[Board] [Marketing] Reframe of the discussion: Mandate and Budget request Marketing Committee

Fri Dec 16 08:59:37 PST 2016

There is no postpone Gert-Jan - you are correct that a meeting has been set
now that committees are starting to get back to the board.

I am glad the meeting is set in time to have a budget early in the new
year,  and board meeting scheduled to approve budget early in new year. I
would like all our committees to be in a position to plan.

Both the budget committee and marketing committee are recruiting if you
would like to take active role :)

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:51 PM Gert-Jan van der Weijden - Stichting
OSGeo.nl <gert-jan at osgeo.nl> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> A lot of fuzz (not necessarily reframing!) is going on in this thread.
> Which is a good thing, since 75K (total marketing budget) or 50K (the
> website reboot++ part) is a more than substantial part of the entire OSGeo
> foundation budget.
>
> Now that the Board decided a few hours ago to postpone the budget
> discussion to a face2face meeting to be held somewhere next week I'd  like
> to add my 2 cents.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. Regarding process & finances:
>
>
>
> To me it is not clear what exact status of this request is.
>
> I guess that it's just meant as input for our treasurer (Michael Smith) to
> compose a complete OSGeo budget plan for next year.
>
> And thus, that responsibility for spending this sum of money is not
> transferred to the marketing committee, but that the marketing committee
> has to propose a more detailed plan, after which the Board can decide to
> transfer the responsibility for certain deliverables within a certain
> budget to the Marketing Committee.
>
> Or does the Board -on a yearly base transfer- partial financial
> responsibility to the Marketing Committee (and other committees)?
>
> A mixed version is also possible, in which the Committees have a financial
> mandate to a certain amount of money, and have to make a round-trip to the
> Board for expenses that exceed this amount.
>
>
>
> => I could not find a note on the subject of finances in the Committee
> Guidelines, therefore I hope the Board (and especially our treasurer) can
> shine a light on this.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. Regarding the deliverables:
>
>
>
> 50K sets the bar high.
>
> Amazon.com and booking.com have clear goals with their websites. So do
> municipalities who want their citizens to handle their local affairs
> through the website ("click")  instead of having them calling ("call") or
> receiving them at the town hall ("face").
>
> Amazon.com, booking.com and your local municipality regard a website
> visit as a success when you purchased a book, booked a hotel of paid your
> local tax.
>
>
>
> Our foundation's website is about informing & inspiring people, which is a
> much harder thing to measure.
>
> And thus much harder to define when are satisfied with the 20K / 30K / 50K
> spent on a new website / a new corporate style / a new digital strategy.
> More unique visitors? More page hits? A higher SEO ranking?
>
> I do hope the RFP handles those aspects. Plus aspects such as who will
> take care for technique as well as content after the reboot.
>
> (and most of all, I hope the new website design will include pictures of
> people. After all, a community is composed of people!)
>
>
>
>
>
> I regard this discussion, with its facts and views is very valuable in
> order to write a good request for proposal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Gert-Jan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Van:* Marketing [mailto:marketing-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *Namens *Jeffrey
> Johnson
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 15 december 2016 17:23
> *Aan:* Marketing; OSGeo Board
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Marketing] [Board] Reframe of the discussion: Mandate
> and Budget request Marketing Committee
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarifications Marc.
>
>
>
> I think its important to be clear about the deliverables. We would first
> like to have a vendor develop and formalize a marketing plan that drives
> all future work in a consistent, integrated and professional way. The
> intention is to have a professional firm develop an integrated brand style
> guide that defines the OSGeo brand itself and all sub-brands such as
> Geo4All, OSGeoLive, FOSS4G etc etc. An example of something like this can
> be found here http://gfdrr.github.io/innovation-lab-brand-guidelines/ and
> some initial work that Nicolas did here
> http://cartogenic.com/OSGeo-brand/guide/  ... The goal is to formalize
> how the brand is to be used and presented so we have some level of
> consistency and professionalism in all contexts. The next deliverable would
> be a set of patterns and templates that can be used to construct the main
> site and all subsites (again think geo4all, osgeolive etc). These templates
> would need to go through some level of user testing to ensure that they
> achieved the desired result and worked for everyone including visually
> impaired etc by following established best practices. An example of this
> can be found here http://patternlibrary.sandiego.gov/ From there, we
> would like to work with the SAC on selecting a piece of technology to
> deploy the new site and with the vendor on migrating the content and
> editing it to be in a consistent voice, tone and on message. Additionally,
> a vendor should provide some training on how to maintain the site over time
> including sub-sites with the appropriate parties.
>
>
>
> I'd like to reiterate what Marc stated insofar as this is a *maximal*
> budget request. It is the committees fiduciary responsibility to the get
> the best possible value for the foundations $ which means that the
> appropriate thing to do is to release an Expression of Interest and let all
> firms interested submit their details, ask some subset of these for a
> Technical and Financial proposal and select the one that provides the best
> value in a transparent way. It could very well come in costing much less
> than this initial budget request, but its generally not a good idea to be
> hamstrung from the beginning with proposals that are all way over budget.
> This is me speaking from experience managing projects like this for very
> large organizations and also for small non-profits.
>
>
>
> Thanks for everyones input!
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Marc Vloemans <marcvloemans1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> All (dropping individuals in order to make things less personal)
>
>
>
> Process
>
> based on our experience with multiple projects of similar size this is the
> order of magnitude these things cost from Professionals and we intend to do
> a formal and transparent RFP process that is open to anyone who has
> previous experience on the matter. So the cost could be well less, but we
> don't want to ask for 20 and only get proposals that start at 30. Better to
> ask for 50 and spend 30.
>
> Finance
>
> We are talking budget not cost (see mail Michael). We all agree something
> has to be done due to a mix of negligence, time constraints and
> underinvestment. From our mission it can be derived that outreach is a
> pillar under our existence. So a large annual budget should be allocated
> towards activities and tools supporting that mission. And if outreach
> activities like foss4g2016 bring in considerable profits it would be
> unjustifiable not to dedicate a considerable sum to equally important
> online outreach tools.
>
>
>
> Deliverables
>
> As Jody states it is more that an agency is required than just a website.
> Helping us with a marketing communication format and execution, guidelines,
> texting, brand design and the like entails more than doing a simple
> Wordpress exercise.
>
> We are a mature alternative to closed source so we should look the part:
> professional.
>
> Instead of an ROI we better ask ourselves what the opportunity costs are
> of not doing things properly.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
>
>
> Op 15 dec. 2016 om 16:28 heeft Bart van den Eijnden <bartvde at osgis.nl>
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Let’s not try and demotivate volunteers before they have even started on
> something (managing getting a new website done, much needed).
>
>
>
> As Michael said, it’s merely a budget item. Maybe quotes come in at 25k
> and everybody is happy.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bart
>
>
>
> On 15 Dec 2016, at 15:59, Massimiliano Cannata <
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually I have always been a strong promoter of refactoring/refreshing
> OSGeo website which looks really sad to me. And I still want a new
> website.. but not at the proposed costs...
>
>
>
> The point is that 75k is really crazy...
>
> The whole 1 year OSGeo budget for marketing only? No kidding...
>
>
>
> 50k for design the new website? It really cost 6 months/man work to do it?
> ...and with a salary of 100k a year I expect a professional web designer...
>
>
>
> I would expect at least a full breakdown of costs to motivate such a
> request.
>
>
>
> As always this is just another point of view, my angle of course...
>
>
>
> Maxi
>
>
>
> Il 15 dic 2016 12:53 AM, "Marc Vloemans" <marcvloemans1 at gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> Aside from all the 'joking'; the expectation that volunteers are willing
> to clean up our online legacy is stretching it too far. Otherwise the
> Website Committee would not have deteriorated over time with the last
> member leaving a month ago. And no one willing to take over.
>
>
>
> Our design looks worn out, the site is a total mess (navigation, texts,
> logic, links and what not). That needs some serious and professional
> approach and execution. With the volunteers managing the process on behalf
> of OSGeo, providing texts and other site material, getting outdated
> unusable downloads for collateral sorted out etc etc.
>
>
>
> With the Marketing Committee - after some hesitance - willing to tackle
> the problems, it would be unwise to send any disheartening and demotivating
> signals and thus send these ready-for-action-volunteers into the woods.
> Please take this advice to heart and read for volunteers 'last of the
> Mohicans'.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
>
>
> Op 15 dec. 2016 om 00:03 heeft Massimiliano Cannata <
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Ha.... 75k is equal to 75,000 USD?
>
>
>
> Wow... so marketing will manage all the OSGeo yearly budget?
>
>
>
> Didn't know we are a marketing foundation :-)
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Maxi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il 14 dic 2016 11:00 PM, "Marc Vloemans" <marcvloemans1 at gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> Board
>
> To facilitate tomorrow's discussion and decision in the board I have done
> a little rewrite of Jody's earlier discussion piece. I put it more
> explicitly into a following order of dependiencies. Further explanation and
> back ground can be given by Jody during your meeting based on his
> discussions with the Committee.
>
>
>
> The Marketing Committee has revamped itself with a new membership and
> intention to act upon a comprehensive marketing strategy. The committee now
> seeks a mandate and executive responsibility for:
>
> 1) establishing and executing a medium term marketing strategy geared at
> growing our community with new users, as determined in the marketing
> strategy for OSGeo-outreach, by means of;
>
> A - a new website and logo design (2017)
>
> B - a clean up of existing/preparation of new marketing collateral (2017)
>
> C - ongoing support for events e.g. downloadable marketing collateral,
> event formats etc (ongoing) via the website
>
>
>
> Resources needed to fulfil the tasks:
>
> - the new volunteers in the Marketing Committee for managing the project
> under item A and executing item B.
>
> - a budget of total 75k Dollar, of which 50k is for item A, 10k for item B
> and 10k for occasional event banners/flyers and Live-CD/USB sticks (e.g.
> Foss4g booths) and 5k for miscellaneous activities/purchases (e.g.
> MailChimp account for FOSS4G's).
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
> Mobile +31(0)651 844262 <+31651%20844262>
> LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/marcvloemans
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/marcvloemans
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/marcvloemans
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marc Vloemans
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Marketing mailing list
>
> Marketing at lists.osgeo.org
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

-- 
--
Jody Garnett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20161216/d4a9b2a4/attachment.htm>