[HN Gopher] Marketing advice from open source founders
___________________________________________________________________
Marketing advice from open source founders
Author : boomahora
Score : 58 points
Date : 2023-01-09 16:10 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (cannon.wtf)
(TXT) w3m dump (cannon.wtf)
| ahaucnx wrote:
| We at AirGradient market both, a commercial (closed-source) air
| quality monitor as well as a commercial open software / open
| hardware one (monetized through selling kits [1]).
|
| Unlike the article might indirectly imply, I see little
| difference in the key characteristics that determine effective
| marketing.
|
| Both product types need a clear and consistent messaging, both
| need to build an audience, both need to bring value to the
| customer, both need to be transparent about the pricing, both
| need to be clear how they handle data, both need to provide great
| support etc.
|
| Where I see a potential difference is in the customer type. Some
| of our customers prefer the open source version because it easy
| to make changes on the hardware as well as the software. However
| this also often means a little bit more work to get it up and
| running. Whereas other customers actually prefer the closed
| source product as it is bascially plug and play.
|
| What I personally do like with having both products and dealing
| with both types of customers, is that it gives the chance to
| "market" the open source version to customers that often have not
| considered this route in the past but actually provides them with
| the better fit and better value.
|
| [1] https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/kits/
| traceroute66 wrote:
| The guide talks a lot about "be clear with your monetization
| strategy", which is great, because it is important not to bait &
| switch people, as well as to be clear to the Freetards exactly
| how much of a free lunch they can expect.
|
| However, IMHO of equal - if not _GREATER_ - importance and
| entirely missed from the blog post is "be clear about what you
| are doing with people's data".
|
| You might well have just written the next unicorn dog's bollocks
| of software, but I (and I suspect many others) couldn't give a
| rats arse about your "journey" or any other marketing fluff if
| the practical reality is that you are secretly collecting
| telemetry all over the place, storing my data to train your AI
| algorithms and generally engaging in all sorts of other privacy
| infringing practices.
| jamager wrote:
| Yes, great point, but sadly I think we are still are in the
| minority.
|
| It is amazing for instance how many note taking apps are cloud
| based, with so little justification, for something that screams
| local first so loudly.
|
| You might think that Obsidian / Logseq etc are popular (and
| they are), but they pale in comparison with Roam, One Note,
| Evernote, etc. Syncing notes across devices in 2023 should NOT
| require a permanent copy in a cloud server, but here we are.
| boomahora wrote:
| This is a very good point and I absolutely agree transparency
| on all fronts is important.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Is there ever a point where we can just accept the reality that
| "open source marketing" is really kind of an oxymoron?
|
| If you want to give your work away for whatever reason, I salute
| you.
|
| I know it's hard to believe but trying to monetize what is
| available for free just doesn't meet with a whole lot of success
| in most cases. And it is really misleading to keep suggesting
| otherwise.
| boomahora wrote:
| If you want to give your work away for free, people still need
| to hear about it some way, which would be the marketing side of
| it.
|
| I think it's only misleading when someone markets their open
| source project without being up front about their monetization
| strategy (whether they have one or don't)
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _people still need to hear about it some way, which would be
| the marketing side of it._
|
| *Marketing* as defined in the article is specifically about
| monetizing and generating income from open source in some
| way. *This article is aimed at commercial
| open-source software (COSS)*
| kapep wrote:
| Where's the oxymoron then? Open-source can be monetized.
| Marketing can help with that. I don't see any issues with
| the term "open-source marketing".
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| They're essentially just saying "it's hard"
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Don't know about that. I make money designing & building
| Arduino-based systems for lots of people and Arduino is all
| about Open Source H/W & S/W.
|
| There are many, many people for whom "free" isn't good enough.
| luckylion wrote:
| For individuals, that's true: free always wins. It's different
| for corporations, they'll often pay for more commercial
| licensing or support. Unlike individuals, they're also often
| happy to pay because they'll spend money either way: buying vs
| paying someone to build/figure out.
|
| And I don't see that as an oxymoron. If you believe that
| something is worthy of sinking your time into it, and you
| believe that it should be open source, and you're not filthy
| rich and can afford to do it as a charity, you'll need to get
| paid somehow. And for that, you need marketing.
|
| And more generally, I'd love it if more open source developers
| adopted a business-approach to onboarding. "Here's what our
| product does, here are some use-cases it solves, here's how to
| get started quickly, and there is the documentation with plenty
| of working real-world examples" is just so much better than
| "here's some code that might or might not be what you're
| looking for, works for me, whatever".
| boomahora wrote:
| 100% right for corporations. When speaking with some security
| professionals, one aspect they look for in open-source
| projects is whether it has a monetization plan behind it.
| This is to give some assurance that there is longevity to the
| project and that it won't be forgotten about in the future.
| mindover wrote:
| Seems like you are equating open source to free. No reason to
| do that - you can have a monetized open source product.
| mejutoco wrote:
| You can make money with open source, so there is no
| contradiction.
|
| As an example, imagine an open source library where you sell
| support for certain use cases. Marketing your library will
| bring you extra revenues.
| sharmi wrote:
| Even if the open source contributor does not intend to monetize
| (not that there is anything wrong with that), even in it's core
| idea, it is still essential for open source contributors to
| know marketing.
|
| 1. As someone below said, even if you give away for free,
| people need to know what it is and where to find it. If you do
| not market, then you are just singing a beautiful song into the
| Void.
|
| 2. For an open source contribution to live and be useful, it
| needs to be maintained and evolve with the time and needs. That
| needs a healthy community around the project.
|
| 3. Open Source contributors are also living lives and there
| will come a time when they need to step back. This should not
| have a debilitating effect on the continuity of the project.
|
| 4. Also having a healthy community that supports in dev,
| responding to issues, documentation etc will have a positive
| impact on the contributor's mental health in the long term.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| I'm confused by this comment. What does marketing have to do
| with open source at all? I don't care if anyone ever uses my
| software. It succeeds by virtue of being open source.
|
| Open source software does not _require_ a community to form
| around it. Software can be "done" and in low to no
| maintenance mode. It doesn't _need_ to evolve with the time.
| It just is.
|
| I welcome the discourse around healthy community building but
| I really dislike this trend of conflating community with open
| source as if somehow it's a property of free and open source
| software. It ain't.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| > What does marketing have to do with open source at all? I
| don't care if anyone ever uses my software.
|
| You just answered your own question!
|
| If you care about people using your own software, then the
| best approach is to market it. Otherwise, why bother?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-11 23:02 UTC)