Open source's evolving marketing message
For years, open-source advocates like myself have fixated on freedom. "Don't get locked in!" has been our rallying cry to the teeming masses, yearning to be free from the shackles of proprietary lock-in. "Stop feeding your firstborn sons to the beast in Redmond!"
At Tuesday's Open Source Forum in London, however, "freedom" took a back seat to cost reduction, performance, and IT efficiency. Not surprisingly, the message was even more warmly received, and probably will result in far greater uptake of open-source software than the freedom cry.
The reason is simple: people get paid to get work done. The chief information officer of Company X has a job to do, and that job doesn't entail weekday freedom fighting, battling software overlords down on Canary Wharf. Rather, her job is to make the IT trains run on time, and while open source likely plays an increasingly prominent role in this, its importance has less to do with high ideals than high performance.
Open source, in other words, is winning because it works, not because it's saving the planet.
Some persist in selling technology, open source and otherwise, based on ideology. That's why Opera's "Freedom!" message for Opera Unite falls so flat, as Chris Messina points out:
What I find so fascinating about this marketing message is that it presumes that owning one's own data and "connecting directly" with friends is somehow relevant to people - as though it's a big problem that people have been complaining about for years, and that Opera has finally answered the call.
But I think they're missing the big picture here - or intentionally obscuring it -which is that, while the idea of owning your own data may be attractive to neo-libertarians and open source geeks - most people really don't care and are happy to outsource storage of their data to someone else who can be responsible for backing up their data and fending off hackers. 200 million Facebook users can't be wrong, right?
The appeal for this sort of message is so limited as to be nearly useless. Tim O'Reilly recently suggested that open sourcerers often fixate on the wrong thing (licensing), overlooking the real promise and mechanics for ensuring openness on the Web (data, APIs, participation, etc.).
Add to that the wrong message ("You have nothing to lose but your chains!") and you have a recipe for reaching a niche audience. Open source can do better.
Freedom is important, but if Iran has taught us anything, it's that there are far more important freedoms in this world than the right to modify software.
It's time for the marketing message around open source to move beyond "and justice for all." Cost savings, performance boosts, etc. are far more relevant to likely adopters of open source. Such open-source customers are less concerned by the intricacies of open-source business models than they are by tangible returns on their open-source investments.
It's the new open-source pragmatism. Try it, you might like it.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 



The freedom fighter aspect of OSS smacks of radicalism is not useful.
It's all about efficiency and pragmatism.
But now, those same people are telling me: "Hey, I downloaded Firefox the other day. It really works, and does what I want it to do."
So yes, this is the way the war will be won. Open Source will win only if it's actually better.
This is why we live in a world where an international bank ends up running two computers with a KVM switch under every desk just to support the legacy systems.
Users and companies care a great deal about open computing, just not before the lack of openness makes itself a major inconvenience. Then they care a great deal.
In other words, from the point of view of the CIO, it's not about freedom, it's about power and control.
Licensing is just a reflection of these two philosophies, and are a means to an end, rather than an end in and of themselves. I've spoken for years about Apache's philosophy of openness, sharing, and meritocracy. Our license was designed to match the philosophy -- not the other way around.
Companies that have been using OSS are using more of it. And companies that have never considered OSS before are now joining the trend because the benefits and the resulting competitive advantages can't be ignored (and there's nothing like a recession to force change, is there).
Ideology has its time and place. But we?re living in an intensely competitive global economy. Developers strive for success of their projects and their companies. Greater use of OSS will play an increasingly important role in helping businesses and organizations grow and thrive in the global marketplace.
Spending as little time managing the beast - you need support? TCO for proprietary software is better.
Standardization on a single platform - the cost to support disjointed systems is a very high cost... Most companies spend 80% of their IT budget just managing and maintaining versus actually developing solutions. This is the tussy that has put most of IT departments right under the CFO - they are an operational cost center - they provide no value to the business because they service the business and maintain the software. I personally think this whole marketing strategy will only work to marginalize the value that IT brings - especially in tough economic times. Instead of driving the value of the platform you'll be focusing on how do we cut cost... something that at the end of the day Open Source will lose out on because user community support cores mean more fingers in the ****.
- by bogdanbiv June 22, 2009 2:39 AM PDT
- See my arguement on why Freedom is always a long term goal for most people and why most people prefer the short term advantages of software products. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/community_posts/freedom_enabler_not_feature
- Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)Granted "cost reduction, performance, and IT efficiency" are short term advantages and they always win against freedom, which seems a distant and impossible goal.