5 Aug
2011
5 Aug
'11
2:21 p.m.
> I am not a marketing expert, but words like
'Linux', 'FLOSS' might be
> frightening people. 'Opensource', 'Ardour' and 'Ubuntu' (and
probably
> Creative Commons) are words which lay much better in 'the market'...
I cannot begin to describe how much I disagree with
"rebranding" what is
being done to make it go big. Sure "open source" is a nice term, and
"create
commons" is too, but one should stand with what it is that your *actually
doing*, and dimming it down for people getting into the scene is not going
to improve the situation in the long run. Turning them into a veteran linux
audio guys: that's a better goal.
Restating: I disagree with the idea of
"marketing" names for what we do.
People will be draw to the comunity *because* of what we do, not because of
*how we brand* what we do.
Unfortunately, I won't agree there!
The company I work for produce software (a very VERY big company), and
they have a whole department for branding.
I know it is "sad", and as a developer, I feel that "if it is a good
software, they will come"...
But...not so...
May be rebranding is the wrong idea though.
GNU is (one of) the License for Open Source Software.
CC is (one of) the License for Artistic Content.
We might need out own brand for the advertising part! (A new step in
the Business Model).
Another thing I was thinking about is this: When we release a
software, it's really easy to know it's an open source software, it
has the GNU License for example... For music rights, we have the CC
license...
What about creating a logo for music created only with open source software?
Instead of having in the description of my band "oh I use only open
source software blablabla", just a simple logo attached on the website
of the band...
I think somebody mentionned that Lord Of the Ring sound production was
done in Ardour... Imagine if on each poster of the movie there were
just a small logo claiming that!
Aurélien