[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNUstep slogan - discussion and voting

From: Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller
Subject: Re: GNUstep slogan - discussion and voting
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:26:51 +0100

Well, that does not fulfill all criteria for a good slogan: it does
not describe a benefit for someone (contrary to "making your users

It is just a descriptive claim statement - and you may simply agree or
disagree and discuss hours about it.

There's a difference between Nokia (to stay with your example) and GNUstep: Everybody knows what Nokia is (a rubber boot manufacturer, right ;-)) but GNUstep has not that mindshare (yet). So the purpose of a slogan for Nokia is different to the purpose of a slogan for us: Nokia wants to improve its public image while we try to get into the heads at all, try to straighten some common misconceptions about GNUstep.

Nokia has used this slogan (tagline) since 15 years to get into our heads and straighten the misconception that they make rubber boots...

So I think a descriptive claim statement is exactly what we need at the moment, some "feel good" statement can follow up later when we don't need to explain any longer what GNUstep is. (Try it for yourself: Tell some computer related people that you are involved into GNUstep. You surely get the reply: "GNUstep - what's that?").

... and then, you start to smile (because you know yourself "GNUstep - makes your users smile") and reply (with a smile in your face) that GNUstep is the greatest thing on world they never have heared of.

If you smile (emotion) when giving your answer it is very convincing to others.

So let's not do the second step before the first one.

The "feel good with" is the only purpose of a brand building effort. Psychologists have found that we can much better remember anything if it is emotionally biased. Anyone who is interested in facts can already read the "what it is" on the tons of web pages we already have.

And the first lesson for potential GNUsteppers is that they simply remember that "GNUstep" exists. "What it is" is the second step.

How did Nokia come to their 99% mind-share? Because they did the second step first. Nokia did have their "connecting people" right from the beginning, just after they decided to no longer make rubber but to connect people ( In this document from 2001 they say that they have already used this tagline for a long time: http:// press.nokia.com/PR/200111/840959_5.html ).

When someone asked 15 years ago (when nobody did know much about mobile phones) "who is Nokia?" they said: "Nokia is a leader in mobile communications and connecting people to people." Then, one thinks: oh, great, they do something with benefit for real people. They care about us. And they are obviously proud of doing it. This must be good and the future.

If they would have said: "Nokia is a maker of mobile phones in Finland with 30 keys and 50cm antenna", then people would have thought:
- what do I need a mobile phone for?
- can they do that in Finland at all?
- isn't this expensive?
- why doesn't it have 31 keys?
- etc.?

People immediately start to compare and argue if you start with facts.

Now, if people ask "GNUstep - what's that?", why can't we answer right from the beginning: "GNUstep makes your users smile" (and you can add verbally: because it is a great framework for building applications). People will feel good by this answer and remeber much better that GNUstep is good for users and for them.

If you just say "GNUstep it is a great framework for building applications." people will start to compare with others (GTK, Qt, wWidgets, ...) and you will do a lot of technical argueing if C, C+ or Obj-C is better.

Well, this is just my 2 cents from more than 10 years in working in a product management and marketing department of a competitor of Nokia :) So, we should learn from the good examples.

Finally, the GNUstep community must come to a conclusion. So, who takes care of voting (as indicated by the subject)? Or don't we need one?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]