Thread: Re: Forrester: Ingres and MySQL Lead Open Source Databases
FMTCW
Below is an email I received a couple of days ago from one of the best-known US PR distribution companies.
The software promoted in this email is interesting in that it draws attention to one of the problems involved with doing PR well.
I agree with the principal that it needs to be led by a professional, not volunteers. The actual distribution and local content scouting might be done by volunteers but the core PR strategy needs someone who can string an effective message together. From my observation, that is an essential skill that is not common.
Handling PR well is as difficult as designing databases well. If we want great PR, it needs to be regular, well written, relevant, interesting, timely and of public interest. There are people who could take on this work who could be quite affordable. Certainly, the value would justify the investment.
Rob Napier
------ Forwarded Message
From: Kay Guindon <kguindon@enr-corp.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: rob@doitonce.net.au
Subject: Avoid the PR Blacklist
If you're having trouble reading this email, click here <http://onekit.enr-corp.com/1005970/index.html> to view it in your browser.
<http://www.prmatchpoint.com>
Avoid the PR Spam Blacklist
Last week a well-regarded blogger published and blacklisted <http://prspammers.pbworks.com> the names of individual PR firms and publicists who have sent "unsolicited (and almost always irrelevant) product pitches." While we know that you do not set out deliberately to "spam" journalists, it is clear that the practices that we have relied on in the past are no longer effective for engaging today's media. Many of these practices are, in fact, counterproductive. Our industry is changing. And as professionals, we must adapt to the way that our audience – the media – is doing business today. Journalists want story ideas they can use. Journalists don't want an email box full of spam. New rules require new tools. And we think our application, MatchPoint, may provide you with a more productive way to engage the media. MatchPoint identifies relevant journalists based upon their published work, so there is never a chance of spam. Journalists only receive your pitch through MatchPoint once their prior published work indicates a clear interest in your topic. Please take a moment to read about MatchPoint. If you agree that this may be a more effective way to engage today's media, we hope you will register for a free 10-day trial.
Try MatchPoint at no cost for 10
days. If you agree that MatchPoint
changes your game, subscribe for
only $75/month <http://www.prmatchpoint.com/free_trial.asp?SRC=SAW>
Questions? Call (888) 927-7526 or email matchpoint@enr-corp.com
eNR Services, Inc. | 20 Glover Avenue | Norwalk, CT 06850
Below is an email I received a couple of days ago from one of the best-known US PR distribution companies.
The software promoted in this email is interesting in that it draws attention to one of the problems involved with doing PR well.
I agree with the principal that it needs to be led by a professional, not volunteers. The actual distribution and local content scouting might be done by volunteers but the core PR strategy needs someone who can string an effective message together. From my observation, that is an essential skill that is not common.
Handling PR well is as difficult as designing databases well. If we want great PR, it needs to be regular, well written, relevant, interesting, timely and of public interest. There are people who could take on this work who could be quite affordable. Certainly, the value would justify the investment.
Rob Napier
------ Forwarded Message
From: Kay Guindon <kguindon@enr-corp.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: rob@doitonce.net.au
Subject: Avoid the PR Blacklist
If you're having trouble reading this email, click here <http://onekit.enr-corp.com/1005970/index.html> to view it in your browser.
<http://www.prmatchpoint.com>
Avoid the PR Spam Blacklist
Last week a well-regarded blogger published and blacklisted <http://prspammers.pbworks.com> the names of individual PR firms and publicists who have sent "unsolicited (and almost always irrelevant) product pitches." While we know that you do not set out deliberately to "spam" journalists, it is clear that the practices that we have relied on in the past are no longer effective for engaging today's media. Many of these practices are, in fact, counterproductive. Our industry is changing. And as professionals, we must adapt to the way that our audience – the media – is doing business today. Journalists want story ideas they can use. Journalists don't want an email box full of spam. New rules require new tools. And we think our application, MatchPoint, may provide you with a more productive way to engage the media. MatchPoint identifies relevant journalists based upon their published work, so there is never a chance of spam. Journalists only receive your pitch through MatchPoint once their prior published work indicates a clear interest in your topic. Please take a moment to read about MatchPoint. If you agree that this may be a more effective way to engage today's media, we hope you will register for a free 10-day trial.
Try MatchPoint at no cost for 10
days. If you agree that MatchPoint
changes your game, subscribe for
only $75/month <http://www.prmatchpoint.com/free_trial.asp?SRC=SAW>
Questions? Call (888) 927-7526 or email matchpoint@enr-corp.com
eNR Services, Inc. | 20 Glover Avenue | Norwalk, CT 06850
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote: > FMTCW > > Below is an email I received a couple of days ago from one of the best-known > US PR distribution companies. How amusing. So they're spamming you with a pitch based on avoiding a spammer blacklist? > Certainly, the value would justify the investment. How does it result in Postgres being better software? -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
Greg
No. Firstly, I have been a customer of theirs, so it is not spam.
Secondly, they are a PR distribution house. They maintain a database of contacts for journalists. This is the bread and butter of PR consultants. The ad is simply claiming to offer more targeted mail outs to avoid being seen as a spammer.
And at the risk of suggesting that your response confirms my point, PR is not a simple process. It needs to be done by people who really understand the complexities of getting quality stories placed.
On 20/8/09 8:03 PM, "Greg Stark" <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote:
>> FMTCW
>>
>> Below is an email I received a couple of days ago from one of the best-known
>> US PR distribution companies.
>
> How amusing. So they're spamming you with a pitch based on avoiding a
> spammer blacklist?
>
>> Certainly, the value would justify the investment.
>
> How does it result in Postgres being better software?
Regards
Rob Napier
No. Firstly, I have been a customer of theirs, so it is not spam.
Secondly, they are a PR distribution house. They maintain a database of contacts for journalists. This is the bread and butter of PR consultants. The ad is simply claiming to offer more targeted mail outs to avoid being seen as a spammer.
And at the risk of suggesting that your response confirms my point, PR is not a simple process. It needs to be done by people who really understand the complexities of getting quality stories placed.
On 20/8/09 8:03 PM, "Greg Stark" <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote:
>> FMTCW
>>
>> Below is an email I received a couple of days ago from one of the best-known
>> US PR distribution companies.
>
> How amusing. So they're spamming you with a pitch based on avoiding a
> spammer blacklist?
>
>> Certainly, the value would justify the investment.
>
> How does it result in Postgres being better software?
Regards
Rob Napier
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote: > No. Firstly, I have been a customer of theirs, so it is not spam. > > Secondly, they are a PR distribution house. They maintain a database of > contacts for journalists. This is the bread and butter of PR consultants. > The ad is simply claiming to offer more targeted mail outs to avoid being > seen as a spammer. Well I don't think we should be spamming no matter how targeted and no regardless of how a PR person thinks it should be seen. > And at the risk of suggesting that your response confirms my point, PR is > not a simple process. It needs to be done by people who really understand > the complexities of getting quality stories placed. I still don't see how getting stories "placed" leads to good software. I would rather believe that good software will lead to stories than the other way around. -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
Public Relations 101:
Identify/create a newsworthy story that will be regarded by one or more sectors of the media as being of interest to their readership/viewers/listeners.
Prepare a media release that has the main ‘grab’ in the first paragraph. Media releases are hierarchical: Most important paragraph at the top down to the least important paragraph at the end. Why? Because journalists and editors are basically lazy. When a story doesn’t fit, they just cut sentences off the bottom of the story until it does fit!
Now we’re on to distribution. And the example I gave of EPR – one of the most respected PR distribution houses – helps PR consultants/in-house PR staff to get their stories to the right journalists at the right publications. There is no point sending a story about PostgreSQL to Zoo News – even if your logo is an elephant! It must be relevant to the readership. And in large media outlets, targeting the Journalist who has a history of covering a particular topic adds credibility and increases the likelihood that a media release will be well received and will run.
Anyway, I think I have said enough on the topic. This started as a discussion about getting timely media releases prepared. Selena suggested that it could be done by volunteers. I don’t think it can. But if there are people who want to try, I wish them luck. As I wrote earlier. It is bloody hard work! It’s not simply a matter of writing a story and expecting journalists to run it.
On 20/8/09 11:03 PM, "Greg Stark" <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote:
>> No. Firstly, I have been a customer of theirs, so it is not spam.
>>
>> Secondly, they are a PR distribution house. They maintain a database of
>> contacts for journalists. This is the bread and butter of PR consultants.
>> The ad is simply claiming to offer more targeted mail outs to avoid being
>> seen as a spammer.
>
> Well I don't think we should be spamming no matter how targeted and no
> regardless of how a PR person thinks it should be seen.
>
>
>> And at the risk of suggesting that your response confirms my point, PR is
>> not a simple process. It needs to be done by people who really understand
>> the complexities of getting quality stories placed.
>
> I still don't see how getting stories "placed" leads to good software.
> I would rather believe that good software will lead to stories than
> the other way around.
Regards
Rob Napier
Identify/create a newsworthy story that will be regarded by one or more sectors of the media as being of interest to their readership/viewers/listeners.
Prepare a media release that has the main ‘grab’ in the first paragraph. Media releases are hierarchical: Most important paragraph at the top down to the least important paragraph at the end. Why? Because journalists and editors are basically lazy. When a story doesn’t fit, they just cut sentences off the bottom of the story until it does fit!
Now we’re on to distribution. And the example I gave of EPR – one of the most respected PR distribution houses – helps PR consultants/in-house PR staff to get their stories to the right journalists at the right publications. There is no point sending a story about PostgreSQL to Zoo News – even if your logo is an elephant! It must be relevant to the readership. And in large media outlets, targeting the Journalist who has a history of covering a particular topic adds credibility and increases the likelihood that a media release will be well received and will run.
Anyway, I think I have said enough on the topic. This started as a discussion about getting timely media releases prepared. Selena suggested that it could be done by volunteers. I don’t think it can. But if there are people who want to try, I wish them luck. As I wrote earlier. It is bloody hard work! It’s not simply a matter of writing a story and expecting journalists to run it.
On 20/8/09 11:03 PM, "Greg Stark" <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote:
>> No. Firstly, I have been a customer of theirs, so it is not spam.
>>
>> Secondly, they are a PR distribution house. They maintain a database of
>> contacts for journalists. This is the bread and butter of PR consultants.
>> The ad is simply claiming to offer more targeted mail outs to avoid being
>> seen as a spammer.
>
> Well I don't think we should be spamming no matter how targeted and no
> regardless of how a PR person thinks it should be seen.
>
>
>> And at the risk of suggesting that your response confirms my point, PR is
>> not a simple process. It needs to be done by people who really understand
>> the complexities of getting quality stories placed.
>
> I still don't see how getting stories "placed" leads to good software.
> I would rather believe that good software will lead to stories than
> the other way around.
Regards
Rob Napier
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote: > Anyway, I think I have said enough on the topic. This started as a > discussion about getting timely media releases prepared. Selena suggested > that it could be done by volunteers. I don’t think it can. But if there are > people who want to try, I wish them luck. As I wrote earlier. It is bloody > hard work! It’s not simply a matter of writing a story and expecting > journalists to run it. No, at least according to gmail's threading this conversation started with yet another ill-informed Forrester report and Josh saying that the reason it was ill-informed was because he didn't have time to get back to them. I would dispute that premise and in fact say that it's probably for the best that we didn't speak to Forrester. He said he would try to reach them now but a) I doubt they'll be interested and b) I doubt it would work out for the best. Forrester has little more credibility than Gartner group or other paid shill analysts. They publish reports which are invariably complimentary for the companies on their client list. Anyone else who speaks to them or provides data inevitably finds their own words or data being twisted to benefit their paymasters. In addition to Postgres not being as scalable or reliable as MySQL did you know that Linux distributions take longer to release security patches than Microsoft? Thank Redhat for providing the raw data which led to that conclusion. c.f. http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2004/04/05/201601/forrester-study-questions-linux-security.htm http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=178601879 In short Forrester, Gartner, and others like them are not your friends. I would urge Josh and others to avoid giving them any quotes or data which will only lend them credibility. If you want to rebut the article the strategy to use would be what Redhat did to that linux security report. Make sure there's a contact for responsible journalists to call and have at your ready rebuttal arguments. There will be plenty of journalists who don't bother calling, especially if as in this case Postgres is just an afterthought, but real journalists will call whoever has the most to lose and get "balance" quotes. -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 14:37 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote: > > Anyway, I think I have said enough on the topic. This started as a > > discussion about getting timely media releases prepared. Selena suggested > > that it could be done by volunteers. I donât think it can. But if there are > > people who want to try, I wish them luck. As I wrote earlier. It is bloody > > hard work! Itâs not simply a matter of writing a story and expecting > > journalists to run it. > > No, at least according to gmail's threading this conversation started > with yet another ill-informed Forrester report and Josh saying that > the reason it was ill-informed was because he didn't have time to get > back to them. You also have to remember that both Ingres and MySQL are companies. They will always tend to show higher numbers than we do, as long as they exist. It is just like the fabled, "Linux only has 2% marketshare" because they can't track all the downloads. I think we should ignore reports like this and focus on getting the word out as a whole. The more users we have the more organic our growth. In the end, it will all work out. Let's focus on the project shall we? Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:03:01PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote: > > No. Firstly, I have been a customer of theirs, so it is not spam. > > > > Secondly, they are a PR distribution house. They maintain a > > database of contacts for journalists. This is the bread and butter > > of PR consultants. The ad is simply claiming to offer more > > targeted mail outs to avoid being seen as a spammer. > > Well I don't think we should be spamming no matter how targeted and > no regardless of how a PR person thinks it should be seen. I agree. Spamming is right out. > > And at the risk of suggesting that your response confirms my > > point, PR is not a simple process. It needs to be done by people > > who really understand the complexities of getting quality stories > > placed. > > I still don't see how getting stories "placed" leads to good > software. I would rather believe that good software will lead to > stories than the other way around. What you'd like to believe is not at issue here. How people actually behave is, and the scientific evidence to date simply does not support your "supply the facts and rational people will simply draw the right conclusion" model. That idea was proposed back in the 17th century, and it turned out to be wrong, just as decisively as Phlogiston thermodynamics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory> turned out to be. See George Lakoff's work on framing, etc. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:17 PM, David Fetter<david@fetter.org> wrote: > See George Lakoff's work on framing, etc. I prefer John Badham's work. The only winning move is not to play. -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
On 8/20/09, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:17 PM, David Fetter<david@fetter.org> wrote: > >> See George Lakoff's work on framing, etc. > > I prefer John Badham's work. The only winning move is not to play. That quote just isn't the same without the dodgy voice synth. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 14:37 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Rob Napier<rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote: > > Anyway, I think I have said enough on the topic. This started as a > > discussion about getting timely media releases prepared. Selena suggested > > that it could be done by volunteers. I don’t think it can. But if there are > > people who want to try, I wish them luck. As I wrote earlier. It is bloody > > hard work! It’s not simply a matter of writing a story and expecting > > journalists to run it. > > No, at least according to gmail's threading this conversation started > with yet another ill-informed Forrester report and Josh saying that > the reason it was ill-informed was because he didn't have time to get > back to them. You also have to remember that both Ingres and MySQL are companies. They will always tend to show higher numbers than we do, as long as they exist. It is just like the fabled, "Linux only has 2% marketshare" because they can't track all the downloads. I think we should ignore reports like this and focus on getting the word out as a whole. The more users we have the more organic our growth. In the end, it will all work out. Let's focus on the project shall we? Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Aug 20, 2009, at 2:17 PM, David Fetter wrote: > What you'd like to believe is not at issue here. How people actually > behave is, and the scientific evidence to date simply does not support > your "supply the facts and rational people will simply draw the right > conclusion" model. Bingo. Getting people to actually try Postgres out or even better actively promote it; that's what advocacy is about. And part of advocacy *is* PR. Part is Marketing. Part is also making sure we have a contact for the press to contact (as someone mentioned). While some of that can certainly be done on an ad-hoc basis, other parts can't (or would be extremely hard to find enough volunteer effort for). Hence the idea of putting money behind this. As for who the person would report to, presumably it'd be the foundation providing the money. However, I also don't think the person doing this has to be an outsider. BTW, for those saying let's focus on the software... this is the *advocacy* list. You're probably looking for -hackers. :P And keep in mind that advocacy builds community, which builds better software. -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 22:19 -0500, decibel wrote: > BTW, for those saying let's focus on the software... this is the > *advocacy* list. You're probably looking for -hackers. :P And keep in > mind that advocacy builds community, which builds better software. I do not think we should stop advocating. I think we should be doing so smartly. Dealing with Forester or any of the other shills is a waste of energy. Let EDB deal with that. We as a community should be focusing on recruiting -hackers and people who are going to use the database. Django developers, Rails developers, PostGIS etc... We don't have to (nor should we want to) give donkey spit about business uptick. The oustide developers and companies surrounding us will take care of that. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 22:19 -0500, decibel wrote:
>> BTW, for those saying let's focus on the software... this is the
>> *advocacy* list. You're probably looking for -hackers. :P And keep in
>> mind that advocacy builds community, which builds better software.
>
> I do not think we should stop advocating. I think we should be doing so
> smartly. Dealing with Forester or any of the other shills is a waste of
> energy. Let EDB deal with that.
Not to be hard on EDB, but I'm not certain that the kind of work that
EDB's marketing-related folk would do dealing with Forestor et al would
necessarily be of as much use to "PostgreSQL as community" as it would
be to "EDB as company."
> We as a community should be focusing on recruiting -hackers and people
> who are going to use the database. Django developers, Rails developers,
> PostGIS etc... We don't have to (nor should we want to) give donkey spit
> about business uptick. The oustide developers and companies surrounding
> us will take care of that.
I don't think I have any competence to offer in the marketing area, but
that's not quite the same thing as thinking that our interest ought to
be solely at the "not give a donkey spit" level.
In the interests of keeping things entertaining, here's the funniest
stuff I saw today...
One of these posts refers to someone associated with One Of Those Other
Products as an "imperious twit," so obviously has the entertainment
attendant from watching insulting+sarcastic wit at work :-)
http://omnis-dev.com/pipermail/omnisdev-en/2009-February/005164.html
http://omnis-dev.com/pipermail/omnisdev-en/2009-February/005142.html
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "ca.afilias.info")
Christopher Browne
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 22:19 -0500, decibel wrote: > BTW, for those saying let's focus on the software... this is the > *advocacy* list. You're probably looking for -hackers. :P And keep in > mind that advocacy builds community, which builds better software. I do not think we should stop advocating. I think we should be doing so smartly. Dealing with Forester or any of the other shills is a waste of energy. Let EDB deal with that. We as a community should be focusing on recruiting -hackers and people who are going to use the database. Django developers, Rails developers, PostGIS etc... We don't have to (nor should we want to) give donkey spit about business uptick. The oustide developers and companies surrounding us will take care of that. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Joshua D. Drake<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I do not think we should stop advocating. I think we should be doing so > smartly. Dealing with Forester or any of the other shills is a waste of > energy. Let EDB deal with that. > > We as a community should be focusing on recruiting -hackers and people > who are going to use the database. Django developers, Rails developers, > PostGIS etc... We don't have to (nor should we want to) give donkey spit > about business uptick. The oustide developers and companies surrounding > us will take care of that. Uhm, yeah. What he said. Who would have thought it would be JD who would bring this conversation to a practical and productive place? -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
On Friday 21 August 2009 03:50:26 pm Greg Stark wrote: > Uhm, yeah. What he said. > > Who would have thought it would be JD who would bring this > conversation to a practical and productive place? I have my moments. They are few and far between but I do have them. JD -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
Agreed...
I started my day reading JD's email. After realising that I agreed completely with what he had written, I checked with the weather bureau:
They confirmed that Hell had, indeed, frozen over!
According to the report, it had nothing at all to do with Global Warming.
On 22/8/09 8:57 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Friday 21 August 2009 03:50:26 pm Greg Stark wrote:
>
>> Uhm, yeah. What he said.
>>
>> Who would have thought it would be JD who would bring this
>> conversation to a practical and productive place?
>
> I have my moments. They are few and far between but I do have them.
>
> JD
Regards
Rob Napier
I started my day reading JD's email. After realising that I agreed completely with what he had written, I checked with the weather bureau:
They confirmed that Hell had, indeed, frozen over!
According to the report, it had nothing at all to do with Global Warming.
On 22/8/09 8:57 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Friday 21 August 2009 03:50:26 pm Greg Stark wrote:
>
>> Uhm, yeah. What he said.
>>
>> Who would have thought it would be JD who would bring this
>> conversation to a practical and productive place?
>
> I have my moments. They are few and far between but I do have them.
>
> JD
Regards
Rob Napier
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 08:44:20AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 22:19 -0500, decibel wrote: > > BTW, for those saying let's focus on the software... this is the > > *advocacy* list. You're probably looking for -hackers. :P And keep > > in mind that advocacy builds community, which builds better > > software. > > I do not think we should stop advocating. I think we should be doing > so smartly. Dealing with Forester or any of the other shills is a > waste of energy. Let EDB deal with that. With all due respect, I don't think it's a complete waste of energy. Hackers frequently need to deal with decision-makers who get their information from sources much less truthful than pgsql-advocacy. Sometimes, these decision-makers' hair is pretty pointy, and it's for this case when having some PHB-friendly material can really, really help. This means getting our story out to the Foresters of the world, repugnant as that may seem to you. > We as a community should be focusing on recruiting -hackers and > people who are going to use the database. Django developers, Rails > developers, PostGIS etc... We don't have to (nor should we want to) > give donkey spit about business uptick. The oustide developers and > companies surrounding us will take care of that. I wish I had your faith in this, but those people frequently have a fiduciary duty to promote their own company as opposed--sometimes pretty nastily--to promoting the stuff we do. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 08:44:20AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Dealing with Forester or any of the other shills is a >> waste of energy. Let EDB deal with that. > > With all due respect, I don't think it's a complete waste of energy. > Hackers frequently need to deal with decision-makers who get their > information from sources much less truthful than pgsql-advocacy. > Sometimes, these decision-makers' hair is pretty pointy, and it's for > this case when having some PHB-friendly material can really, really The most PHP-friendly material I've seen are the actual customers - that Skype can and *does* scale with Postgres carries a lot more weight than Forrester saying it can't. > help. This means getting our story out to the Foresters of the world, > repugnant as that may seem to you. By the methodologies of Gartner, Forrester, Enderle, etc, I bet you'd see Cigarettes and Cigars are both far more important products in the "breathable gasses" category than Fresh Air is - as proven by their revenue figures. [1] Unless we intend to become a big-money customer of Forrester, I fear their reports will sound much the same no matter how hard we try to get the story out. If they wanted to publish an objective report, no doubt they could have done adequate background research in the report which started this thread -- if only by googling the customers using postgres to disprove their doubts of scalability avaialbility and performance. Naively one would think that's their job, right? Ron [1] I think I saw that analogy first on these lists; but can't recall who it was to adequately credit them.
On tor, 2009-08-20 at 23:21 +1000, Rob Napier wrote: > Public Relations 101: On that matter, I recommend reading and viewing the videos here: http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/05/30/advertising-as-failure/ "[T]he ideal relationship a company should have with its customer is that it produces a great product the customer loves and talks about and thus sells; there is no need for advertising there. It’s only in the case of failing at that idea that one needs to advertise." This doesn't necessarily mean that we should shut down -advocacy and put everyone to code. But it does support that we should put resources into making user support and the user feedback loop more efficient rather than wondering about the layout of brochures and tipping of the right analysts.
Peter
It’s great that we are discussing advocacy issues. I applaud your initiative, though I entirely disagree with your premise.
Personally, as a former advertising creative director of some experience, I confess that I hate most advertising. I avoid commercial radio and TV and regard billboards as visual pollution. The main problem is that I KNOW the tricks so I know when and how I’m being ‘sold’ to.
But somehow we have to reach new markets. We can’t rely on a ‘Build it and they will come.’ view of the world. So advertising needs to be intelligent, engaging and respectful of our target audience.
Besides, we are not just talking about advertising. We are talking about marketing communications of which your preferred view (word-of-mouth referrals) is only one channel, PR, direct response and advertising are a few other examples.
While we are recommending reading on this topic, I’d like to mention two books that are worth taking the time to digest:
A small paperback. This classic is 15 years old but as relevant as ever.
Again, not a new text but a great read that will give you food for thought – particularly in the current environment.
Rob Napier
On 23/8/09 9:27 PM, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On tor, 2009-08-20 at 23:21 +1000, Rob Napier wrote:
>> Public Relations 101:
>
> On that matter, I recommend reading and viewing the videos here:
>
> http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/05/30/advertising-as-failure/
>
> "[T]he ideal relationship a company should have with its customer is
> that it produces a great product the customer loves and talks about and
> thus sells; there is no need for advertising there. It’s only in the
> case of failing at that idea that one needs to advertise."
>
> This doesn't necessarily mean that we should shut down -advocacy and put
> everyone to code. But it does support that we should put resources into
> making user support and the user feedback loop more efficient rather
> than wondering about the layout of brochures and tipping of the right
> analysts.
>
>
Regards
Rob Napier
It’s great that we are discussing advocacy issues. I applaud your initiative, though I entirely disagree with your premise.
Personally, as a former advertising creative director of some experience, I confess that I hate most advertising. I avoid commercial radio and TV and regard billboards as visual pollution. The main problem is that I KNOW the tricks so I know when and how I’m being ‘sold’ to.
But somehow we have to reach new markets. We can’t rely on a ‘Build it and they will come.’ view of the world. So advertising needs to be intelligent, engaging and respectful of our target audience.
Besides, we are not just talking about advertising. We are talking about marketing communications of which your preferred view (word-of-mouth referrals) is only one channel, PR, direct response and advertising are a few other examples.
While we are recommending reading on this topic, I’d like to mention two books that are worth taking the time to digest:
The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing
by Al Ries and Jack Trout
HarperCollins, New York, 1994
A small paperback. This classic is 15 years old but as relevant as ever.
The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell – 2002
Again, not a new text but a great read that will give you food for thought – particularly in the current environment.
Rob Napier
On 23/8/09 9:27 PM, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On tor, 2009-08-20 at 23:21 +1000, Rob Napier wrote:
>> Public Relations 101:
>
> On that matter, I recommend reading and viewing the videos here:
>
> http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/05/30/advertising-as-failure/
>
> "[T]he ideal relationship a company should have with its customer is
> that it produces a great product the customer loves and talks about and
> thus sells; there is no need for advertising there. It’s only in the
> case of failing at that idea that one needs to advertise."
>
> This doesn't necessarily mean that we should shut down -advocacy and put
> everyone to code. But it does support that we should put resources into
> making user support and the user feedback loop more efficient rather
> than wondering about the layout of brochures and tipping of the right
> analysts.
>
>
Regards
Rob Napier
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:48 AM, David Fetter<david@fetter.org> wrote: > Sometimes, these decision-makers' hair is pretty pointy, and it's for > this case when having some PHB-friendly material can really, really > help. This means getting our story out to the Foresters of the world, > repugnant as that may seem to you. It's not that it's repugnant, it's that it just ain't going to happen. The Forresters and Gartners of the world can make a whole lot more money selling reports that are complimentary to Microsoft and Oracle. A report which ends up saying users can get something better for less money is worse than worthless to them, it's a threat to their business. If their data led to that conclusion the report would never see the light of day. If you give them any data or quotes it will only come back to hurt you, as Redhat learned. -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
All, Viewpoints of "we should ignore analysts" or "we should target them" are too simplistic. As with *every* advocacy activity (and, for that matter, hacking) there's a cost/benefit ratio to everything. Advocacy has several purposes: 1. to drive awareness of PostgreSQL so that people try it out and some become users 2. to show PostgreSQL as a legitimate business option, so that companies adopt PostgreSQL as well as individual developers 3. to make our users excited about current development and releases so that they participate in our community, or even become contributors 4. to make developers aware that PostgreSQL has ongoing development and new features so that we don't start losing users (and contributors) to newer databases which appear more exciting. No one method (word-of-mouth, analysts, press releases, blogging, conferences, case studies, user groups, website, internal communications) will accomplish all of the above. We have to use several methods; in fact, I'd prefer to use all of them (you'll note that I omitted direct marketing, though, which I don't think is appropriate for us). And to those who think (2) isn't important: how many features would be in 8.4 now if there weren't full-time paid developers contributing to PostgreSQL? Why do you think someone is paying those developers' salaries? It's not out of altruism. So in the case of analysts, it's a case of "can we influence this analyst to produce a favorable report? How much will it cost, and how many people will it reach?" Not an argument of "are analysts good or bad." -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com
On Sunday 23 August 2009 12:21:07 pm Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > Viewpoints of "we should ignore analysts" or "we should target them" are > too simplistic. As with *every* advocacy activity (and, for that > matter, hacking) there's a cost/benefit ratio to everything. > > Advocacy has several purposes: > > 1. to drive awareness of PostgreSQL so that people try it out and some > become users > > 2. to show PostgreSQL as a legitimate business option, so that companies > adopt PostgreSQL as well as individual developers > > 3. to make our users excited about current development and releases so > that they participate in our community, or even become contributors > > 4. to make developers aware that PostgreSQL has ongoing development and > new features so that we don't start losing users (and contributors) to > newer databases which appear more exciting. > > No one method (word-of-mouth, analysts, press releases, blogging, > conferences, case studies, user groups, website, internal > communications) will accomplish all of the above. We have to use > several methods; in fact, I'd prefer to use all of them (you'll note > that I omitted direct marketing, though, which I don't think is > appropriate for us). > > And to those who think (2) isn't important: how many features would be > in 8.4 now if there weren't full-time paid developers contributing to > PostgreSQL? Why do you think someone is paying those developers' > salaries? It's not out of altruism. > > So in the case of analysts, it's a case of "can we influence this > analyst to produce a favorable report? How much will it cost, and how > many people will it reach?" Not an argument of "are analysts good or bad." > > -- > Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL Experts Inc. > www.pgexperts.com +1 -- Adrian Klaver aklaver@comcast.net
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Josh Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > So in the case of analysts, it's a case of "can we influence this > analyst to produce a favorable report? How much will it cost, and how > many people will it reach?" Not an argument of "are analysts good or bad." Well, how much would it cost? Can you outbid Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM? -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
On Sunday 23 August 2009 4:03:58 pm Greg Stark wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Josh Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > So in the case of analysts, it's a case of "can we influence this > > analyst to produce a favorable report? How much will it cost, and how > > many people will it reach?" Not an argument of "are analysts good or > > bad." > > Well, how much would it cost? Can you outbid Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM? > > -- > greg > http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf It is not a question of out bidding these companies. It is about having a consistent message for when the PR firms come asking. And yes they can twist the answer to serve their needs, the important part is they find Postgres credible enough to contact in the first place. There is an old adage that says 'it is only bad publicity if the don't spell you name right'. The key is to get Postgres mentioned in the same breath as Oracle,IBM,Microsoft, etc. In the business world, if you are not a threat you are ignored. When companies take the time to bad mouth you it is because they perceive a threat. It happens enough times, other business are going to start asking why? That is when we point them to the facts and the community. -- Adrian Klaver aklaver@comcast.net
Hi, Adrian Klaver wrote: > 'it is only bad publicity if the don't spell you name right'. ..and that's not exactly where Postgres, uhm.. Postgre, no, sorry, PostgreSQL shines. > When companies > take the time to bad mouth you it is because they perceive a threat. That in turn requires a large enough user base for the company to notice, not a paid analyst, no matter how well we informed. Regards Markus Wanner
----- "Markus Wanner" <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote: > Hi, > > Adrian Klaver wrote: > > 'it is only bad publicity if the don't spell you name right'. > > ..and that's not exactly where Postgres, uhm.. Postgre, no, sorry, > PostgreSQL shines. That is part of the 'consistent message' I mentioned in the post. > > > When companies > > take the time to bad mouth you it is because they perceive a > threat. > > That in turn requires a large enough user base for the company to > notice, not a paid analyst, no matter how well we informed. That has already happened. It is why PR firms are looking for quotes/info from the project. > > Regards > > Markus Wanner Adrian Klaver aklaver@comcast.net
Greg Stark wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Josh Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> So in the case of analysts, it's a case of "can we influence this >> analyst to produce a favorable report? How much will it cost, and how >> many people will it reach?" Not an argument of "are analysts good or bad." Perhaps also add the question "what's the most cost effective way to influence the analyst?" as well. > Well, how much would it cost? Can you outbid Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM? ISTM there are exactly 2 ways once can effectively influence such analysts to say that Postgres is better than the alternatives. 1. For ethical analysts, the most cost effective way - and practically the only way - is to produce a better product than the alternatives. The analyst's job is to research the alternatives and honestly describe them to their audience. If we can quantify the cost to make postgres better than alternatives, that answer's the cost question Greg and Josh are discussing. 2. For less ethical analysts, the most cost effective way is probably to spend money on them - *and* do the legwork for getting favoriable data for the report. I don't doubt that if someone wanted to buy a report from Forrester to address the question "can postgres scale to handle databases like skype's" and then gave them willing skype contacts as references, they could write a glowing report. But does that really accomplish much? It gets one nice report, but has a one time effect while any resources spend on #1 has recurring effects until the competition catches up again. I'm guessing that the most cost effective way to influence analysts in the long run is to spend the resources making sure the product is better than the competition.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:34:40AM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote: > Greg Stark wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Josh Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> So in the case of analysts, it's a case of "can we influence this > >> analyst to produce a favorable report? How much will it cost, > >> and how many people will it reach?" Not an argument of "are > >> analysts good or bad." > > Perhaps also add the question "what's the most cost effective way to > influence the analyst?" as well. > > > Well, how much would it cost? Can you outbid Oracle, Microsoft, > > and IBM? > > ISTM there are exactly 2 ways once can effectively influence such > analysts to say that Postgres is better than the alternatives. > > 1. For ethical analysts, the most cost effective way - and > practically the only way - is to produce a better product than the > alternatives. I wish that were enough. This type of analyst type needs to have a point of contact and that point of contact has to have backups just in case, which can be handed off to the aforementioned analyst. Maintaining a point of contact for such analysts is not cost-free, and Josh Berkus has been doing an admirable job of being that person. He could really use some backup people. > 2. For less ethical analysts, the most cost effective way is > probably to spend money on them - *and* do the legwork for getting > favoriable data for the report. I don't doubt that if someone > wanted to buy a report from Forrester to address the question "can > postgres scale to handle databases like skype's" and then gave them > willing skype contacts as references, they could write a glowing > report. But does that really accomplish much? It gets one nice > report, but has a one time effect while any resources spend on #1 > has recurring effects until the competition catches up again. Bribing a Forrester analyst is not really in scope for a FLOSS project of any description. Making sure that their emails, phone calls, etc. get returned promptly and in a coordinated fashion is, and we can do that. It takes efforts of a different kind from database kernel hacking, and fortunately, there are people who believe this is worth the time. > I'm guessing that the most cost effective way to influence analysts > in the long run is to spend the resources making sure the product is > better than the competition. I wish it were this way. We already have a product that's better than the competition. We have for many years. What we now need is to further expand our efforts to let people know. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:34:40AM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote: [............] > >> I'm guessing that the most cost effective way to influence analysts >> in the long run is to spend the resources making sure the product is >> better than the competition. > > I wish it were this way. We already have a product that's better than > the competition. We have for many years. What we now need is to > further expand our efforts to let people know. > +1000 - -- Rafael Martinez, <r.m.guerrero@usit.uio.no> Center for Information Technology Services University of Oslo, Norway PGP Public Key: http://folk.uio.no/rafael/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKk9/xBhuKQurGihQRArEnAKCBJ0qDAN0boFbnSIMTDKOpw+TJTgCfZIMx OcWhezPGx3PfRrucpLhN1jI= =WnNH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Ron Mayer<rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote: > 1. For ethical analysts, Ethical analysts go into other lines of work. Seriously I'm not saying analysts are necessarily "for sale" to write anything, true or not. They might very well be writing honest accurate reports. They just aren't going to write the report which concludes that Postgres is the best product since nobody will pay for it. They'll write some other report instead that some paying customer commissions. The best we can hope for is that we could block an ethical analyst from writing a report which would have been negative for us by giving them information which shows they're wrong. But we're never going to be the best at *everything* so they'll just aim the report at the features which paint their clients positively anyways. If you guys are really this excited to talk to PR industry people I suggest you restrict yourselves to industry rag journalists rather than analysts. At least they don't have an axe to grind except to write an interesting narrative. -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 02:48:43PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > If you guys are really this excited to talk to PR industry people I > suggest you restrict yourselves to industry rag journalists rather > than analysts. At least they don't have an axe to grind except to > write an interesting narrative. Excellent idea! Given the scarce resource that is people willing to be the contact for PR industry people, it's important to target their efforts for maximum benefit. :) Any ideas as to which industry rags? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
* Greg Stark: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Josh Berkus<josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> >> So in the case of analysts, it's a case of "can we influence this >> analyst to produce a favorable report? How much will it cost, and how >> many people will it reach?" Not an argument of "are analysts good or bad." > > Well, how much would it cost? Can you outbid Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM? I think the general approach is to commission a few independent/objective reports and then publish the most favorable ones. I don't think the reporting itself is strongly biased, it's publication of the result. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99