fix the car, nothing should prevent you from fixing it yourself. I don't know the first thing about cars, but I know people who do... and you're not a programmer, but you know me, and the hood on this software isn't welded down. If this software doesn't work right, or you need it changed somehow, anyone who understands how to can modify it. You don't have to learn how if you don't want, but with this software, open source / free software, you at least have the option. You're not tied down to what the original author thought it should be. Sadly, this metaphor carries less weight than it used to, because so many modern cars are very tinker-unfriendly, and independent car repair shops have been forced out of business partly as a result of the high cost of proprietary diagnostic tools, which talk to proprietary software running in the car. I once thought that proprietary software made sense for high-risk things like cars, medical equipment, and aviation... but now that I actually know the rules used by the FAA to try to ensure that the software is well made, I firmly believe we'd all be better off with open source software running in all high-risk environments. The FAA is only interested in thorough documentation of the development process (google for DO-178), not in code reviews or formal analysis or quality of testing, and I have no reason to believe that medical or automotive software is made any differently.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 18, 2009 9:27 UTC (Sun) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] The article assumes there is marketing of free software-based products. Can't say I've seen much, and certainly nowhere near as much as from other software product vendors.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 21, 2009 2:37 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]
It also assumes that an increase would be a good thing.
Frankly very skeptical of this idea. Marketing == lying. No, that's not an exageration. Marketing by definition starts with a conclusion (you should buy my product!) and works backwards to support it, which is inherently dishonest.
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 21, 2009 23:53 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Well, some marketing says "here's our product, here's what it can do,
here's why you might want it", which is not dishonest.
Unfortunately there's a classic positive-feedback race to the bottom here:
Brockmeier: Open Source marketing: Lead with Free or benefits? Posted Oct 26, 2009 17:01 UTC (Mon) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
Actually, marketing is more than just promoting the product. It's also
about decisions on the development direction of the product, who to target, and more introspective on what message you'd like to get across. I long disagreed that a FOSS community can do marketing, as in FOSS there is no top-down model where development gets steered. However, there is more to marketing than that - good websites, promotional material, key messaging, branding.
And about the lying, I don't think that's true. Just getting the message
|
|||||||||||||