[IAEP] the FOSS "brand" and Sugar Labs

[Sean DALY]

It’s time for the community to take charge of its brand
http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=347

The Agony of FOSS Branding
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/features/article.php/3824046/The-Agony-of-FOSS-Branding


I have read Georg's piece with interest. Bruce Byfield's post is also
worth a read.

I disagree however with the analysis that FOSS is a "brand" or should
develop its "brand". There is no brand and I'm not at all sure it
would be worth trying to develop one. Let me explain.

The world's most powerful brands (a good list to start with is here:
http://www.millwardbrown.com/Sites/Optimor/Content/KnowledgeCenter/BrandzRanking.aspx)
have something in common... they represent inclusion and exclusion.
They stand for something and strong brands elicit strong love or hate
reponses. A strong brand is recognizable and people's perception of it
is formed from multiple impressions. A prospective target of the brand
(consumer, teacher, or whatever) identifies with, or alternatively
rejects, the brand's values. A weak brand merely elicits.. a shrug of
indifference. Dozens of press releases are published every day by
companies and organizations you've never heard of, brands nobody cares
about.

There is an argument that marketing at the project level is
"microbranding" or somehow not contributing to the public's perception
of FOSS in general. I would argue exactly the opposite - strong brands
such as Firefox contribute enormously to the public's perception of
FOSS; users know it's FOSS and associate usual FOSS values of "free",
"secure", "reliable", etc. Branding is "Firefox" or "Ubuntu" or "Sugar
Labs". "Microbranding" is communication, swag etc. about, say,
TurtleArt or eToys - they *could* be developed as daughter brands, if
that was worthwhile. Strong daughter brands often overshadow a weak
"umbrella" brand; sometimes this is by design, when it's desirable to
phase out a culture-specific or dated brand and replace it with a more
modern one.

Trying to "brand" FOSS is a nonstarter because what makes a brand
powerful - that some feel included, part of it; while others feel
outside and annoyed by it - means not everybody is "in". But FOSS by
its nature is inclusive, not divisive... most of us probably support
the freedoms to run, study, modify and redistribute code :-)

A few years ago the OSI tried to establish a brand for FOSS with the
keyhole logo and a license "certification" process. They were
unsuccessful, partly because I think they failed to recognize the
importance of freedom to the FOSS ecosystem - the GPL, which Apple
carefully avoided for OSX (aside from the GNU tools), remains the most
common FOSS license - but mostly because one organization can hardly
assume the mantle of speaking for dozens (hundreds) of others. FOSS is
a decentralized world, which creates hurdles but which ultimately
offers the greatest options for direct access to the freedoms listed
above.

The Linux Foundation could be well-placed to do something about a FOSS
brand (cf. the Apple-inspired "We're Linux" campaign after Microsoft
had already copycatted it), but although GNU/Linux is FOSS, FOSS is
not Linux - FOSS applications run on partly or fully proprietary OSes
too (a point I don't wish to go into here).

Let's think of this another way, taking an example from a totally
different market: Perfumes. The fragrance industry has trade
associations (and heavy participation in others such as the travel
retail sector), but there's no "Perfume brand"... it's not even
possible, in a market where luxury brands go to great lengths to
differentiate themselves from dimestore brands. However, most women of
some means can tell you a lot about perfume: what her favorite perfume
is, others she has tried and liked... in places where they are all
found together, such as a perfume shop or the ground floor of a high
street department store. Even if Madame hasn't mentioned Guerlain,
Yves Saint Laurent, Givenchy, Dior, Chanel, Lancôme, or Gucci on her
list, she will recognize those names... without exception, strong
brands. Strong brands usually (but not always) have roots in a country
or culture; many women associate fine perfume with the great French
perfume houses, which is why lots of perfumes in Russia and Japan have
French names.

So "Perfume" is clear to everyone, even in the total absence of a
"Perfume brand". Of course, humans have liked and understood perfume
since Antiquity, and the brands above have enormous advertising spend
so you receive impressions whether you want to or not in glossy
magazine, TV, airports, etc. FOSS is much more recent (and much more
virtual). But look at how some use the same "regrouping of strong
brands" concept: http://www.ncose.org/node/47 the FOSS VT conference
where Walter and Caroline distributed our first branded sticks. When I
first saw that page, I didn't recognize 3 or 4 of the icons; but I did
recognize the others as solid tools I use all the time. It's very
effective marketing because the FOSS "brand" is communicated by the
association of strong individual brands together... it says that these
great tools have something in common: they are FOSS, and well-suited
for educational needs.

So successful FOSS projects, each with a strong brand and associated
together, is what the FOSS "brand" should be.

Finally, perhaps obviously (but it's worth repeating), a brand's
product or service has to fulfill its values promise for branding to
work effectively on that Grail of marketers, word-of-mouth buzz. Top
quality is usually the best way (but certainly not the only, just look
at Microsoft and discount retailers). People want to trust brands -
whether they like the individual brand or not, they like to *know*
that a Sony camera is miniature and reliable with a good lens, that a
Harley-Davidson motorcycle has a V engine and a throaty roar with a
tradition of independence, that Nike means speed and high performance
and correspondingly high prices, etc.

We haven't taken much time yet to work on Sugar's brand values
(including its roots), but that's not urgent - we are still building.
What *is* important is branding ("logo, logo, and logo"). What can
seem like nitpicking to outsiders ("callout should be lighter color
and bigger!") is part of an ongoing effort to pack people's
perceptions of Sugar into visual "shorthand". We are very fortunate to
have top-level designers on the project.

Sugar Labs has all the potential to become a major brand in the FOSS
pantheon (I personally am convinced this will happen) and, associated
with other major FOSS brands, will certainly contribute to the
positive public perception of FOSS.

Sean
Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator