[Marketing] Marketing plan part 3

[Michael P. Gerlek]

As usual, Frank puts this more clearly than I did...  Let me boil down
my thoughts to this one question: is there a clear statement of
objectives for this marketing effort, such that we can measure ourselves
against?

-mpg

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marketing-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:marketing-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank 
> Warmerdam
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:32 AM
> To: marketing at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [Marketing] Marketing plan part 3
> 
> Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> > I'm sorry I haven't been to any of the ex-VisCom mtgs 
> lately, nor was I
> > around for the Victoria discussions, but I'll just offer 
> two points, in
> > case no one else has already, based on my previous VisCom 
> experience:
> > 
> > First, we are looking to spend a sizable chunk of the Foundation's
> > (limited) money on this; what are the opportunity costs, and will we
> > have enough money to do follow-on activities afterwards?  
> I'm concerned
> > that if we spend this money up front, we may not have 
> sufficient funds
> > to later attend shows and what-not.
> > 
> > Second, or more fundamentally, is this really a worthwhile 
> expense?  My
> > view on OSGeo marketing has evolved a lot over the past two 
> years, and
> > I'm more generally of the opinion that monies should be 
> spent on things
> > of direct value to the members.  That is, keeping our 
> infrastructure up,
> > getting better one-click installs, giving money to projects with
> > worthwhile efforts that need additional funding, etc.  More 
> succinctly,
> > what is it that the Marketing team is now intending to 
> "market" to the
> > world, with exactly what expected results, and how important is that
> > activity?
> 
> Folks,
> 
> The Marketing Committee has (or will so have) a reasonably concrete
> budget for marketing efforts, and I don't think this 
> committee needs to
> worry about infrastructure, and project development, installers, etc.
> 
> My only concern is that marketing expenditures should connect up to
> our objectives.  Snazzy and professional materials that 
> aren't connected
> to meaningful content will ultimately be a failure.
> 
> So, for instance, producing quality brochure/handouts we can provide
> at conferences that clearly and professionally explain each of the
> projects would (in my opinion) be a good expenditure.  But if we put
> lots of effort into stylish/professional looks, but fail to follow
> through with meaningful content then ... not so useful.
> 
> I don't begrudge the money that was spent a year or two ago on logos,
> and related materials, but ultimately it wasn't that directly 
> connected
> to goals, and I wouldn't want that to be our pattern.
> 
> PS. This is strictly outsider thoughts from someone not knowledgable
> about marketing, so don't take me too seriously.  I also haven't been
> following the details of proposed work closely so this isn't 
> an analysis
> of planned work.
> 
> PPS. I love the GeoNetwork materials but they *aren't* the 
> sort of things
> folks could print locally on their color printer to hand out 
> at a show.  They
> need to be professionally manufactured and presumably are 
> non-trivially
> expensive "per run".  I would hate to design materials that 
> end up being
> difficult/expensive to get into peoples hands.
> 
> PPPS. Does anyone know why I really really want to spell marketing as
> "marketting"?
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------+----------------------
> ----------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, 
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, 
> http://osgeo.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>