Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 18/06/2020 11:25, Italo Vignoli wrote:
The draft presentation is available online on TDF Nextcloud:

Many thanks for putting this together and sharing it, Italo. It's a
exciting document and opportunity for 7.0 and there are many new and
interesting ideas contained.

## Summary of comments:

- For the purposes of this plan we should compare LO to gratis office
suites, not only FOSS ones, in order to be realistic and competitive
- The plan lacks details of market segmentation -- information about the
targeted audiences and why they were chosen
- In some parts the plan's scope is too wide in my view -- marketing
can't solve all TDF's problems (eg community and vendor agreement issues)
- The brand is about to be updated and redefined: I think we can afford 
to be more bold and expressive in the new names before they are finalised

## Comments slide by slide (actual, not printed, slide numbers used):

Slide 18, 26: Only viable FOSS alternative to Microsoft Office - should
compare ourselves to free suites not just foss. Business models have
changed allowing free (beer) forever proprietary suites to be
comprehensive competitors.

Slide 19 and 20 lack title and clarity of purpose

Is slide 22 about marketing? Sounds like community management not
specific to marketing

Slide 28: the best free office suite ever - free as in beer? This claim
is too broad to be meaningful. For effective marketing we need to be
specific about audiences - LO is not the best gratis office suite for
some market segments. If we start off by assuming we are already  or
still the best for everyone then all marketing that follows will be

Slide 29: why are these the most important segments? By userbase /
community size / historical visibility / desirability?

Slide 32: LibreOffice Engine: great initiative to communicate the family
of products. I'm not a fan of "Engine" as it has unnecessarily technical
connotations, however achieving consensus is hard to I'll refrain from
further comment here.

Slide 33: Separation like this should make marketing considerably easier.
"LibreOffice Personal" could be more distinctive, inspiring, and 
reflective of LO's unique vision and history, however again I'll postpone
further comment to prioritise consensus.

Slide 36: .biz domains lack credibility in my view, even compared to
some newer unknown domains. Personally I associate them with
unscrupulous salesmen, probably because of how "biz" is often used as an
abbreviation in american English. Consider alternatives like .pro,
.enterprises, .services. I strongly support investment in building a
community on LinkedIn -- this is an ideal place for showcasing the
strength of the larger LO business community, both to encourage business
users, and to attract technical talent to experiment and apply for jobs.

Slide 40: no comments on the LOOL situation except to agree that a
win-win seems highly achievable with some creative thinking, and also

Slide 44 and 47: "XXX announces XXX Mobile, based on the
LibreOfficeEngine technology" -- how would this be enforced? For various
commercial reasons it will be attractive to deviate from this for some
companies in future (eg future entrants to the LO ecosystem). Is it
desirable to legally enforce it? If it's not enforcable, is it worth
adopting at all?

Slide 52: "We could develop a specific program, backed by a specific
certification, for these NGOs, to educate them about open source
software" -- An agreement between LO vendors to offer consistently
discounted prices to NGOs would simplify the marketing of these efforts
and likely increase impact. However the strategic benefit of such a
programme to the companies would need to be assessed, ideally by TDF, in
my view.

Slide 58: "which should bethe final marketing plan for the next five
years" -- it's a huge win that we will have a plan like this going 
forward, and I recommend that it is updated at intervals within the 5 
year time frame to keep it in line with market developments.

Hope that helps,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.