Comments on: The Business of Brands, Open Source and Brands http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/ One foot in the muck, the other in utopia Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:03:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: People Over Process » Blog Archive » Grab Bag - Twitter, Reading PDFs, OSS C.R.E.A.M. http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-5662 People Over Process » Blog Archive » Grab Bag - Twitter, Reading PDFs, OSS C.R.E.A.M. Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:15:33 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-5662 [...] and this nice part on brand in open source: Another somewhat counterintuitive lesson from Red Hat’s story is the importance of a robust community version of its product. If done right, it will rarely take away paying customers, but instead will encourage important contributions from developer enthusiasts. It also instills brand loyalty in customers, which ultimately should help the FOSS company stem attacks from competitors such as Oracle or clones. As in any other industry, brand loyalty and familiarity is crucial, and in the FOSS context giving away a free, yet complementary product helps ensure both free labor as well as loyalty. [...] [...] and this nice part on brand in open source: Another somewhat counterintuitive lesson from Red Hat’s story is the importance of a robust community version of its product. If done right, it will rarely take away paying customers, but instead will encourage important contributions from developer enthusiasts. It also instills brand loyalty in customers, which ultimately should help the FOSS company stem attacks from competitors such as Oracle or clones. As in any other industry, brand loyalty and familiarity is crucial, and in the FOSS context giving away a free, yet complementary product helps ensure both free labor as well as loyalty. [...]

]]> By: People Over Process » Blog Archive » Desperately Seeking Personal Directories, The Identity 2.0 Wind-mill, or File Under Declarative Living http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-2148 People Over Process » Blog Archive » Desperately Seeking Personal Directories, The Identity 2.0 Wind-mill, or File Under Declarative Living Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:31:39 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-2148 [...] Mega-money sites whose core business is providing its users with a social networking service, like MySpace, have almost no motivation, ostensibly, to open up a user’s information. Sites like eBay that relies on keeping reputation data in a roach motel have little motivation as well. [...] [...] Mega-money sites whose core business is providing its users with a social networking service, like MySpace, have almost no motivation, ostensibly, to open up a user’s information. Sites like eBay that relies on keeping reputation data in a roach motel have little motivation as well. [...]

]]> By: Brian Phipps http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-2142 Brian Phipps Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:20:16 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-2142 The human side is certainly part of it. To me the key is to elevate brands from the traditional symbols, slogans and packaging meme to a higher stage of delivering real value. Brands thus shift from a sales tool to a "customer performance tool." This can level the brand playing field and give innovators a fighting chance against large companies who can outspend them in conventional brand media. And yep, in many ways this is a "brand extension" of Cluetrain. The human side is certainly part of it. To me the key is to elevate brands from the traditional symbols, slogans and packaging meme to a higher stage of delivering real value. Brands thus shift from a sales tool to a “customer performance tool.” This can level the brand playing field and give innovators a fighting chance against large companies who can outspend them in conventional brand media.

And yep, in many ways this is a “brand extension” of Cluetrain.

]]> By: cote http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-2041 cote Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:35:46 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-2041 If I can read a little into your comment: the human-to-human nature of open source between The Community and The End Users is a great example of a non-mass-media approach to brands. And, I think it's a huge part of what makes OSS successful, in addition to the software itself being good. It's the <i>Cluetrain</i> lens on software. If I can read a little into your comment: the human-to-human nature of open source between The Community and The End Users is a great example of a non-mass-media approach to brands.

And, I think it’s a huge part of what makes OSS successful, in addition to the software itself being good. It’s the Cluetrain lens on software.

]]> By: Brian Phipps http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-1615 Brian Phipps Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:20:44 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-1615 You make a lot of good points, especially wrt a brand approach for OSS. As I see it, we're now in a huge transition from conventional, media-driven brands (the kind we usually think of) toward a new form of brand that delivers value customers can use. The new form is very friendly to OSS and its allies, and to companies that innovate. The traditional brand is top down, one-way, and geared to impose belief systems that sell the product. It's a game made for large corporations and publishers, and it's now collapsing from its own dead weight. The new form of brand is bottom-up, interactive and collaborative. It's a brand of deeds, not words. In this regard, Linux is a much stronger brand than Microsoft. Since the goal of every brand is to be a movement, brands that nurture and aggregate communities can have a much stronger base than private companies who sit back and try to corral "consumers" with flashy brand campaigns. In my view, the goal of a brand is to enable customers to do more and be more than is possible through the product proper. Brands need effective platforms and programs much more than they need "looks." For me, a quick definition of brand is: company potential X customer potential. This situates brand relationships at a visceral level and opens doors for direct connections between employees and customers--another area where OSS can shine. Finally, and hopefully not making this too long a comment, we might observe that brands and software have a lot in common. --Brands have architectures. --They have roadmaps. --They have platforms --They have programs. --They have interfaces. --They have deliverables. --Brands are executables. --Brands have API's. Although they may not know it, most open source developers are already pretty good brand builders, at least in spirit. As you note, they need help in finding better ways to define and express their brands, for maximum impact and clarity. That is the (relatively) easy part in brand building. The hard part is building brand value, and OSS has already built a solid foundation there. You make a lot of good points, especially wrt a brand approach for OSS. As I see it, we’re now in a huge transition from conventional, media-driven brands (the kind we usually think of) toward a new form of brand that delivers value customers can use. The new form is very friendly to OSS and its allies, and to companies that innovate. The traditional brand is top down, one-way, and geared to impose belief systems that sell the product. It’s a game made for large corporations and publishers, and it’s now collapsing from its own dead weight. The new form of brand is bottom-up, interactive and collaborative. It’s a brand of deeds, not words. In this regard, Linux is a much stronger brand than Microsoft. Since the goal of every brand is to be a movement, brands that nurture and aggregate communities can have a much stronger base than private companies who sit back and try to corral “consumers” with flashy brand campaigns.

In my view, the goal of a brand is to enable customers to do more and be more than is possible through the product proper. Brands need effective platforms and programs much more than they need “looks.”

For me, a quick definition of brand is: company potential X customer potential. This situates brand relationships at a visceral level and opens doors for direct connections between employees and customers–another area where OSS can shine.

Finally, and hopefully not making this too long a comment, we might observe that brands and software have a lot in common.

–Brands have architectures.
–They have roadmaps.
–They have platforms
–They have programs.
–They have interfaces.
–They have deliverables.
–Brands are executables.
–Brands have API’s.

Although they may not know it, most open source developers are already pretty good brand builders, at least in spirit. As you note, they need help in finding better ways to define and express their brands, for maximum impact and clarity. That is the (relatively) easy part in brand building. The hard part is building brand value, and OSS has already built a solid foundation there.

]]> By: Danno http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-1029 Danno Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:03:50 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-1029 I think the word "brand" needs to die a messy, messy death. I don't see brand as identity or reputation or anything like that. I see it as an automatic, cultivated emotional response to any entity. Brand doesn't really convey that. The Automatic and Cultivated parts are equally important, I think. The cultivated part implies that there's someone trying to do something and the automatic part means that you don't have any control over your response. From my point of view, the thing that's difficult about brand is that it is impossible to measure a brand's importance. Particularly, I think because it's difficult to determine when establishing a strong brand becomes important. Brands can be important at all points of the spectrum of businesses, commodity, non-commodity, size of the business, type of product, breadth of products. But where and when your brand makes an influence on whether a sale is made or not doesn't seem to be something that can be measured. The only thing that I *do* know for sure is that very, very strong brands affect your word of mouth. A really great emotional response makes people gush about stuff. But, bad word of mouth is the only type of publicity that I know of that can actually be harmful. I think the word “brand” needs to die a messy, messy death.

I don’t see brand as identity or reputation or anything like that. I see it as an automatic, cultivated emotional response to any entity.

Brand doesn’t really convey that.

The Automatic and Cultivated parts are equally important, I think. The cultivated part implies that there’s someone trying to do something and the automatic part means that you don’t have any control over your response.

From my point of view, the thing that’s difficult about brand is that it is impossible to measure a brand’s importance. Particularly, I think because it’s difficult to determine when establishing a strong brand becomes important. Brands can be important at all points of the spectrum of businesses, commodity, non-commodity, size of the business, type of product, breadth of products. But where and when your brand makes an influence on whether a sale is made or not doesn’t seem to be something that can be measured.

The only thing that I *do* know for sure is that very, very strong brands affect your word of mouth. A really great emotional response makes people gush about stuff. But, bad word of mouth is the only type of publicity that I know of that can actually be harmful.

]]> By: cote http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-1015 cote Sat, 23 Dec 2006 06:30:47 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-1015 Maybe that one will do the trick! Maybe that one will do the trick!

]]> By: Rusty http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-1002 Rusty Sat, 23 Dec 2006 04:31:02 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/12/22/the-business-of-brands-open-source-and-brands/#comment-1002 There's a simple memory device you can use to tell when to use the word "it's" or "its". The one without the apostrophe is in the same family as the words "his" and "hers". All three are possessive and they don't use an apostrophe. There’s a simple memory device you can use to tell when to use the word “it’s” or “its”. The one without the apostrophe is in the same family as the words “his” and “hers”. All three are possessive and they don’t use an apostrophe.

]]>