Commensurate marketing

[comradekingu]

No description provided.

[comradekingu]

Synergy with https://github.com/podverse/podverse-web/pull/888/files#diff-4840952983d2a94f27deb00bf7247347345b60e3a96dc2aa41a6a50ecacdf1b6R357
"Podverse is a FOSS podcast manager": "Only you listening — on iOS, Android, F-Droid, and the web.

[mitchdowney]

I'm sorry, @kreonjr and I just don't agree with this idea that we need to retire "open source" from our vernacular. These days I'm more inclined to think "open source" is an adequate term, and if corporations misuse it to claim something is "open source" when they might only mean "transparent," that's their problem. If a source is open, then you should be able to do anything you want with it, and the source should remain open.

We don't want to stop using the word "podcast" in the way that we mean it just because Spotify and YouTube are trying to debase it so it's indistinguishable from legacy / centralized media. "Podcast" has power and meaning in public consciousness and I don't want to let corporations totally appropriate it, and make us resort to a new alternate term people are unfamiliar with. I feel similarly about corporations calling code "open source" when their source is not actually open.

Best I can do is what we're already doing, which is to use a mixture of the terms open source, FOSS, libre, free and open source software, etc. in various places in our app and marketing text.

[comradekingu]

Open source is used to hide copyleft, and not talk about freedoms.
It is like calling an office building a structure. If you want to get particular and have a point there, it misses said point entirely.

The word "Podcast" isn't in dispute, merely because it always what it is now.
You put it behind a paywall and censorship and now the term doesn't differentiate.

If however the uglies tried calling it "worksafe corpotransmission" in all their might of popularity,
I would similarly suggest not adopting that word.

The second you say "marketing", you evoke arbitrary concerns, of popularity, clarity, and what have you.
I ask you what you want to market, and you say "adequate".
I don't know what that is, so I can't help you.
Neither of us are good at it, which is a fair admission.
A lot of buzzwords are popular, and convey similarly nothing of value to Podverse,
be it "Killer app", "websafe software" "fullstack-ACK" "green software", or similar.

"reciprocal systems of trade" or literally any other term is bound to be more popular than
"value for value", yet there Podverse gets it right.
Using the "unpopular" term means taking part in what you build, and since it is correct that also means
users understanding the difference between types of libre software.
I posit Podverse has a very unique funding and governance model, and I think this should be communicated,
since it is a great part of why other apps are different in a way users despise.

Using a mixture of all terms, without explainging anything, ensures nobody understands what is what.
"Open Source" is only good for SEO, to get hits. It can be worked in there.

[mitchdowney]

Man, I just cannot see myself taking "open source" out of my vocabulary. I think all language in practice has fuzziness around it. To me saying "open source" is a signal to people with a casual interest in free software that we are "a different, more open, and freer company than the big tech platforms," and our target audience is casual listeners. Our "marketing" model is basically relying on recommendations from podcasters who want their audience to use a Podcasting 2.0 and value-enabled app. It seems easier to me for them to say "and it's open source!" than it is for them to say "and it's copylefted libre!"

I think the specifics of software licenses are beyond what casual podcast listeners would care about, and the people who do care will look up specifically what license we use. The fact we provide "open source" software puts us in a small category of apps (AntennaPod and Pocket Casts are the only examples I hear of often, and Pocket Casts has a limited less-free license along the lines of what you'd like to distinguish us from).

We also don't add advertisements, and we don't sell or share private user data , but to me, the umbrella imperfect term "open source" conveys to people that we are the type of company that makes these kinds of principle-based decisions. As for the specifics, they need to look them up as it's not always easy to convey all those principles in a short phrase.

This might just be a personal failing on my part. I just still can't conceive of letting go of the word "open source." It's what I've dedicated my life to. Part of me wants to just say "sure change it to whatever you want" so that I'm not worrying about this so much, but I feel like I have to get over this gut feeling that removing the words "open source" entirely from our app and from my podcast appearances and everything related to Podverse...it's just not sitting right with me.

Maybe this should be an open topic in our podverse/info Discussions forum? I could even pin it to the top. I've heard what I've thought are compelling but opposing arguments on different sides. I really don't want to dismiss your concerns as I think they are valid. I just genuinely cannot envision a future where I'm not saying I create "open source software" and that Podverse is an "open source app."

[comradekingu]

Synergy with
https://github.com/podverse/podverse-rn/pull/1373/files#diff-434395122634f503f334976454c18e6e9a440d8416c11d3a921f36eef09e6088R750
"You are not being charged during your free trial": "The gifted period is gratis, and it is always your (manual) choice to get or renew Podverse Premium."

and

https://github.com/podverse/podverse-web/pull/888/files#diff-4840952983d2a94f27deb00bf7247347345b60e3a96dc2aa41a6a50ecacdf1b6R359
"PremiumFreeTrial": "Premium — Gifted period",

[comradekingu]

I would argue more possibility in podcasting doesn't necessitate those changes being for the better.

[comradekingu]

Suggested change

	"Open web chat": "Open web chat",
	"Open web chat": "Open Podverse live-chat",

?

[comradekingu]

Lets say I search for "Podverse".
I get

Podverse is a platform for podcasting 2.0 that supports multiple languages and devices. You can explore, create, and share podcasts in different genres, such as arts, business, comedy, education, and more.

That tells me not a whole lot of anything about it being different in any way.

But I am a curious user, so I click "About" to get to https://podverse.fm/about

Podverse is a FOSS podcast manager for iOS, Android, F-Droid, and web.

All Podverse software is provided under a free and open source (FOSS) licence. Features that require updating our servers are available only with a Premium membership. Sign up today and get a 3 month free trial. 🥳

I challenge you to get people to read this.
100% you will get confusion over the term "free", and I think that undermines the thinking that there is an exchange of effort at play.

Even I almost missed the copyleft icon next to "Open Source" in the corner.

If people don't already know what "open source" is, the word "free" is used at best in two different ways.

What do you want to do, and to whom?

Right now I think it is selling the whole concept short, to only people clicking "About", and then confusing them once there.

Using "open source" here and "Open Source" there looks unprofessional, like these clowns https://opensource.org/
Notice it was always the "Free Software community", and now the OSI tries to come up with a different term.
None of that is by accident.
When it comes down to it, they eat their own.