[okfn-discuss] new brand, new website: coming up next week

Sun Apr 13 16:41:37 UTC 2014

Hello Laura,

To respond for one more round on specific points, after which I'll pause
from the discussion for a while, as if these are in fact minority views not
shared by others, and the new brand is a given, then better I suspect to
let actions and experimenting with identity in the network, rather than
these discussions, take the conversation on the next step.

__Sure. We're a diverse network, as you know, and I think it's fair to say
> each group communicates the way it wants, today - and will continue to do
> so. Our messages are all quite different already!__

And this has been possible under a description of the central organisation
such as: *"We are a global movement to open up knowledge around the world
and see it used and useful."* - but if the description of what the central
organisation is shifts to being data-centric and technology-centric in the
way the brand suggests, then many of those more diverse messages of the
network are not represented in Central - and that does make it harder for
people in this diverse community to understand how they fit - or to feel
that being in some way affiliated to OK(F) makes sense.

__We followed the advice of the experts and did the broad consultation at
> the start of the process - through the community survey and other methods.
> Design, of both graphics and words, does not usually work well if done "by
> committee," and we were advised to do the later stages in smaller group
> consultation, which is what happened.__

Open processes do not have to result in design by committee: and describing
things this way is a very disparaging way to see the potential of processes
of open collaboration.

Whilst external expertise has an important role to play in explaining and
understanding how ideas might be perceived by key audiences you are trying
to reach - surely there were processes open to you that involved drawing on
expertise from inside the community (of which there would undoubtedly be
much) and filling any blind-spots the community might have through
selective use of outside consultancy.

__I really don't think we could capture everything in one short phrase,
> using commonly-understood terms, but I feel the tagline does a reasonable
> job of representing the common essence of it all.__

On this then either you have not read and listened to the critique above -
or we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

The tag line absolutely does not represent the common essence of an open
*knowledge *movement.

Not one bit.

I cannot think how to say more on this than I've already said.

All the best

Tim

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Laura James <laura.james at okfn.org> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> On 13 April 2014 14:57, Tim Davies <tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk>wrote:
>
>>
>> A brand may not *be* the theory of change or strategy, but it needs to be
>> coherent with it. If the way you are communicating about the broad Open
>> Knowledge community does not represent the values held in that community,
>> you make it hard for people to stay within that community - or you force
>> people to distance themselves from the messages you are communicating
>> whenever they talk about what they are doing.
>>
>
> Sure.  We're a diverse network, as you know, and I think it's fair to say
> each group communicates the way it wants, today - and will continue to do
> so. Our messages are all quite different already! The groups forming the
> network are pretty autonomous and that isn't changing. The brand material
> we are discussing will help 'central' do our work, and we hope and believe
> it will assist the groups, too, even though of course we don't know yet how
> the local groups and working groups might choose to work with the brand -
> that conversation is starting (which is why the single wiki page which
> we're referring to exists).  We don't want groups to feel they need to
> distance themselves from our messages, and we want to help all the groups
> by building up the open movement with new people, ideas and energy, which
> is what we are working on with the brand.
>
> I'm sure many of the local and working groups have different strategies.
> That's part of being a decentralised, autonomous network. It's good for
> these to have some shared elements (I'd hope our values and vision are
> shared, roughly) but creating one single overall strategy may be difficult,
> or may not even help (I'd rather see a local group pursuing open knowledge
> in its country according to a strategy designed for that country's needs,
> than according to one centralised strategy which may not apply well to
> them). Of course, these are two extremes; we could also have a set of
> template strategies which can be customised and repurposed for local needs
> which could make creating a local group strategy easier without forcing
> adoption of any one thing. So group strategies may differ, and similarly,
> messages will differ, I expect.
>
>
>>
>> I see that you have updated the wiki to say "Our core *brand* purpose"
>> but it does not read as a purpose statement for a brand - it still reads as
>> an organisational core purpose - and any outside party is going to
>> understand it as such.
>>
>
> That's useful feedback. Perhaps we should just rephrase that section of
> the wiki page - "core purpose" is language from our brand experts to
> describe the words in that section - if it said "some words to describe for
> a broad public audience what we want to achieve" would that be better?
> That's really more the intent :)
>
>
>> I don't see how a data-centric brand and tag line on the main OK(F)
>> websites and presence meets the goal of making "it more appealing for many
>> people to get involved (eg joining your group, forming new groups, creating
>> new tools, sharing skills around lobbying, etc)" for those working groups
>> and chapters who work within a broader notion of open knowledge. It
>> actively harms this.
>>
>> If the good suggestions about a more flexible tagline made on this list
>> are not factored into the *core* brand ideas (which they can - but which
>> would require a pause for more discussion before rolling out a new core
>> brand), then we don't get greater clarity at all.
>>
>
> As mentioned above, I think there will be some difference between the
> brand of "Open Knowledge" central (the UK-incorporated organisation), and
> the local groups and working groups. There is such a difference today - we
> each use different graphic variants, names and words and have quite
> different icons and websites in some cases. The website we are updating is
> the 'central' website, about what the 'central' organisation does - there
> is no change to what local and working groups do or how they present
> themselves. I am sure the groups will continue to present themselves as
> best they can to attract new folks to what they do - whether that's Open
> Knowledge in Brazil or open science or whatever.  At 'central' we have the
> very difficult task of balancing all these different aspects. I'm sure we
> won't always get it perfectly right, but we do the best we can to work
> towards our shared vision whilst balancing the needs and interests of the
> all the various groups in the network, plus other stakeholders such as our
> own team, our funders and collaborators, and so on, within our resources.
> Inevitably there will be compromises because there's so many different
> interests here.
>
> In the coming weeks and months I expect there will be lots of discussion
> about how the groups want to adopt and/or adapt the graphics and words,
> which is fine and as expected :) And the great ideas from Heath and others
> will definitely be part of that - and I personally will be delighted to see
> that happen.
>
>
>> I also do not see how you can claim "All of you have helped create the
>> new brand through your activities in open knowledge" if the new brand does
>> not represent the breadth of the knowledge community, and when the brand
>> has been presented as a done deal, not as something for consultation. There
>> is no problem with drawing on outside branding expertise - but it would be
>> very possible to have a process of broad community consultation around
>> draft brand ideas developed by those experts.
>>
>
> We followed the advice of the experts and did the broad consultation at
> the start of the process - through the community survey and other methods.
>  Design, of both graphics and words, does not usually work well if done "by
> committee," and we were advised to do the later stages in smaller group
> consultation, which is what happened. We had to balance quite a few factors
> in developing the brand process too. Pragmatism has always been an Open
> Knowledge value.
>
> In terms of representing the breadth of open knowledge, I don't deny this
> is difficult. For instance, a tagline is just one very short phrase which
> needs to be clear and compelling, and so I think it's inevitably going to
> represent something less than the full diversity of what everyone does. I
> really don't think we could capture everything in one short phrase, using
> commonly-understood terms, but I feel the tagline does a reasonable job of
> representing the common essence of it all.
>
>
>> However I'm hearing quite a lot of concern across the community about how
>> OK(F) and chapters, WGs and others are relating right now - and potential
>> damage to the community model that has been a great success of OK(F) over
>> recent years. Is it worth considering a pause-for-thought before rolling
>> out the new brand, and planning for that wider conversation on values &
>> strategy?
>>
>
> We are definitely going to be having a wider conversation on values and
> strategy for the network - and look forward to it.  In terms of the brand
> roll-out, there is no planned roll-out for the local groups and working
> groups (but we have quite a few groups pressing for materials as soon as
> possible because they are eager to use the new brand!). It's something
> groups can opt into as and when and if they wish.  The website launch is
> definitely going ahead, though; as noted above, this is the website for
> 'central' and our current site receives quite a bit of criticism and
> confuses people. To enable us to do our work as coordinators of the network
> (and our many other activities to further our shared vision of openness) we
> need to have a better website.
>
> If there are concerns about how the local groups and working groups are
> relating, we'd very much like to hear them so we can understand the issues
> and respond appropriately.  Are there forums where these concerns are aired
> which we might not know about?
>
> On a slightly related note, we do know we can do better with community
> governance - and a survey will be going out to the International Council
> very soon to start to explore how we can improve this. I've personally been
> talking to the leaders of many of our chapters and local groups
> individually this year to hear their hopes and worries, and I'm happy to
> talk with any I've not spoken to yet, especially if there are concerns we
> might otherwise not have heard about.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Laura
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>

-- 

w: http://www.timdavies.org.uk | m: 07834 856 303 | twitter: timdavies

Co-director of Practical Participation:
http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk
--------------------------
Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales -
#5381958.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140413/e934ccb1/attachment-0002.html>