[OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the Elections

Pat Cappelaere pat at cappelaere.com
Fri Dec 12 17:22:24 UTC 2008


Eran,

I think that this would be good.  Words matter (especially for lawyers  
and marketeers :).
So the OpenID Brand should be about creating that well recognized  
promise that Johannes talked about.

Now, Is the GUI experience going to be enforceable by the Brand or  
left up to the product providers?

I believe that you are advocating for the former.  Am I right?

Pat.

On Dec 12, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> Yes. I consider brand to be a subset of product, but there is no  
> need to get philosophical. We are in agreement on how an "OpenID  
> Brand" or "OpenID Product" should be executed terms of creating a  
> well recognized "promise". We are talking about the same thing. I'm  
> happy to adjust my terms if it makes it easier to understand.
>
> EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pat Cappelaere [mailto:pat at cappelaere.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:57 AM
>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> Cc: Jack Cleaver; general at openid.net >> OpenID General
>> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the Elections
>>
>> Eran,
>>
>> We may want more MBA's in the discussion but a product is not a
>> Brand.  OpenID can be branded without any implementation products
>> behind it the same way VISA does.  So Johannes' promise is really  
>> what
>> the concept of the brand is.  This is what the users need to  
>> recognize
>> immediately.
>>
>> You are right that we can promote OpenID as a technology or as a
>> brand.  Problem is that promoting a generic technology does not work
>> (which is what we have found out the hard way). We can successfully
>> promote either a product from a particular company or a brand.
>>
>> Since we are not going to endorse a particular product, we are left  
>> to
>> promote the brand.
>>
>> The debate at this point is regarding the User Interface.  Is this a
>> product related issue to be managed by the respective companies? or  
>> is
>> it a brand issue that we need to control as a foundation?
>>
>> For example, VISA is very defensive about its logo and appearance.
>> This is how they get recognized by their users and how they guarantee
>> the promise.  Same with McDonald by the the way,  Franchisees are
>> independent producers but the promise to get some cheap & consistent
>> fast food is enforced by the Brand.
>>
>> It seems that this is what you are trying to push for.
>>
>> Pat.
>>
>> On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>
>>> My use of the word product comes from the way OpenID is handled. A
>>> product needs a market and it needs to be marketed to that audience.
>>> Even if it is modeled after VISA and the likes, where VISA does not
>>> offer any products directly, most people think about their cards in
>>> terms of the major brand, not the issuing bank. So VISA is still a
>>> product that has a more unique distribution mechanism.
>>>
>>> The main difference between OpenID as a protocol (technology) and
>>> OpenID as a brand (product) is going to be how we as a community and
>>> foundation go about promoting it. A protocol will benefit from more
>>> standardization and discussions with engineers, while a brand will
>>> need a marketing campaign targeting both the end users and the
>>> distributors. In both cases we need to research what the market
>>> needs but the audience we will contact to determine this will be
>>> different significantly based on the direction we take.
>>>
>>> What makes OpenID a much more difficult sale than credit cards is
>>> the user interface. With a card, you pull a standard size plastic
>>> out of your wallet and show it. Most people don't really pay
>>> attention to the "We accept" signs anymore. If the card is accepted
>>> or not, a person on the other side lets you know. But with OpenID,
>>> there isn't (yet) such an experience where you "show you OpenID" and
>>> the site tells you if it is accepted. In addition, most sites will
>>> not even understand what it is you are showing them, but people in a
>>> store that does not accept AMEX still know what it is and why you
>>> pulled it out of your wallet (and they are prepared to say, "no, but
>>> we accept MC").
>>>
>>> In addition, if every store had a different way of accepting credit
>>> cards (each using a different complex workflow or machines), people
>>> will get tired of it and use cash (which has a very consistent user
>>> interface). For OpenID to be a successful brand, the user experience
>>> must be simple and consistent, which is the most urgent issue facing
>>> adoption. I am not saying anything new here.
>>>
>>> So far the foundation has placed the burden of solving the usability
>>> issue on the community and individual companies. It has not been a
>>> huge success. Even the research is pretty insignificant (incomplete
>>> sample from a handful of providers and individuals). If we want to
>>> showcase the OpenID brand (and not hide it like HTTP, SMTP, etc.),
>>> we need to invest resources (namely money) in significant research
>>> and development. If elected to the board, this will be my first
>>> priority to push forward. If rejected by the board or the attempt is
>>> unsuccessful, I will push for focusing all our energy on the
>>> technology and leave the brand alone.
>>>
>>> EHL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-
>>>> bounces at openid.net] On
>>>> Behalf Of Jack Cleaver
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:30 AM
>>>> To: general at openid.net >> OpenID General
>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the  
>>>> Elections
>>>>
>>>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure I understand you question. Care to elaborate?
>>>>
>>>> My question was not as facetious as I made it appear.
>>>>
>>>> A number of voters/candidates (including you) have referred to
>> OpenID
>>>> as
>>>> a "product", or have implicitly concurred in such a reference. I
>> find
>>>> such references bewildering. I think these references are usually
>>>> metaphorical, but this isn't always obvious from the context.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that what is really meant may be that in addition to a
>>>> brand
>>>> and a set of specifications, OpenID can be seen as [the set of all
>>>> OpenID providers and all OpenID Relying Parties]. Viewed as such,  
>>>> it
>>>> can
>>>> then be treated as the subject of a marketing effort, for example,
>> as
>>>> if
>>>> it were a product. Potential users and deployers can be treated as
>> if
>>>> they were potential customers, and salesman-like questions can be
>>>> asked
>>>> about the "product", such as what are the TCO and the ROI.
>>>>
>>>> Is this roughly the sense in which you were using the term
>> "product"?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jack.
>>>>>
>>>>> EHL
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-
>>>>>> bounces at openid.net]
>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Jack Cleaver
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:29 PM
>>>>>> To: OpenID General
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the
>>>>>> Elections
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To sum my position: the main role of the OpenID foundation in  
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> coming year is to help OpenID become a well understood brand and
>>>>>>> successful product that has the features desired by the market.
>>>>>> Which particular implementation of the protocol is "the product"
>>>> that
>>>>>> you think should be receiving the foundation's attention?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jack.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> general mailing list
>>>>>> general at openid.net
>>>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> general mailing list
>>>> general at openid.net
>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> general mailing list
>>> general at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>




More information about the general mailing list