Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Free & Libre are bad "selling points"

Sorry, I am not used to be "hard" in mailing lists, but I would like to 
stop this thread as it is quite useless, for the reasons I have already 
tried to express in a more polite way in other messages and I will 
reiterate - for the last time - in this answer.

On 1/2/11 3:43 PM, Tom Davies wrote:

> The assumption in this list appears to be that "free" is the only "unique
> selling point" (=USP) that LibreOffice has and that it will generate large-scale
> uptake.

No, the assumption is that we are going to use extremely sophisticated 
marketing strategies that are going to be shared in private - as I do 
not want to give any advantage to Microsoft, especially in US - and will 
grow the awareness of LibreOffice.

Of course, there will be many USPs, one of them being the concept of 
"free software".

> However, i think 10years of OpenOffice using that USP has resulted in
> MicroSquish dominating the market.  This proves that the USP of being free has
> NOT been favourable.

I have already requested in another message to avoid using useless 
"funny" way to call Microsoft. I reiterate the request. Please stop 
using any term different from Microsoft and MS Office.

The usage of these terms qualifies any individual as an unwelcome member 
of this community.

> If 10 years worth of real-life data is not enough then i doubt a market survey
> will make much difference.

Data in Europe tell that OOo has gone from nowhere to 20% market share, 
thanks to the communities that have promoted the software and made it a 
success.

In US, Sun has just been a marketing disaster, as in Europe (but in 
Europe communities have done Sun's job, a lot better than Sun).

Analysts confirm that OOo has grown from nowhere to 20% market share in 
Europe, and to 15% worldwide. US are the weakest market for OOo.

> In that same time-frame Firefox grew by a very much larger percentage to the
> point where it has now overtaken Internet Explorer within the same time-frame.
> Firefox did have the advantage that people though IE was free and therefore were
> relatively happy to accept that IE might not be high quality.

You are totally wrong, and it looks like you understanding of marketing 
- at least free software marketing - is limited. The reasons behind the 
success of Firefox have nothing to do with "free", and the demise of IE 
has nothing to do with "free" (being the two free a different story).

Firefox is a good product, IE is a nightmare, to the point that even MS 
has not been able to sustain it in a successful way.

> Ubuntu has also grown in a similar  time-frame to the point that in almost any
> newsagents you will see at least 1 magazine mentioning it or even carrying a
> full article about it.  Where are the articles about OpenOffice?

In Italy, there is an average of 300+ articles each month about OOo. In 
other European geographies the number is lower but significant. In the 
US, thanks to Sun, the average is 0.

--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vignoli@gmail.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/marketing/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***