[Marketing] Advertising Age: How Firefox Gets Grass-roots Marketing Right

[David Farning]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Sean DALY<sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> You are correct David, marketing always implies a target. A big part
> of marketing involves identifying a group, then tailoring a message
> for that group, while maintaining the "general" message at the same
> time. Although some use the term "mass marketing" to mean sending a
> common message to everyone, it really means segmenting targets
> efficiently where each target can contain millions of people. Here's
> Dell for example, marketing to "Digital Nomads":
> http://www.digitalnomads.com
>
> Often, an effective marketing technique is through "prescriptors" -
> the classic example is marketing to kids who will bug their parents
> for the new breakfast cereal or videogame. So the target in this case
> is children. This is of course very controversial. It's clear today
> that tobacco companies shouldn't target teenagers, but Saturday
> morning timeslots in the developed countries are still full of ads for
> games and toys...
>
> Kids are the original buzzmeisters and the successive waves of crazes
> such as Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, My Little Pony, Beyblades, DragonBall Z,
> MMOGs such as Dofus etc. (not to mention social networking sites)
> spread in the schoolyard. The incredibly profitable videogame industry
> has this down to a science, which doesn't preclude creative marketing
> - witness the Wii, positioned beyond kids as both "fun for the whole
> family" and "fitness for grownups"... this is a strategy called
> "addition of targets", and is the preferred way for companies to seek
> growth at competitors' expense.
>
> Getting a handle on a marketing message means identifying groups,
> choosing priority key groups, while maintaining/developing a general
> message for all groups (the public). For example, we consider that
> teacher buy-in is essential for Sugar's success, and as a way of
> opening direct lines of communication for feedback; this is a
> different orientation than OLPC which has traditionally been more
> "top-down". As recently as SugarCamp Paris we decided we need to
> narrow the priority "teachers" group to "technically adept teachers"
> for now, in the hope that they will not get stuck by common but easily
> fixed problems and so provide technical feedback as well. The
> challenge is how to target that group. Of course, we could shift our
> priorities if reasons were compelling enough; for example, an OEM deal
> could persuade us to place priority on education departments and
> ministries, like OLPC. An Ad Council endowment for advertising would
> mean that we could target parents widely for trying Sugar and
> soliciting small donations, etc.

I am not sure who coined the phrase, "The geekiest 10% of the PTA." It
resonates very well with me.  For the non-US based people.

> Let's start by describing our target groups as:
>
> * Learners
> * Teachers (K-8 general)
> * Teachers (K-8 technically adept)
> * Teachers (high school/secondary/other)
> * Parents
> * Education technology buyers
> * Education departments/ministries
> * Developers/Contributors
> * Ecosystem software partners
> * Education product/service providers
> * OEMs
> * Corporate sponsors/funders/partners
>
> (We could regroup or split further; Learners and Parents could
> generate additional categories too.)
>
> OK, let's imagine how each group could speed adoption of Sugar:
>
> * Learners
> Could try Sugar online, or at a library or kiosk, and tell parents or
> teachers about it. Older Learners could tinker with code, older still
> could contribute as developers. (The aged can certainly be Learners
> too, when the time comes we could certainly consider them a group!)
>
> * Teachers (K-8 general)
> Could use Sugar in the classroom and provide valuable feedback. Could
> encourage home use with SoaS for each child.
>
> * Teachers (K-8 technically adept)
> As above, but could also provide more precise technical feedback. Less
> likely to be blocked by technical glitches, able to solve some
> problems with command line interface (CLI) solutions.
>
> * Teachers (high school/secondary/other)
> Could mobilize classes to aid with Sugar testing, deployments, and development.
>
> * Parents
> Could encourage use of Sugar in the home. Could tell their kids school
> about Sugar. If technically adept, could provide precise feedback or
> contribute in other ways. Probably good source of small funding.
>
> * Education technology buyers
> Could add Sugar to plans involving classroom hardware, backend
> servers, support. Could contribute valuable technical feedback.
>
> * Education departments/ministries
> Could make recommendations with the "stamp of authority", easing
> widespread use in a district, state or country.
>
> * Developers/Contributors
> Could assist in coding, debugging, packaging, testing, or any of the
> non-dev ways: translating, marketing :-)
>
> * Ecosystem software partners
> Distros, solution aggregators such as Framakey, content creators such
> as GCompris, applications such as OOo, could lower barriers to Sugar
> adoption and increase the attractiveness of the Sugar offer.
>
> * Education product/service providers
> Could recommend Sugar solutions to schools, provide feedback (in
> particular feedback about all the times Sugar is not chosen and why -
> supervaluable for identifying misconceptions to be countered in our
> marketing)
>
> * OEMs
> Could include Sugar in hardware offer (netbooks...) for parents and
> classrooms. This would have a huge impact, since the
> installation/configuration barriers would be eliminated.
>
> * Corporate sponsors/large funders/partners
> Could support Sugar Labs directly or open doors to other
> funding/support candidates.
>
> Having identified groups (and this should be a dynamic, not static
> list by the way, critiques/suggestions welcome), now come the hard
> parts:
> * how to reach them
> * how our message should be tailored to them
>
> Most developed countries have one or two magazine titles for teachers.
> Ads in these publications would be extremely effective in reaching the
> target... but such ads are expensive... so we need to reach them in
> other ways, such as websites they frequent, education sector
> newsletters, etc.
>
> Concerning tailoring our message, the idea is to repeat our usual
> message (Sugar best K-8 platform, also happens to be free,
> collaboration built-in, big numbers (a million kids are using Sugar in
> 26 languages and 40+ countries), Sugar Labs is alive and kicking, we
> need testers and funders) with interesting points for the target:
> Teachers will be interested in Activities and stretching old PCs in
> the class, education buyers in costing, support, and servers,
> Developers/Contributors in our techno, tools and organization, etc.
> Ecosystem software partners are a special case: there aren't millions
> but only a few dozen of those, so our best bet will be materials
> adapted for them delivered directly by networking and making contacts.
> This is actually my motivation for attending LinuxTag.
>
> In my first 100 days I have placed a priority on getting our main
> message out: underlining our many differentiators through widely
> distributed press releases, new version of Sugar / new version of SoaS
> (shows we are alive & kicking), building a press/education
> dept-ministry mailing list now at 500+ contacts, making it very easy
> for the press to reach us, easing website navigation for first-time
> visitors, always associating "Labs" with "Sugar" for better search
> engine indexing, not overpromising.
>
> The next step will be to accompany our launches and partnerships with
> grassroots marketing materials: flyers, getting started docs, T-shirts
> and swag with an online store, banners and balloons. In each of these,
> our message will be reinforced, and in particular these will aid the
> new Local Labs in establishing their presence and reaching out to our
> target groups.

Two other themes that extend across all groups:
Collaboration - Just as we advocate that broadcast methods are not
always the most appropriate teaching methods.  Broadcast is not alway
the most appropriate software development model.  Collaborative
learning, and software development,
are4 proven models

Value of learning - At each level, Sugar labs does not have answers.
Instead, we have a collaborative, community building infrastructure to
help individuals and organizations work together to them meet their
'own' needs.  Then, we help them spread their own solutions to a wider
audience.


> Local Labs will provide invaluable coordination help for a great way
> to demonstrate Sugar's collaboration: Learners sharing Activities with
> Learners not just in the class or in school, but across a country or
> even across the ocean. Such events will generate massive positive
> publicity and interest.
>
> It's traditional for marketers to do what is called in the jargon a
> SWOT analysis: Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats. I won't go
> into that today in detail but suffice it to say that one of our key
> weaknesses is the absence of GNU/Linux on desktops (under 2% market
> share worldwide in even the most optimistic measures). Installation of
> a new system is feared and avoided by most computer users and
> Microsoft in particular does all in its power to discourage even
> dual-boot systems. Service providers have countered with running
> applications in browsers, but that doesn't really help us now (it will
> though when we can simulate/demonstrate Sugar online). Our response is
> Sugar on a Stick which provides a solution for classrooms with older
> hardware, but also seizes the opportunity of netbooks - it's easy to
> boot a USB stick in GNU/Linux even if WinXP is installed, netbooks are
> the only industry growth category, they are well-suited for children,
> etc.
>
> One final note: big-budget corporate marketers spend lots of time and
> energy studying the market and trying to identify trends, demographic
> shifts, etc. Although we are sorely lacking consolidated feedback from
> the field for now, we ourselves don't need advanced market studies
> because the theoretical underpinnings of Sugar are long-established
> and we are the challengers setting the trend. That said, an OEM will
> likely not consider preinstalling Sugar without market studies
> demonstrating its effectiveness in the classroom - that's where the
> value of scenario testing comes in.
>
> I walk around thinking through this stuff in my head all the time and
> I appreciate the opportunity to express it. I am just as capable of
> making mistakes as anyone and discussing this can only refine and
> sharpen it.

Great post.

thanks for the great information.

david



> Thanks.
>
> Sean
> Sugar Labs Marketing Coordinator
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:52 PM, David Farning<dfarning at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Sean DALY<sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://adage.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=137197
>>>
>>> An interesting analysis in one of the world's foremost
>>> marketing/communications titles.
>>>
>>> If Mozilla is a "tiny nonprofit" (by corporate standards I imagine),
>>> we must be REALLY tiny.
>>>
>>> That's fine -- nowhere to go but up!
>>>
>>> Sean
>>
>> When I have been thing about marketing, I have been using the term
>> rather broadly.  I have been thinking about reaching out and engaging
>> three particular segments:
>>
>> End Users.
>> Developers/Contributors.
>> Ecosystem partners.
>>
>> Is this the correct terminology?  Or is marketing more narrow with
>> engaging developers and partners complementary yet parallel
>> activities?
>>
>> david
>>
>