Bernhard Dippold wrote:
But now the results:
|----------------------------------|
| 90 points: Open. For business. |
|----------------------------------|
[le snip]
What will be now?
1) I cc'd Louis because I think, this positioner should be officialliy
approved by the CC to be presented in combination with the logo.
2) The Art project will mention it in the Art Style Guide and create a
logo file including the positioner that can be downloaded from the logo
gallery. For the future I'm looking forward to seeing this expanded
logo in business cards, web buttons, banners, presentations,
documentations and all that stuff.
The Style Guide needs to be updated anyway since we've renamed some of
the logo files and made them publicly accessible. If I can dig myself
out of doing work for actual clients (which is always a good thing),
I'll try to get to that in the next day or two.
3) The native-lang projects could try to adapt this positioner in the
different native languages (as fas as it is possible) and spread it
inside their communities.
I think it's important to point out that this was never intended to be a
one-size-fits-all kind of thing. Certainly, this works very well in
English, but the further away you get from common etymology, the less
easily it will translate. My understanding from our conversations on
this matter is that a consensus was reached that native language
projects should certainly feel free to adopt something different if they
do not feel that the English positioner works well with their language
or culture.
4) Everybody is invited to use this positioner (in combination with the
logo or without it) representing OpenOffice.org.
In fact, the more frequently it is used, the better: as we always say in
advertising, repetition is the key . . . repetition is the key . . .
repetition is the key . . . repetition is the key . . . repetition is
the key . . . repetition is the key . . .
And, if used consistently, it also enhances the professional image of
the project. This is as important as any of the actual features when it
comes to market share.
5) Perhaps we'll have a short notice explaining it's background to
community members with less marketing experience. Steven, you did
propose this phrase - would you like to write a few lines we could
refer to?
Sure. This is a rather lengthy explanation that I wrote at one point.
Feel free to edit.
Although OpenOffice.org is becoming increasingly popular among what
might be referred to as "the computer intelligencia" and progressive,
forward-thinking businesses, both the project and the product face an
uphill battle in reaching mainstream corporate users. This latter group
tends to be less sophisticated when it comes to software, to be very
risk-averse, and to see anything other than the status quo as "risky."
For this reason, they are skeptical of change. Unfortunately, this
largest segment of office suite users is also the group that must be
convinced to change if OpenOffice.org is to become a major force within
both the home and office; people tend to use the software with which
they are most familiar, and most people become familiar with software
through their work.
While OpenOffice.org has many strengths as compared to competing
software packages, it has one huge marketing weakness: it's not already
the status quo, and so is viewed with skepticism. In fact, one of the
biggest advantages for businesses--the fact that the suite can be freely
downloaded, distributed, and used--is actually a major source of
skepticism among would-be corporate users. Traditional corporate
thinking relies upon the idea of a profit, and the very idea that
someone would "give away" a commercial-grade product runs counter to
this mindset. And, of course, there's the old maxim--taken to the
extreme by many--that "you get what you pay for": thinks many a business
person, "if I can get it for free, it must not be worth anything."
But who can blame them? There are plenty of reasons for mainstream
computer users (people who don't understand the difference between
"having the internet on your computer" and "having your computer
connected to the internet") to be skeptical of free software in the age
of nagware, spyware, adware, and trojan horses. We all know that there
ar gigabytes upon gigabytes of freeware that is "not ready for
primetime." And the established players--one in particular--are quick to
capitalize on this fear, claiming that open source software is unstable,
unreliable, unsupported, unpredictable, and a "geeks only" endeavour
that is (and always will be) not suitable for critical tasks. The
product is designed for geeks and hobbyists, they say, and is not even
intended for mainstream business users. The issue is often phrased by
them as "sticking with what you know or taking huge risks with something
that's unknown."
(Another problem is time: "I don't have the time to learn new software."
Clearly this is an important consideration, and one that should be
addressed, but it can be addressed better through development than
through a positioner. More details follow at the end of this note.)
So, if OpenOffice.org wants to become a major player in the corporate
office, the mission is clear: convince mainstream users that the product
is a commercial-grade product that is reliable, stable, and supported.
In other words: a viable option for business and not a risk. In fact,
what OpenOffice.org needs to convince people is that the OpenOffice.org
office suite is specifically designed for business use.
All of which brings us to the positioner: "Open. For Business."
First, the obvious familiarity of the phrase in and of itself does
something to alleviate fears. It's not shocking. It can be understood.
It's "comforting" in its familiarity.
Second, there's the context in which you normally see this phrase: when
a new business is opening. This tells corporate players that the product
is new; it hasn't been considered and rejected in the past. This is
almost always one assumption that is made: we use X-Office now instead
of Y-Office because someone (nobody ever knows who) compared them and
X-Office was better than Y-Office. Well, now there's something new to
consider. (Although the newness can be seen as "risk", this is also
addressed by this positioner as will be detailed shortly.)
Third, there's the tie-in between the name (OpenOffice.org) and the
phrase, which serves as internal repetition. Name recognition is
extremely important for new products, and by repeating the key portion
of the name in the positioner, the name is reinforced (and thus more
likely to be remembered).
Fourth, the word "open" has a lot of meaning: not only is it an
abbreviation of the name of the product/project/community, but it also
refers to the open source nature of the project, the open standards used
by the project, the transparent process used to develop the project, the
way the license is "open-ended" (allowing unlimited usage), and so on.
Fifth, there's the term "for business". This also has a variety of
meanings that all apply to the product/project/community, and that
address the concerns of would-be users. The positioner, in this respect,
is a positioner that actually delivers many different messages:
• "OpenOffice.org is designed for business": Unlike a lot of open source
software designed for programmers and and people who take pride in
calling themselves "geeks", OpenOffice.org is designed specifically for
mainstream business users; thus it is reliable, easy to use, and familiar.
• "OpenOffice.org is open source for business reasons": Unlike most
competing products, OpenOffice.org can be customized because it is open
source. If there is something that's not in the software that you would
like, you can hire someone to add it. You can change it as much as you
want. You can open the hood and tinker with it if you want. (Which
brings me to something else that I think needs to be done, but I'll get
to that later.) In fact, since you have the source code, you never have
to worry about the product going away; there will always be someone who
can do upgrades for you if necessary. (And in a very large business, it
might be cheaper than transitioning over to something else, especially
since you can sell your version to others if you want.)
• "OpenOffice.org is now ready for use in a business setting": This ties
in to the idea that "open for business" is a phrase often heard when a
new enterprise opens. The product is now ready for the public; it's
mature and stable and can compete in the marketplace. It's not nagware
or adware or spyware or a half-finished piece of freeware full of bugs
and holes. Even though it's new, it's not a risk.
• "OpenOffice.org (the company) is in this to 'do business'": This
addresses the mindset that there has to be a profit motive behind
everything, and the suspicion of anything not offered for a profit.
OpenOffice.org is largely bankrolled by a huge player in the software
industry: Sun Microsystems. Sun is using this project as the basis for
its own commercial product, StarOffice. Therefore, there really is a
profit motive in distributing this product: Sun wants corporate users to
become familiar with the features of the software so they will be more
likely to buy a "higher end" version of it. Other companies work on the
product because they can give it away for free and then charge customers
for support. Or they can develop add-ins that they can then sell. The
specifics aren't important; what's important is the message: there is a
business model for this product. This product is a "serious" one and not
a project people work on merely "for fun."
Sixth, there's the punctuation (which is important): the period adds to
the ambiguity of the message: does it refer to "OpenOffice.org" the
product, the fact that it is "open" source, or the fact that it's got a
(relatively) "open" license, or that the project is now out of testing
and the "business" is "officially open"? The answer is "yes." It refers
to all of these things. Plus, of course, it makes it more dramatic.
Finally, it's short. Short phrases (especially if they are packed with
lots of loaded, ambiguous meanings) can be extremely powerful. They are
also more memorable, and from a practical standpoint are easy to put
into artwork and packaging.
Thus, my reasons for the positioner "Open. For Business."
One other thing the marketing project should do is take a page from the
WordPerfect book and give users the ability to "Microsoft-ize" their
application. For at least the last three or four versions, WordPerfect
has offered a simple option in the configuration to use Microsoft Word
shortcuts, menus, and so on. This was a brilliant move because, as I
said a bit ago, a major source of resistance to change is the fear of
having to learn something new. OpenOffice.org really needs to have an
option that allows existing MS Office users to have their menus,
shortcuts, etc. completely replicate MS Office. Yes, MS Office has some
really stupid menu placement (why format your document under "File"
instead of "Format"?), but end users don't want us to be "smarter than
they are"; they want us to be exactly as smart as they are and to make
transitioning painless.
--
Steven Shelton
Twilight Media & Design
www.TwilightMD.com
www.GLOAMING.us
-=-=-=-=-=-
Change is inevitable -- except from a vending machine.
-=-=-=-=-=-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
