[Marketing] Feedback from Marketing Meeting

[Cameron Shorter]

What you have high lighted with regards to a clear website are very 
important and unfortunately the truth is sometimes painful to hear, 
especially when the task of addressing it seems difficult. It needed to 
be said.

The background you have given here clarifies that you understand that 
what you are asking isn't easy to resource or cheap. And indeed you are 
trying to work out a solution for it like the rest of us.

I personally appreciate your comments, and I know you are the sort of 
person who pulls his sleeves up to get things done. (I've seen you do it 
numerous times in Openlayers, Tilecache, OSGeo, ...). So please keep 
your comments coming.


Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Upon partial review of the marketing committee meeting on IRC last
> night, I noticed a couple things that I'd like to comment on.
>
> First, It seems that my email was seen as a negative comment on the
> marketing committee. I apologize that it was seen that way.
> Specifically, my original email was not sent to the marketing committee
> for a reason: I don't see that Marketing has -- up until this point --
> had a strong reason to consider the website 'theirs'.
>
> We have a "web committee" who is, as far as I understand it, tasked with
> the maintenance of the website as it stands today. This committee is
> primarily -- at this time -- involved in the upkeep of the current
> website, and not with broad redesign movements. This is understandable.
>
> The idea of significantly changing the website seems like it would be
> outside the realm of any existing committee within OSGeo. WebCom is
> primarily tasked with maintaining the existing website. Marketing is
> working on branding, providing print materials, conference attendance,
> etc. This is fine, and perfectly reasonable.
>
> My email to the board was an effort to point out that perhaps some
> effort needs to be taken *outside* the purposes typically set up by
> these committees -- that the Board should perhaps consider a seperate
> task, that of a significant web presence redesign, as important to the
> Foundation. This is not a criticism of existing efforts -- the existing
> website is a fine piece of work for what it is, adn the marketing
> committee's efforts are similarly successful at the tasks that are being
> undertaken. Simply put, website redesign has not been proposed as a task
> that belongs to either of these committees in the past -- at least, not
> that I've seen.
>
> My email was designed to bring attention to this particular aspect of
> OSGeo's success at this time.
>
> Another complaint was that I mentioned OpenGeo as doing a good job with
> creating a corporate-friendly web presence, "without making a mention of
> how much investment has gone into such branding." Allow me to clarify:
> If I thought this was a task we could snap our fingers at, then I
> wouldn't have bothered to send an email. The task of creating a
> successful brand -- successful insofar as it is recognized as completing
> the goals that people are interested in -- is one that is very hard, and
> website redesign to support that goal is often expensive. Very few
> people who are currently participating in OSGeo have the marketing
> know how to do even a portion of what I suggested.
>
> The fact that this effort is so significant is exactly why I suggested
> that the item be considered *before* the board approves budgets for
> 2009: specifically, if the board considers my suggestions, and finds
> them to have some merit, it may make some sense to address this by
> keeping some funds available for the task. 
>
> I am sorry that my comments have upset people. I am not attempting to
> belittle the efforts that the marketing committee has been putting
> forward -- it is clearly doing important work. Nor am I trying to say
> that the marketing committee should be specifically taking on tasks like
> website redesign. Instead, I'm simply trying to offer some
> information/guidance, based on my own personal opinions and the feedback 
> that I have been receiving of late. 
>
> In my opinion, the OSGeo website does not, at this time, clearly achieve
> the following goals: 
>
>  * Provide a clear, concise overview of OSGeo to first time visitors.
>  * Provide a clear description of each OSGeo project to potential
>    users considering using OSGeo software.
>  * Provide compelling evidence/information about OSGeo projects designed
>    for corporate consumption.
>
> It does, on the other hand, achieve the following goals:
>  * Provide a single stop to get access to a large quantity of
>    information about OSGeo.
>  * Provide an overview of recent news and upcoming events in the OSGeo
>    community.
>  * Provide a starting point for getting access to OSGeo projects,
>    especially if you're familiar with them already.
>
> As a resource, these things are clearly important to the existing OSGeo
> community. It's just not as clear to me that the OSGeo homepage provides
> a useful starting point for someone beginning to look at OSGeo -- either
> as a Foundation, or as a home of a project they might be interested in.
>
> Perhaps the answer is "This is not what OSGeo needs." In that case, I
> am simply wrong: that's an easy enough answer. I don't know who is best
> equipped to answer that question. I think that it comes from a variety
> of sources: Marketing, WebCom, other groups within the project, perhaps.
>
> Perhaps the answer is "This is interesting, but less important than
> supporting events." I would disagree with this based on what little
> knowledge I have, but am willing to accept that it's not worth the
> time/energy of OSGeo to investigate improved website presence.
>
> Perhaps the answer is simply "We can't afford it." This is also
> obviously a reasonable response.
>
> None of these responses would be out of line from the Marketing
> committee, or OSGeo as a whole. However, I thought it would be
> worthwhile to bring up the possibility that OSgeo's current community
> site is inefficient at turning first time visitors into people who walk
> away not knowing what OSGeo is -- in my opinion -- for consideration of
> some group of people larger than myself. 
>
> I apologize, again, for upsetting people with the tone of my email. I'll
> be honest and say that I don't really understand why this would be
> upsetting, but hopefully this better explains why I think that none of
> what I said should be seen as a criticism/failure of any existing group
> within OSGeo.
>
> Best Regards,
>   


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Systems Architect
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com