On Sun, 2005-10-23 at 16:24 -0400, Daniel Lynn wrote: > I sent out an email early on in the "OOo is obviously better than > MSO" argument proposing a couple of questions. I don't know if any of them > have been answered in the past, but if so, people don't know about it now. > For example, I asked if there was a chart written up anyway that someone > could show a company the cost benefit over time of using OOo over MSO.
That is difficult to do with one chart because not only do the prices of licenses vary to different people, it gets into the issue of TCO. TCO is notoriously difficult to pin down. How often do you need to upgrade? Do you pay for training when you upgrade from one version to the next, would you if you swapped office suites? > It > seems unclear if there even is a cost benefit, but that shouldn't stop a > marketing department. The only thing that is an absolute cost is the license fee. Its absolutely certain that you will save that. If we assume that in all other respects the cost of an office suite is independent of the particular brand then the license fee is the only saving. If we then get into well we have pdf export and they don't so you would have to buy a pdf exporter they could counter we don't have an E-mail client. In the end different users are going to have different requirements in these respects so savings are not going to be the same for everyone. > It may be that, upon examining the issue, money > should, in fact, not be talked about. Depends on the audience. If you know money is the main thing on the targets mind discuss it. If they are freedom freaks talk freedom, if they hate MS use that. Skilled sales people find out what floats the targets boat and they gear the argument accordingly. > Or maybe we can present the whole > issue in a way that makes it look beneficial to companies without invoking > the software-change anxiety that we've all run into. > > Perhaps I'm simply on the wrong list for this type of conversation, > but I can't imagine conversation getting any more general in marketing than > basic marketing initiatives. No you are on the right list but to be honest most of these conversations have been done to death. Some of the more useful stuff is to share specific expereinces of something that worked in a particular set of circumstances so if other people get the chance they can repeat. > As I said before, the petition's only relation to marketing is > whether or not OOo should perhaps spotlight it and try to draw signatures to > it. I suppose all of the arguments made about whether or not each of us > individually would sign can be applied to whether or not OOo should draw > focus to it, but the emails didn't seem to be making any progress toward > that end. > Many of the topics and argument made would probably be seen in a > good marketing discussion too. The difference is whether, when the flag > goes up and the discussion is over we're left with an initiative to work > with or just a bunch of headaches. Well the petition is there its an initiative and for the sake of a few moments anyone can sign it. I'd say that in a marketing project with no money, we need more simple low cost initiatives that don't take too much in the way of resources but help keep the product profile in people's minds. We could do with being at as many IT shows as possible but these cost money even if the volunteers give their time free. Even having discs to give out is not straightforward as there is a cost involved in that too. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
