Archive

Archive for March, 2007

Protecting trademarks in the open source world

March 28th, 2007 Matthew Revell 2 comments

Patrick Finch – OpenSolaris marketing chap – has an interesting post about why open source companies need to protect their trademarks.

He touches on something that annoys me almost every day: that a vocal minority of, often ill-informed, people think commercial == bad. I think Patrick has a point in laying part of the blame at Naomi Klein’s door.

Patrick’s main point is that trademarks are an important way for people to know what to expect. He quotes Richard Stallman:

“Trademark law … was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying.”

As an aside, Stallman’s next sentence, in the source article, doesn’t make so much sense, to me at least:

“Legislators under the influence of “intellectual property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.”

I’d like to add one thing to Patrick’s post: a trademark can be revoked if the holder doesn’t defend it (yeah, I’m not a lawyer, etc).

We should expect to see open source companies defending their trademarks. We should judge them on how they defend their trademarks. Linden Labs showed sense of humour when they granted permission to use their Second Life trademarks on the Get a First Life parody site.

As Patrick sums it up:

“Open source is not a free-for-all: it is fair-for-all”.

Categories: Branding Tags:

Frustrated philosophers

March 27th, 2007 Matthew Revell 3 comments

Marketing sits awkwardly between art and science.

Trouble is, big money goes into marketing and, if successful, even bigger money comes out. If you’re a business-person and about to hand 10% of your budget to a spangly-suited marketer, you want some reassurance. Marketing, as an academic discipline, provides this reassurance through theories, frameworks and studies.

Human beings are an awkward factor in marketing: you can’t guarantee that one set of inputs will result in a specific outcome. The closest that marketing can get is to say, “customers did this, we believe they did it because of our marketing activity and we have these studies to back that suggestion”. You can’t have a genuine control experiment. If you want to know why someone chose Nescafe over a brand of instant coffee that isn’t quite so foul, you can perform all sorts of studies to determine how much influence promotion, price, distribution or, unlikely as it seems in this case, product had. Despite your best efforts, two things get in the way:

1. People can’t always tell you why they make certain purchasing decisions.
2. Your marketing activity isn’t the only influence.

So, marketing people continue to come up with ever more elabourate, and often very useful, ways to measure their effectiveness and to help make success reproducible.

If we’re to introduce marketing to open source software projects, these theories and frameworks can help us greatly. While it’s important to remember that marketing isn’t a true science and that there are no guarantees, they can teach us what mistakes and what good decisions people have made previously.

It leads us, though, to the frustrated philosopher. Usually with good intentions, one or two people in an open source project point out that marketing is a well established discipline and that there are things to be learnt from other people’s experience. There are ways of doing things, they say, and that random marketing activity is of little use. In traditional business marketing, if you can’t measure your results, you’re wasting your time.

This is where I have to make my confession. A while back, I got stuck into frustrated philosopher mode. I was concerned that the Ubuntu Marketing Team needed to set SMART objectives, to have a strategy. After all, OpenOffice.org has a nice fat document in which they describe their five year marketing strategy.

Open source projects don’t necessarily work like that, though. OOo is, probably, an anomaly, for the time-being. I don’t advocate the eradication of plans, objectives, measurement, etc, as Pinko Marketing does. Instead, I think we marketers can learn something from the open source process: do it, share it, make it better, formalise it when appropriate.

People working on open source projects are giving out of limited time. Many of us want to see quick results, to reassure us that what we’re doing is worthwhile. With code, my impression is that the satisfaction of writing something and seeing it work is what makes a lot of people tick. Those of us interested in marketing open source software need that same kind of reward to keep us motivated.

There is also the rather odd relationship between community marketers and a commercial sponsor. More than likely, the commercial sponsor will have marketing plans and, quite probably these days, professional marketers. Commercial realities, professional marketers who are unfamiliar with the FOSS community and lack of time mean that true collaboration between a community marketing team and the sponsor’s marketers can be rare. Agreeing a common, mutually beneficial strategy can, therefore, be nigh-on impossible for commercially sponsored projects.

Although you’re taking a risk, because your marketing activity is likely to be outward facing, open source marketing should come from the bottom up. The same community processes that iteratively improve code can apply to marketing. It’s still important to aim to have a strategy and to be able to measure what you’re doing. However, to put that before all else will mostly only prevent any actual marketing activity from taking place and, if imposed by one or two vocal people, will probably fail to gain acceptance.

Marketing theory is important and useful. Strategy is important. However, while one or two people grow ever more frustrated because no one wants to set objectives, some other project is wowing everyone with its highly visible grass-roots promotional campaign.

Categories: Marketing, Ubuntu Tags:

Standing for election

March 24th, 2007 Matthew Revell 7 comments

I’ve lived in Wolverhampton for seven years and I actually quite like the place. There are things about the city that frustrate me, though.

Take the city council, for example. There’s a sense in Wolverhampton that our council is particularly lazy. Whether that’s true, or not, is hard to say. Certainly, when I’ve tried to email individual councillors, getting a response is difficult. My feeling is that the council is missing opportunities to help make Wolverhampton a better place to live.

So, I’ve decided to stand in May’s local elections, in my own ward of Graiseley.

Of particular interest to readers of this blog, I want to promote the use of open source and issues of information freedom, whether not I’m elected. I’d appreciate any input that people have on that front.

I won’t take up too much space on this blog. Instead, I’ve set up a blog to talk about my campaign and the ways in which I want to help make Wolverhampton better – www.matthewrevell.com

Categories: Politics Tags:

Joe Bloggs approach to topics of conversation

March 15th, 2007 Matthew Revell 3 comments

LugRadio listener, Munk3h, has created a Wikipedia page about me. I mention it only because of this fantastic phrase:

LugRadio podcast presenter providing a joe bloggs approach to topics of conversation”

Thanks Munk3h :)

Update 31.03.07: As I suspected, I’m not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page :) It’s gone now.

Categories: General Tags:

Neighbourhood Fix-It

March 9th, 2007 Matthew Revell Comments off

The people at MySociety have, once again, stepped into the gaping communications void left by local government in the UK. An encouraging point, though, is that central government funded it.

Neighbourhood Fix-It is simple:

  1. Something’s broken in your local area, so you visit www.neighbourhoodfixit.com
  2. Enter your post-code, press Go.
  3. The site shows a detailed map of the street in question. Click the location of the problem.
  4. Describe the problem (e.g. sunken man hole), enter your details and click Submit.
  5. The site sends your report to the relevant local authority.

Brilliant! Inevitably, a good number of local councils will fail to see why Neighbourhood Fix-It is important and many will ignore the reports, at first. Conversations with other people suggest that my experience of contacting local councils, particularly by email, is typical: i.e. they’re slow, overly formal and slapdash.

Of course, WriteToThem is now taken seriously by many Members of Parliament and Neighbourhood Fix-It is likely to gain similar acceptance by local authorities, within time.

Well done to all at MySociety, not least Chris Lightfoot who, sadly, died recently.

Categories: Politics Tags:

Conservatives back open source

March 8th, 2007 Matthew Revell 9 comments

A future Conservative government would “create a level playing field” for open source software, George Osborne – Shadow Chancellor – has announced. It’s the top story on the Conservatives home page, at the moment.

Citing the Japanese government’s plans to move to open source payroll and Extremadura’s Linux move, Osborne claims open source software could bring a?5% saving on central government’s IT spending.

It appears, though, that Osborne understands that it’s not just about cost savings:

“What it is about is better and more effective government. The problem is that the cultural change has not taken place in government. There isn’t a level playing field for open source software. As it stands, too many companies are frozen out of government IT contracts, stifling competition and driving up costs.

“All too often, a government IT system is incompatible with other types of software, which stifles competition and hampers innovation. Looking at the litany of IT projects that have collapsed or spiralled over budget, it’s clear too that this has meant billions of pounds wasted and public service reform being hampered.

“Let’s start being open source right now.”

It’s great to see the number two of the UK’s opposition party taking open source seriously. Whether it translates into action …?well, let’s see.

How to leave Virgin Media quickly and easily

March 5th, 2007 Matthew Revell 81 comments

Want to leave Virgin Media without queuing for hours? Here’s how:

  1. Call BT on 0808 100 5152.
  2. Ask to port your cable phone number to BT.
  3. BT will contact Virgin Media for you.

BT’s sales line will be answered far quicker than the Virgin Media customer retentions number. Virgin Media may call you to ask if you’re sure you want to leave, at which point you can either haggle for a better deal or confirm your choice.

I plan to stay with Virgin Media, for a number of reasons:

  • Excellent broadband: despite a couple of rough months, it’s back to the usual high quality service.
  • Sky needs competition.
  • They pay me: with combined discounts to retain my custom, my last two bills have been for negative amounts – they’re paying me to be a customer.
  • Virgin Mobile deal: I pay ?10 a month and nothing else for any mobile or landline calls.

I stopped using their TV service at Christmas, when I bought an excellent twin tuner Freeview hard-disk recorder. I don’t use the landline phone for outgoing calls as it’s far too expensive, instead I use the Virgin Mobile deal.

So, I’d lose by leaving Virgin Media. I couldn’t really care less about Sky One; Lost bores me now and I’ll never need to see Ross Kemp on Gangs, or whatever.

Categories: General Tags:

UK TV licensing

March 1st, 2007 Matthew Revell 13 comments

I bought a set top box at Christmas. The shop (Argos) wanted my name, address and postcode to pass to the TV licensing authorities.

Initially, I refused. I have a TV licence, I believe the TV licence is the least bad way to fund the BBC. Out of principle, though, I don’t see why Capita – the private firm that runs TV Licensing – or Argos should be able to demand my details for buying a piece of entertainment equipment.

In a rush, and with a hundred other Chrismas-related things to do, I gave my address and forgot about it.

Today, I received a warning from Capita/TV Licensing. They tell me when and where I bought the “television receiving equipment” and that, unless I ring to tell them that I already have a licence, their enforcement officers will visit me.

In the UK, each address at which TV receiving equipment is used must have a TV licence. Ours is in my wife’s name. Capita appear to check their retailer-provided information on both the name and address, so haven’t found that we are actually licensed.

The tone of the letter is threatening whilst, somehow, managing to weave out of accusing me directly. They tell me it’s illegal to watch or record TV without a licence. They say that, if I need to, I should buy a licence.

Why are they being so vague, when all they need to do is check their database? They even want me to phone them (on an 0870 number) to say that this address is already licensed.

I want to be awkward. If they can’t use their own database properly, yet still want to threaten me with fines and court appearances, I want to put them to the trouble of sending their heavies over, so I can show them our licence. I’ve done nothing wrong.

Categories: General Tags: