I'll expand on this from general principles, in fact. To make an operation work, management theory somewhat flippantly looks at bringing a set of Ms together in a harmonious balance, inputs which produce output. Men, Money, Machines, Materials, Methods, Marketing, Motivation, Madness - the list goes on and on. Marketing's in there, for sure, but it doesn't rule the roost as the MadMen would like. You use machines, tools, to turn materials into product. The basic lifecycle is start>loop (Inputs, Output, Storage)>end. Storage included things like all forms of asset, ie bank balances, stock, you name it. It balances Output-Input, ie growth. Marketing simply targets one part of the output, it isn't the output, nor is it anything else, oither than a cost reducing the bank balances in hand. Never ever mix input and output up. That's a con-job, and illegal, it was seen off in the early 1970s. Does TW need marketing? Not in the way you propose. Perhaps some of TW's tools which focus on the specific sub-classes of what TW produces (the ideas you list may do, but the most TW needs in the way of marketing is to maintain presence. Your sub-instantiation shows you neither understand the product, nor have the experience to correct your understanding yourself. You should have asked WHY it doesn't do what you want. That would have taught you something about yourself, that you have to put effort in to get what you need. Instead, you want to take over the world so you don't have to. Cruise missiles have just visited one of the more notable protagonists of that argument. Let me in conclusion offer you another managemnt truism: just as there's a triangle in physics, Speed=Distance/Time, so there is in marketing, Speed=Cost/Beauty. If you want instant gratification, then it'll cost you. As the Syrians have just discovered: I hope they feel it was worth it. So how do you translate your marketing aspiration to your personal goal? If the wheels aren't out there already, you do what the rest of us did, you build one, or make a better one. And that doesn't mean sitting there hoping someone will do it for you, it means rolling up your sleeves and learning how to make something better, the message being that God helps those who help themselves. Or in a more secular society, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. So as a final thought, here is a Round Tuit <https://img.etsystatic.com/il/439297/777756913/il_570xN.777756913_rrrs.jpg?version=0>. Make the most of it.
On Saturday, 14 April 2018 06:43:15 UTC+1, Jel wrote: > > > NO! Tiddlywiki is a tool, not a con. Sorry, marketeers, this tool is as > attractive as a lathe - and lathes can be very attractive to someone who > knows and appreciates their features and facilities. If you know how to use > a lathe, you can make something, or a tool to make something, which *is* > defined by a market need, the same here. But the market does NOT define the > tool. So clear off, marketing men, stop trying to take *everything* over > with your variants in The Kings New Clothes:if you're so brilliant in your > omniscient knowledge, go play in your own sandpit and produce something > better. Tiddlywiki succeeds precisely BECAUSE it isn't specific:to a need. > If I have a need, to meet, it firstly needs specification, by examining > thoughts, squeezing here, expanding there, filtering and sorting sheep from > goats, until my ducks are in a row and a complex network of interacting > considerations can be reduced to a linear explanation "because A then B". > TW allows that kind of network, so we can twist it, push and pull it, until > what we have on the screen is a series of tiddlers which make sense. This > sorts out the messes you specialise in creating > <http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/051/development.jpg>, > because it cuts through the rhubarb and allows the design team to correct > its targetting. A lathe is something simple which can have specialist > features added as needed: it spins something so something else can shape > it. If I need a toolpost, I bolt it on. Equally so with TW: it is at heart > simply a heap of conceptual memes, how you sort them out and what you do > with them is entirely up to you, with what you bolt on by way of add-ins. > In a way, even the Tiddler-Journal split's an error, journals are simply > derivative Tiddlers. > Effectively, what you're doing is getting the tail to wag the dog. In pure > logic terms, marketing drills down towards a specific definition of an > instance of something needed - and that is as far as it goes, TW goes the > other way, generalising so it can handle as much as possible. That's > precisely why it's useful, and exactly what you hate. Well, hate yourself, > because that's where the error lies. TW does NOT need branding, or a > makeover, or any of the fancy-pants add-ons which will turn it into > functional candy-floss in time. And yes, I am a TW Classic User because the > TW5 makeover threw some parts of the baby I need out with the bathwater: > what you should have done was tidy up the OO structure, sure, but at the > same time with the extensions needed to preserve TWC interfacing. It's > exactly what MS has to do with Windows, keep a compatibility-mode until > orphaned code is eventually upgraded to become compatible. Just like the > TW5 coders, MS failed to do in the early versions, they've learned the > lesson and preserve backwards compatibility now, and that's a lesson to > keep in mind for the future. > I date so far back in computing my surname's at the centre of all code > (I'm Jeremy Main, and MAIN() came from a bad joke 50 years ago, > contributing to the design of one of the first compilers which Bell Labs > picked over when planning how to write C). The quid pro quo of working in > OpenSource is that your work too is OpenSource, so although you should be > the person who defines how your code mutates over time, if you abandon it, > as LEWCID did, then it reverts to community property and it's one of the > functions of the community steering group to take orphaned code in hand and > find it a new stepfather. That's how to complete the TW5 migration, and it > does NOT mean peddling hogwash. > In fact, you demonstrate your inability to get things straight inside your > first clause. From a marketing point? What is a marketing point? I take it > you mean a point of view, but if you're so muddy-minded as not to be > precise in your definitions, then what hope does anyone have of meeting > your requirements? Within four words, you already created the kind of > confusion shown in that cartoon. > > On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 06:16:37 UTC+1, Mat wrote: >> >> From a marketing point, TW suffers from being too general. It kind of >> solves everything but this means someone looking for, say, recipe data base >> tool will choose "The Recipe Data Base Tool" rather than "TiddlyWiki". And >> someone looking for the Keto >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/fGy-NPGpX6s> diet >> will turn to... you get it. And so on for every subject/issue/need. >> >> So, what would it take for TW to have "multiple entrances"? One >> "entrance" that really is for 'recipe people'. Another that really attracts >> those feeling ketosis. Etc. >> >> I have some thoughts (not necessarily great or practical ones) but before >> I let them steer your associations, I'd love to hear your thoughts. >> >> How can we actually make this be real? (as opposed to hypothetically if >> we had a marketing budget etc) >> >> <:-) >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/84aa1bc3-3b88-4ff0-a2e7-e1cbc9eebb1d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
