Subscribe: Comments on: Is Open Source Marketing the answer?
http://www.web-jungle.com/2005/04/23/is-open-source-marketing-the-answer/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
brand  brands  communications  exciting times  marketing  martin  much  open source  open  osm  part  people  source marketing  source  von 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Is Open Source Marketing the answer?

Kommentare zu: Is Open Source Marketing the answer?



Netzkultur, E-Commerce and Digital Marketing



Last Build Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:41:38 +0000

 



Von: Web Jungle » Blog Archive » Offer DIY and the possibility to tell friends…

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:52:42 +0000

[...] Now, in Germany, we’re not quite there yet. But there are examples coming along. As a very much Internet minded brand, Mini is now asking users to send in their own video clips in order to win a Mini. Sortof like Converse and Coors did (see here). DIY clips (plus telling your friends about it). Should be a success, at least I hope so. Because then more companies might try that in Germany. [...]



Von: Web Jungle » Blog Archive » Open Source Marketing

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:07:37 +0000

[...] I still think, after this discussion with Martin Oetting [DE] and James Cherkoff, that there should be a differentiation between open source marketing and open source advertising. [...]



Von: thecod

Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:47:00 +0000

Martin, point for you. OSM is something different from OSA.
I mainly looked at examples of OSA sofar - only tremor.com and that australian brewery are examples of OSM as you pointed out. (There may be more, but I can't think of any just now - if anyone knows any, post them here, please)
But still, OSM deals with the roots of a brand. Because brands are built only in part through communications. In reality it's the organisation as a whole that defines a brand, with marketing playing one of the biggest roles.
But this takes us to the question, what builds a brand? The products or the communication? I couldn't say which: Nike is a brand which was mainly built through brilliant communications. The products weren't really any more special than the competitors'. Apple could be an example of a brand made up by great products that have a huge crowd of fans.
Anyhow, to not be misunderstood: I do think that this is a step in the right direction for Marketing. What they tried with focus groups and other researches doesn't display the whole truth of what people want from a brand. Pretty much the same as I said above about the danger of OSM. Only that Focus groups have just tens of people taking part, OSM might have hundreds of people taking part. But still not perfect. Question - can it ever be?



Von: Martin Oetting

Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:38:00 +0000

I'd like to add two thoughts to the discussion: [1] I sometimes get the impression that people mistake OSMarketing with OSAdvertising. I think the idea of OSM derives much of its power from the fact that it is fairly all-encompassing - imagine a company that includes the "audience" / consumers / clients in a dialogue that extends well beyond the aspect "communications". Marketing is about all 4 Ps, i.e. Promotion, but also Price, Place and Product. So I think companies who really embrace a complete idea of OSM are headed for exciting times.
And [2] is a case study of a brand that did just that: Blowfly Beer, an Australian beer brand, was built entirely with its consumers, and it in fact offers shares to these consumers. You can find much of their concept at http://www.blowfly.com.au/ .



Von: thecod

Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:24:00 +0000

hhm, I see what you mean. But building brands in a wiki fashion only works, if there is a collective corrective movement. Like in Wikis. And for that you need a general agreement that whatever task is at hand (ie building the best wiki-site) is understood by all. And that anyone working against this objective will be "corrected".
Plus: brands are part of making profit for organisations, unlike wikis and open source in general, where no monetary goal is attached. Even more: brands are important assets of a company. I always think of a quote of someone at Coca-Cola, undoubtedly the best-known brand in the world, which goes something like this: I don't care if we loose all production facilities or distribution networks over night. But I do care, if people forget about our brand overnight. (I unfortunately can't find the original quote...)
So, yes, control can be re-interpreted, but as long as the value of brands are part of the stockmarket value of corporations, they will not let loose of at least some control of the brand. Which is, more or less, what most brands did sofar: they decided to let the audience take part in communications, but they still decided on the general theme they should work with.



Von: James Cherkoff

Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:31:00 +0000

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. The point of OSM is to try and identify the 'new rules' for marketing as we move beyond the broadcast era and into a new one. The Open Source Movement with its co-creative approach spread among sophisticated online communities seems to offer
a lot of clues. The further we examine the marketing industry the more it seems likely that the actual assumptions about control are the ones that will need to change. But it's not anarchy. Just different. Like wikipedia. Exciting times!