Re: GNOME's Target Markets

On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:53 +0100, Quim Gil wrote:
> IMHO we are not looking for a definition, we are looking for concepts
> put in great sentences and visual objects that arise the interest of our
> "target markets" in GNOME, so they want to know more, test it, have it,
> enjoy it, be proud of have it and be part of it.
> I bet none of the things you love came to your hands because of a
> definition.
> Have you ever seen Nike, CAT, Lacoste or Kelvin Klein trying to define
> themselves? Maybe in the 50s. Try to define these brands now and you
> will fail (and I say brands because they are not products anymore).

Apparently brands are _associated_ with things. Vague things. Vague

Non-software brands do often have the advantage that they are objects so
you can see what they fundamentally are.

> Maybe we should solve the difficulty of GNOME not being just a product
> by simply going ahead with the brand and its key concepts. We could
> leave the task of finding the appropriate definitions to Wikipedia.
> just do it - the dot in .com - anytime, anywhere - connecting people -
> sheer driving pleasure - where do you want to go today?... these are
> slogans I can remember, they are somewhere stuck in my brain even if I
> don't buy the products associated to them. They make me feel as if I
> already knew these products before having them. They don't relate to
> simple products such as sneakers, computers, game devices, mobile
> phones, cars and... eugh... web portals. They rather talk about power,
> reliability, excitement, friendship, comfortability... and power.


> Let's find the concepts to 'sell' GNOME (as Murray has started doing)
> and let's start getting excellent words, slogans, and visual concepts to
> package the excellent products the developers create an improve at every
> release.
> We don't need big discussions and arguments for this. Just throw ideas,
> words, sentences, graphics, animations... whatever. Entropy rocks in
> creative contexts.
> We do need a discussion on the targets we want to prioritise, though.
> Are they the end users? Mmmm, I'd say yes to the advanced end users,
> possibly not to the rest, definitely not those not even knowing about
> free software. I know it's more boring, but I think that IT managers and
> programmers are the ones that will decide (directly or indirectly) how
> many people end up using GNOME in the next 10 years.
> We should team together with the companies developing GNOME based
> distros, the hardware manufacturers willing to ship computers with GNOME
> inside, the software companies willing to develop mainstream application
> running smooth on GNOME. IMveryHO we have a much cooler brand than most
> of them - only unexploited (for the bad, also for the good).

Yes, this is somwhere where we are failing at the moment. We haven't
persuaded the Advisory Board members to get involved with our marketing,
and none of the distros currently push the GNOME name or logo. Even
Ubuntu has no GNOME logo in their splash screen.

I think we have to do this without them. If we are successful then they
will work with us later. For instance, most distros know that Firefox is
not as good a browser as Epiphany, but they still use it by default
because the Firefox brand is so strong.
> Think of the "Intel inside" stickers most computer users don't even fear
> to take way from the laptops they buy. Do you see Intel defining
> themselves? How does Centrino to achieve that friends come to me asking
> if they may have wireless connection without "a Centrino"?
> Marketing a processor for the masses (and the IT managers) is much more
> complicated than marketing a free desktop. Most users don't even see
> processors, GNOME users see the desktop all the time.
> The challenge is feasible.

Vote for Quim.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]