• On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
June 17, 2009 7:07 AM PDT

Open source's evolving marketing message

by Matt Asay

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.
Recent posts from The Open Road
Google shifts software value to operations, away from IP
Mobile: Still waiting to see what sticks
Google privacy controls: Most people won't care
Amazon's move mocks EU's fear of Oracle
Skype to open-source far too little
The difference a few years makes to open source
Novell cuts 3 percent of its workforce, plus benefits
Data's one-two punch in open-source business models
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (11 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by hymanroth June 17, 2009 7:51 AM PDT
OSS is simply the most efficient software development model. It allows people to assemble software from pre-existing components, which means they can focus on adding value rather than re-inventing the wheel.

The freedom fighter aspect of OSS smacks of radicalism is not useful.

It's all about efficiency and pragmatism.
Reply to this comment
by saintseminole June 17, 2009 12:30 PM PDT
So very true. For years, I struggled in vain to convince family & friends to use all the downloaded open source stuff I had, telling them it was better, simply because it was free and open. But they didn't have my same sense of outrage at the "big corporations" that were somehow my enemy.

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.
Reply to this comment
by odubtaig June 17, 2009 12:34 PM PDT
Yes, features are important, but I'll let you know when I no longer have to explain to people at length why Word files don't open properly in anything else (no, don't quote OOo at me).

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.
Reply to this comment
by fazalmajid June 17, 2009 12:37 PM PDT
You have it backwards - it is not Open Source but rather proprietary software that needs to justify itself. Corporate purchasing inertia is making the transition slower than it needs be, but eventually most companies will require commercial software purchases to go through an exception process rather than the other way round.
Reply to this comment
by fazalmajid June 17, 2009 12:44 PM PDT
You underestimate the resonance of the freedom argument in the corporate marketplace. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of Microsoft or Oracle's sharp licensing practices knows how valuable it is not to be at the mercy of your vendors. Only the most inexperienced or short-termist IT professional will ignore the potential of lock-in for expediency's sake. Well, consultants may - as Demotivators put it, if you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be had in prolonging the problem.

In other words, from the point of view of the CIO, it's not about freedom, it's about power and control.
Reply to this comment
by gstein67 June 18, 2009 4:02 AM PDT
There isn't any real change here. "Open Source" has *always* been about pragmatism. "Free Software" is the now-becoming-archaic terminology.

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.
Reply to this comment
by odubtaig June 18, 2009 5:44 AM PDT
Riiiight. How old are you?
by PeterVescuso June 18, 2009 2:21 PM PDT
It?s refreshing to see the new open source pragmatism Matt has described getting more notice these days. My company, Black Duck Software, has seen this new pragmatism first hand in the growing number of companies that are coming to us to help them manage the use of open source in ?multi-source? development environments where open source and closed source are combined to create new application and services.

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.
Reply to this comment
by jessiethe3rd June 18, 2009 6:00 PM PDT
Open source free... cost effective. Yes that it - try and capitalize on a down trend economy to mix up the message. I think that's a great change in marketing but to be honest I also think that companies (and individuals) enjoy the following:

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 ****.
Reply to this comment
by odubtaig June 19, 2009 1:18 AM PDT
So, exactly how much does your job depend on Open Source failing? I only ask since that's the biggest load of crap.
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
Granted "cost reduction, performance, and IT efficiency" are short term advantages and they always win against freedom, which seems a distant and impossible goal.
Reply to this comment
(11 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges

Mozilla helped reshape the Web since releasing Firefox 1.0 five years ago. Now it's got a reawakened Microsoft and Google Chrome to reckon with.

There's a map for that: GPS or smartphone?

Almost every handset comes with mapping software these days, but standalone GPS devices are becoming more affordable than ever.

advertisement

About The Open Road

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 general manager of the Americas division and 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.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Open Road topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right