Chris, I take it that you were not thrilled with Websphere. Could you say more? cheers, Luby

Well, I was being taught how to sell it rather than write with it so probably not, and my comment was probably out of line. It was just weird being back in an environment where people charge licenses and you have no control over the application your business depends on. All the people on the course (IBM SSM and e-Business Application Framework - yes folks, I'm now "IBM certified for e-Business" - certifiable more like) were VARs. VALUE added resellers. It occurred to me that a pretty powerful argument to persuade VARs the value of open source is this: When they're being VARs for IBM, Microsoft, or any other closed source, license-fee based company, they value they add is only a percentage of the total sale. For example, if they sell a "solution" that envolves IBM hardware, M$ and IBM licenses (say 40% total value) and then their consultancy for development and customisation (ie 60%), they're only actually adding 60% value to the relationship. On the other hand, if they provided an open source solution that utilised the customers existing hardware, the only thing they would be charging for would be their development time. So they would be adding 100% value to the relationship! What do other people think? cheers, Chris

On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 03:14:51PM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote: [brevity snips]

The customer doesn't realize:

1) That open source makes that argument largely irrelevant. But we don't really have the marketing muscle to fight this battle, at least where it needs to be fought.

since i'm about to have to make a pitch of oss/zope on a major project to a verrrry skittish ceo, i'd be real interested in any expansion of this point you'd care to make... :-)

2) That there are hundreds of consultants familiar with Zope/[insert other open source solution here] that can take over that 100% when the one who sold it to you goes out of business. This is also a marketing problem.

t'would be lovely if there were some statistics on the zope.org site to point at to help salve management's fears. the arguments often go along the lines of "where do we get qualified developers" and "they've got to be more expensive" yadda yadda yadda...

Grassroots, "line-level" employee support is most of the support that open source has got, and that's its marketing engine. The engine has been incredibly successful. More successful than anyone could have hoped. But it's still a fact that people don't like to buy something they haven't seen on TV...

Think of a high-level executive making a decision about buying a content management system like a foreigner on a business trip in a strange land. Everyone is bugging him to eat at their restaurant. He recognizes none of the names of these restaurants, and doesn't really even understand what kind of food each restaurant is selling. But then he sees the McDonald's "golden arches" (MS/IBM).. and he knows that. He knows McDonalds isn't the best food, but it's a safe bet in a foreign country when all he wants to do is eat and move on.

You need to understand this mentality to successfully sell open source software to the OSS-unaware. You need to produce the soundbite version of what a particular solution can do for the company, and don't get religious about it, just compare the features and the prices of the "McDonalds" solution to the OSS solution, and let the folks come to their own conclusions.

got any case studies or white papers that detail the trade-offs between closed/open source and what factors succeeded in turning the client to the open source solution? inquiring minds want to know... <g> -- charlie blanchard http://baldguru.com/ LosAngeles area Zope Users Group http://lazug.org

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Chris McDonough wrote:

Think of a high-level executive making a decision about buying a content management system like a foreigner on a business trip in a strange land. Everyone is bugging him to eat at their restaurant. He recognizes none of the names of these restaurants, and doesn't really even understand what kind of food each restaurant is selling. But then he sees the McDonald's "golden arches" (MS/IBM).. and he knows that. He knows McDonalds isn't the best food, but it's a safe bet in a foreign country when all he wants to do is eat and move on.

Additionally from what I've seen they dont even get McDonalds' value -- they get standard burgers and some half-baked fries (*cough* Broadvision*cough*OpenMarket*cough*), at a cost that would buy them a week of food at a first class restaurant if only they knew their way around. Put another way, they hope by paying big bucks (and by looking at reports that declare product X as "Best Product Of Y", wonder how much THAT costs) theyre safe from failure. Which is a total mistake. My somewhat bitter 0.02euro. cheers peter. -- _________________________________________________ peter sabaini, mailto: sabaini@niil.at -------------------------------------------------

Peter Bengtsson wrote:

...

hoped. But it's still a fact that people don't like to buy something they haven't seen on TV...

Well said! ...OSS failure in a nutshell.

When is Digital Creations going to apply the marketing campaign it needs to gain the "same" status?

The marketing folks are gearing up, but it's a tough thing... there's plenty of ways to waste money doing marketing, and they need to spend wisely. They're smart folks, however, so I have faith that they'll choose the right venues.

I'd love to see Digital Creations at Mobile Business Solution exhibitions just like Vignette for example.

Well, we did exhibit at Internet World(?), and recieved a Best of Show award if that means anything. There's a list of shows that DC is planning to go to here: http://www.digicool.com/news/tradeshows/view

Or just say "we're into e-this and e-that and we store everything in XML-this and XML-that".

The more "e" words and "XML" words the better the product! (sure)

Well, I think that's part of it (unforunately), but the bigger part of it is having an audience consisting of people with money to spend, regardless of the buzzwords du jour. - C

The trouble with being a marketer is that you get advice from everyone. We all think we know how to do it. But (with humility) here's a thought that might be relevant: I've just done a stint at a big corporate. They use Vignette, BroadVision, ASP, ColdFusion. Not Zope. Corporate strategy dictates that they take what they perceive as the least risky choice for their main e-commerce infrastructure - can't risk the public face of the company. Apache is in there. But it is going to be a long time before Zope is seen as less risky than, say, Vignette. Technically better, more productive, sure. But a perception of less risky? No. Uncomfortable but true, I believe. So the major infrastucture for e-commerce in big corporates is not a market that Zope can make a big impression on directly. Need to slide round the side. This company had a host of smaller intranet projects often on shoestrings and often staffed by interns. These projects have different criteria. Risk is less important on many intranet sites. Cost is important. Nimbleness is important. Zope could win here. We would have to be careful with the messages so as not to get cornered in a niche but it could lead to the big platform implementations, too. I managed several of this sort of projects. I'd never heard of Zope or I would have used it. I expect there are lots like me still choosing Vignette (as I did) even though it was expensive and when Zope would have been a more appropriate choice. So how about concentrating some marketing effort on small-medium intranet projects in big companies? And the people who commission and manage them. Finally, on buzzwords, I'd say go easy on Python. It scares people. Say Perl, say XML, say any other ML. Who cares what BroadVision is written in? Why should we care with Zope? (someone is going to hate that). ....Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris McDonough" <chrism@digicool.com> To: "Peter Bengtsson" <mail@peterbe.com> Cc: "Chris Withers" <chrisw@nipltd.com>; <liao@sandiego.edu>; <zope@zope.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [Zope] A Tale from IBM land... : Peter Bengtsson wrote: : > : > > hoped. But it's still a fact that people don't like to buy something : > > they haven't seen on TV... : > : > Well said! : > ...OSS failure in a nutshell. : > : > When is Digital Creations going to apply the marketing campaign it needs to : > gain the "same" status? : : The marketing folks are gearing up, but it's a tough thing... there's : plenty of ways to waste money doing marketing, and they need to spend : wisely. They're smart folks, however, so I have faith that they'll : choose the right venues. : : > I'd love to see Digital Creations at Mobile Business : > Solution exhibitions just like Vignette for example. : : Well, we did exhibit at Internet World(?), and recieved a Best of Show : award if that means anything. : : There's a list of shows that DC is planning to go to here: : http://www.digicool.com/news/tradeshows/view : : > Or just say "we're into e-this and e-that and we store everything in : > XML-this and XML-that". : > : > The more "e" words and "XML" words the better the product! (sure) : : Well, I think that's part of it (unforunately), but the bigger part of : it is having an audience consisting of people with money to spend, : regardless of the buzzwords du jour. : : - C : : _______________________________________________ : Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org : http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope : ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** : (Related lists - : http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce : http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ) :

Peter Bengtsson wrote:

...

Finally, on buzzwords, I'd say go easy on Python. It scares people. Say Perl, say XML, say any other ML. Who cares what BroadVision is written in? Why should we care with Zope? (someone is going to hate that). ....Mike

I disagree. Zope is very different from the others in this respect. Python is such a big part of Zope. You could almost say: "a bunch or prepared classes and libraries written in Python, and it even has a HTML end to it. The collection of these frameworks is called ZOPE" And Python is definitly something to be proud of these days.

I agree with the disagreement ;-) In fact, at least in our experience, we see Python used with - yes, you can say enthusiasm - in expensive projects of internationally active enterprises, where it serves as a glue language between C/C++ applications, Sybase databases, MQSeries and some Java stuff. I know of an IBM programmer team leader working in this environment, who really liked Zope, when it was shown to him first. In this environment it is not Python which lacks acceptance, but Zope itself in its function as an application server framework having to compete with tradenames like Webspere. At lower budget levels Zope has to compete against PHP and to a much lesser degree against Perl/CGI. Rarely people with experience in XML will shy away from Python. This said, I feel, that the former concerns more the people with technical occupations in their work; managers are more likely to argue simply that it is in the context of lower level budgets and/or simple web applications easier (yet) to find people with PHP or Perl/CGI skills than Python programmers. Or, even simplier, they had already heard *PHP* and *ASP*, but they never heard of *Python*. But you have to make a basic decision: Zope is mostly Python, and the power of Python is right that, what distinguishes Zope from purely webscripted applications developed with ASP and PHP. Hiding away Python from Zope does more harm than good in the long term. It would be like cutting an eagle's wings only for the reason that the eagle thus may look more alike to a familiar chicken for a (web)farmer. --- Flynt

Mike Krohn wrote:

The trouble with being a marketer is that you get advice from everyone. We all think we know how to do it. But (with humility) here's a thought that might be relevant:

I've just done a stint at a big corporate. They use Vignette, BroadVision, ASP, ColdFusion. Not Zope. Corporate strategy dictates that they take what they perceive as the least risky choice for their main e-commerce infrastructure - can't risk the public face of the company.

Apache is in there. But it is going to be a long time before Zope is seen as less risky than, say, Vignette. Technically better, more productive, sure. But a perception of less risky? No. Uncomfortable but true, I believe. So the major infrastucture for e-commerce in big corporates is not a market that Zope can make a big impression on directly. Need to slide round the side.

Yup, this is exactly right. This is what I meant with my "MS is like McDonalds" allegory... even though you know McDonalds isn't the best food, its the least risky choice when you're in a foreign country and you just want to eat. Although one of the other restaurants could have the most fantastic food you've ever tasted, it's the perception that it's just as likely that they'll serve worms that scares everybody. This is something that obviously can only be solved via marketing, because no amount of technical argument can assuage these kinds of fears. I know lots of folks (including everyone on this list, likely) are working on strategies for that marketing in their own way. ;-) OTOH, part of the reason DC went OSS with Zope was to get a (cheap) marketing bang that they would have otherwise needed to pay through the nose for, and probably couldn't have afforded in any case. It appears that this particular strategy has worked very well.

This company had a host of smaller intranet projects often on shoestrings and often staffed by interns. These projects have different criteria. Risk is less important on many intranet sites. Cost is important. Nimbleness is important. Zope could win here. We would have to be careful with the messages so as not to get cornered in a niche but it could lead to the big platform implementations, too.

Agreed... this is a hot market for us, I think...

I managed several of this sort of projects. I'd never heard of Zope or I would have used it. I expect there are lots like me still choosing Vignette (as I did) even though it was expensive and when Zope would have been a more appropriate choice. So how about concentrating some marketing effort on small-medium intranet projects in big companies? And the people who commission and manage them.

I'd love to see this. If you notice, DC is lately marketing Zope as a "content management" solution (which likely means about as much to many people as "doppelganger elfeldorf" does). But evidently it pushes the right buttons which cause decision-makers to open their wallets. Not being one, I'm going to claim ignorance about what "content management" really means.

Finally, on buzzwords, I'd say go easy on Python. It scares people. Say Perl, say XML, say any other ML. Who cares what BroadVision is written in? Why should we care with Zope? (someone is going to hate that). ....Mike

Hmmm... it's funny. Is Python promoted heavily in the glossies? I imagine it's mentioned. Would you remove references to Python in the glossies? We can't remove them on the Zope.org website, although maybe we should have a Zope.com that's a little more marketing-focused. I believe there are plans for this. Thanks! It's always nice to hear from an honest-to-god decision-maker. It's kind of like seeing a whale while boating... you know they're out there, but you don't see them very often. ;-) - C

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 08:14:12AM -0700, Charlie Blanchard wrote:

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 01:39:56PM -0700, Mike Krohn wrote: [snipped excellent commentary for brevity...]

...

Finally, on buzzwords, I'd say go easy on Python. It scares people. Say Perl, say XML, say any other ML. Who cares what BroadVision is written in? Why should we care with Zope? (someone is going to hate that).

oh boy, gotta agree with Python being scary here. the ceo i'm going to have to convince [see earlier message near top of this thread] has a couple issues around Python specifically.

1. for all the reasons outlined in earlier posts, he knows very little about Python and so has no 'warm fuzzies' associated with it.

2. he is concerned about keeping his legacy programmers happy. to a certain degree. his issue is that if we are going to move them from the existing M$ shop that they now are (VB, Access, SQLserver) and that the staff will have to learn something different, he wants thier 'buy in' and feels that to do so they need to percieve value (to thier own future) in learning whatever new technology we move them to. so it boils down to, "Python? will it advance my career to learn it vs say Java or [fill in the blank with whatever here]?"

i'm facing an interesting challenge here. especially since this guy is already letting his staff know he's willing to pay more and allow a longer dev time if they pick a known (non oss) solution such as M$ or Java. in all the rhetoric about how much better a business decision it is to go open source, it's interesting to see first hand this perception from one who has to make a choice and put his money and business future on the line...

Ask if he is willing to let some of that extra money slip towards his "legacy staff". I suspect that doing so might encourage "buy in". As to java, yes, it might help their careers. It will definitely help his, provided he is judged by man-hours spent to do projects. Jim Penny

-- charlie blanchard http://baldguru.com/ LosAngeles area Zope Users Group http://lazug.org

_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )