[marketing TW] How can we create many specific entrances?

[Mat]

From a marketing point, TW suffers from being too general. It kind of solves everything but this means someone looking for, say, recipe data base tool will choose "The Recipe Data Base Tool" rather than "TiddlyWiki". And someone looking for the Keto diet will turn to... you get it. And so on for every subject/issue/need.

So, what would it take for TW to have "multiple entrances"? One "entrance" that really is for 'recipe people'. Another that really attracts those feeling ketosis. Etc.

I have some thoughts (not necessarily great or practical ones) but before I let them steer your associations, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

How can we actually make this be real? (as opposed to hypothetically if we had a marketing budget etc)

<:-)

[TonyM]

On another recent thread I recall posting on  focused solutions and markets.

So there is already support for your idea.

So do share.

Tony

[BurningTreeC]

Hi Mat ,

I was thinking that we (the community) could make collections/packages (like editions) for different use-cases

those packages would be sets of plugins and themes and tools

for example: 

student-collection: 

• note-taking plugins and tools (like anwiki - anki (heavily used by students) replacement in tiddlywiki, work in progress)
• tools to include pdf files and images (text-slicer plugin included)
• a simple launcher for wikies (maybe the multiuser single-executable)
• evernote migration plugin
• other community tools and plugins for the use-case listed within the bundle
• simple instructions how to use it
  

[Luca Dorigo]

I like this. It seems better than having "spinoffs" like cardo.wiki that are hard(er) to integrate with your own wiki.

[JD]

I like this idea too. I am currently experimenting with Tony's ideas for an outliner, which I think would belong to a writer's edition of TW. 

Right now, the official editions are: 

• Empty Edition
• Blog Edition
• Full Edition
• Plugin Editions
• Résumé Builder Edition
• Text-Slicer Edition
• XLSX Utilities Edition

What could we add to this, besides the above suggested editions for Students, Writers, and Recipe collectors?

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat

I've written extensively around some of the issues on "marketing" TiddlyWiki. But as yet ill formed. Not formed enough to constitute "marketing."

I'm going to write a few different notes since you brought it on to see if it can form in a better way. :-).

Josiah

Mat wrote:

From a marketing point, TW suffers from being too general.

Josiah

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat wrote:

From a marketing point, TW suffers from being too general.

Right. And too variant in implementation options.

Lack of specificity for A market combined with too many options to run it creates barriers to entry.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat wrote:

... someone looking for, say, recipe data base tool will choose "The Recipe Data Base Tool" rather than "TiddlyWiki". And someone looking for the Keto diet will turn to... you get it. And so on for every subject/issue/need.

Right. But would this be a Specific Tool in search of Its Market or just an Options Explicator? :-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat wrote:

... How can we actually make this be real? (as opposed to hypothetically if we had a marketing budget etc)

A cheap way to connect with real "markets" is simply to identify where there is demand. Then address that demand by making it easier for those folk who already demonstrating explicit interest in A specific use-case by honed development for them of TiddllyWiki matched to that demand.

That is classic "demand-driven marketing" and can often be very successful.

An obvious current example of that is for Gamers interested in using TiddlyWiki to create GAME CAMPAIGNS. There is extensive and increasing interest for this visible on the Twitter stream for TiddlyWiki. And its also worth noting that about half of DesignWriteStudios students this year opted to make game-related TiddlyWiki.

"Marketing" is about supply for demand. So, I think its sensible to focus on WHAT is that demand? And what is its SCALE?

EDIT: Meaning, to focus on what is already in explicit demand first.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

In discussion with open-source developers over the years about why some of their great work never really reaches its "full market potential" several relevant factors come up ...

1 - Mostly they love developing software, and are fearful of getting over-burdened with support issues ...

2 - IMO (purely subjective) they can be so far into a world of development platforms and its language & processes they sometimes have difficulty grasping what kind of mind-set a "normal" end-user just looking for a COMPLETE solution lives in.

3 - This is NOT a criticism but it is a comment about understanding the gap between a "maker" & a "user". Usually  successful "marketing" of a product has a third person who helps bridge between maker and user.

These points may not apply so strongly to TiddlyWiki, though I think (1) does apply, in that its primary "development group" (= this GG you reading in now + GitHub) is interestingly diverse in skill and interest.

Josiah

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Just FYI, from the point of view of a user looking to fulfil function (normal end-use case) only ...

• Blog Edition

• Résumé Builder Edition

are close to normal end-user ideas of "direct functional needs".

Some of the examples pointed to from TiddlyWiki.com more in the ballpark, I think: https://tiddlywiki.com/#Examples

Josiah

JD wrote:

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Dear Support System for the Brezhnev Diet Wiki (aka Mat).

I'm having problems with adjusting the Winter Greens Calculator, can you help? It's quite urgent as we have a dying orphan.

Yours, in earnest
April Mackenzie (Oxford resident)

[Luca Dorigo]

I can think of many:

• Agenda Edition
  
• Task/Project Manager Edition
• Developer Edition
• Diary Edition (expanding on the journal functionality)
• Musician Edition: songbook, annotated recordings, etc. - there are already some plugins supporting abc notation
• Lecturer Edition: with some tweaking (fixed tiddler dimensions,...) tiddlywiki could be used to create awesome presentations.
• Accounting Edition: Advanced filtering/automatisation can make it an amazing tool to keep track of personal finance and/or the accounting of a company
• Course Edition: Create digital textbooks interlinking information, examples, multimedia, exercises in a seamless way
• ...
  

[BurningTreeC]

I can think of many:

• Agenda Edition
  
• Task/Project Manager Edition
• Developer Edition
• Diary Edition (expanding on the journal functionality)
• Musician Edition: songbook, annotated recordings, etc. - there are already some plugins supporting abc notation
• Lecturer Edition: with some tweaking (fixed tiddler dimensions,...) tiddlywiki could be used to create awesome presentations.
• Accounting Edition: Advanced filtering/automatisation can make it an amazing tool to keep track of personal finance and/or the accounting of a company
• Course Edition: Create digital textbooks interlinking information, examples, multimedia, exercises in a seamless way
• ...

Right, that would be the way, I think so, too 

Simon

[@TiddlyTweeter]

BTC & Luca

Its interesting you think of these as "editions".

I think of them as APPLICATIONS. No problem. But in terms of promotion why promote a version as an "edition?" An edition OF WHAT? As far as I can see they are a each a BRICOLAGE of relevant bits deserving its own emergent wholeness.

The word "edition" looks a bit strained in your context. I mean, ANY consortium of parts IS a kind of edition so its a bit of a non-sequiter. But I don't think that is quite what TW.com means by that, "edition", which is more restricted.

I think rather, market, application for purpose and don't bother two much about origins. Promote wholes. Not histories :-).

Josiah

[Mat]

How should any such editions (or, apps/applications as I'd prefer to call them) be actual entry points?

How, practically, would these entry points be served? To build them is only part of the equation.

....

Here are some thoughts on the matter:

To get some synergistic effects (for findability) I think they should all be hosted on the same place. Other than tiddlywiki.com, I think Github may be the best current option. It is well known and it would allow shared development and, if I understand right, it can both show a resulting page as well as the code behind it (...right?) Anyone who knows me, knows that I'm a fan of TiddlySpot but it is more narrow in this sense. I would also think google ranks github projects higher than tiddlyspot projects.

Github also has a few built in features for findability like stars and search function etc. Plus Github provides an "outer format" for the presentation of the code so that people have or get a familiarity - e.g there is the brief presentation area above the 'folders' and the more detailed presentation area below it.

I also like very much BurningTreeC's idea with collections/packages (maybe "suites" is a good term?). It makes sense also from a marketing perspective (cross-selling) where someone interested in an "Anki TW" is probably also interested in other study tools. 

Regardless if collections or single apps, we should make sure that they promote one another. Someone getting the "recipe db" should also get info about the other existing collections and editions. We could perhaps even have a common "promo plugin" that contains tiddlers with descriptions and links to all the other projects.

Anyway - to "actually make this be real as opposed to hypothetical" I think one of the first steps is that bit about Github. Otherwise we're in the same situation that we are with for plugins. Github is of course not one central place, but it has some resemblance. Or - now talking to those versed in Github - what do you say abou tthis point? Does it make sense?

<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

 Mat wrote:

... I think they should all be hosted on the same place ... I think Github may be the best current option.

It is well known

(no it isn't, but that is not a problem if its accessible through ONE gateway :)

J.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat

Regardless if collections or single apps, we should make sure that they promote one another.

Respectfully, I don't think so. Why should a promo entry for an "Organiser" be promoting an image gallery? Makes no sense.

I think the CORE of what you talking about is promo-for-purpose and its best to stick to just that. Just to what It is promoting.

Matching available APPS to demand is enough already.

J.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

I agree that Github, since so many TW techies use it, is as good a place for a repository as any. Tech knowledge of it is high. Its got really great sharing schemata.

Its also obscure and takes time to understand.

BUT could you clarify if someone made a stellar TW APP they would need to JOIN GitHub in your vision? OR are you suggesting that you would broker wider publishing of great TW APPS bricolaged outside GitHub?

I do think THAT is an issue in this.

The QUESTION of whether the AUTEUR is also the PUBLISHER?

IMO much more will be achieved in recognising that author's of work are NOT, often, their best (or interested) promoters.

Best wishes
J.

[Mat]

Isn't well known or isn't the the best current (existing) option?

But, yeah, one gateway.

<:-)

[Mat]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:10:00 PM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

Mat
Regardless if collections or single apps, we should make sure that they promote one another.

Respectfully, I don't think so. Why should a promo entry for an "Organiser" be promoting an image gallery? Makes no sense.

Makes much sense. Why should a billboard in the subway show an ad for a product that has absolutely nothing to do with subways? The "organizer" should (probably) also promote the "image gallery" becaus it may be the only contact surface that the mention of "image gallery" has with the user. But maybe "promote" is too strong a word. IMO it should be just enough to make the user aware of it so that when - or if now! - he needs an image gallery then he'll know where to find it. A severe bottle neck for the TW project is of course that we cannot spend money on marketing.

<:-)

[Mat]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 9:34:11 PM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

BUT could you clarify if someone made a stellar TW APP they would need to JOIN GitHub in your vision? OR are you suggesting that you would broker wider publishing of great TW APPS bricolaged outside GitHub?  

I do think THAT is an issue in this.

It IS an issue, because it would be a compromise. My proposal for github is that it is the best compromise I can come up with if tiddlywiki.com is not available.

 

The QUESTION of whether the AUTEUR is also the PUBLISHER?

Who else? I'm not saying it can't be anyone else, but I'm just thinking that it is realistically unlikely that someone would want to take wider responsibility. I am emphasizing "actually make this be real as opposed to hypothetically" to move us away from pipe dreams. 

A consensus on Github would mean people have a clearer understanding on what it takes to "publish a TW app" (assuming they want their app to be part of this consensus). Currently everyone does his/her own thing like a chicken on the loose. We totally miss out on synergy.

If we have a consensus on Github then the skilled among us might just feel it would be worth it to create a solution for simpler publishing of TWs on Github, thereby lowering the threshold to be both the auteur and the publisher. (BTW, I believe @Danielo already did some work on this).

IMO much more will be achieved in recognising that author's of work are NOT, often, their best (or interested) promoters.

Exactly!!! That is why it makes sense to keep things as framed inside the consensus as possible. For example; "if you publish it on github as opposed to anywhere else, then you automatically get the github tools for sharing but you also get our community tidbits such as the TW-promo-plugin and the standard texts to put on the github page that makes both your app and the other TW-apps get higher ranks because they're 'synced'.

If you're NOT interested in promoting, then the easiest thing should be to 'join the consensus'.

...

SO, good people, what would it take to do this on github? How could such a thing be organized? What tools do we have at our disposal? Would TW developers be at all interested or is everyone really a lone cowboy? There are clearly people who simply enjoy creating cool stuff in TW and publishing it for the sake of it (I'm one of them) so I think it could work if it is in an infrastructure that doesn't get outdated even if it only slowly is contributed to.

Again, [something like] Github is probably more or less a "practical requisite" for entry points to actually work. Compare it to Apples "app store" perhaps. It's the closest thing I can come up with (since my previous main attempt with TWederation has not worked out.)

<:-)

[TonyM]

Josiah et al...

We need to market solutions to the broader audience, not editions, not plugins, in some ways not even tiddlywiki, it can do too much, people will be scared off. 

Once they try our champagne, many will come to the cellar door, and the enthusiasts will enter the barrel rooms and vineyards.

It would be great if there are "fit for specific purpose editions" but I do not think that should be our focus. I think from a development and contributor perspective we should be building blocks (often plugins) that when added together produce solutions.

Now it is these solutions we should proliferate, I personally intend to do this through the development of business and personal tools implemented in TiddlyWiki. Such solutions will of course refer to the following along with appropriate credits;

• Other tools and Services I publish
• A Directory of solutions
• The TiddlyWiki open source environment
• Below this editions tips and tools as currently found on the tiddlywiki.com website 

The reason for a directory of solutions is we can bring together like solutions. and illustrate the expanse of possibilities and direct the audience that discover tiddlywiki solutions anywhere to enter the community of solution,s then the platform.

Solutions need not be editions, they may be plugins, a combination of plugins or macros, or a simple set of instructions.

To help Illustrate I have created this diagram. "Tonys Disposition Management" is a solution of my own, it would be like your own, fully operational solutions others can use, it may have a plugin published off TiddlyWiki.com but it is a stand alone solution.

There would be hundreds of these solutions everywhere, and anywhere. They can be submitted to a solutions library, not to be confused with TiddlyWiki Toolmap that includes plugins (although some links here are solutions)

 Solutions credit the contributors but only link to the library, the how to is only how to use the solution not the components that make it up, we need to keep it simple for this audience.

I Suggest there be a standard Text we include in published solutions that is not found in other wikis so that an internet search for say \"task management" solution tiddlywiki\ only brings up solutions, not plugins or development conversations. I would also like to see some analytics included so we can find the number of solutions visible on the Internet, and those that are connected to the internet (user optin of course).

Food for thought?

Regards

Tony

[Luca Dorigo]

Its interesting you think of these as "editions".

I think of them as APPLICATIONS. No problem. But in terms of promotion why promote a version as an "edition?" An edition OF WHAT? As far as I can see they are a each a BRICOLAGE of relevant bits deserving its own emergent wholeness.

I like the idea of "editions" (I would actually rather call them bundles) more than standalone applications - TW is awesome because it can do pretty much everything, so restraining one app to one specific purpose would be more of a hindrance than anything, to me at least... Although it may be different for the less-tech-inclined average user.

It would be great if there are "fit for specific purpose editions" but I do not think that should be our focus. I think from a development and contributor perspective we should be building blocks (often plugins) that when added together produce solutions.

Exactly.

How should any such editions (or, apps/applications as I'd prefer to call them) be actual entry points?

How, practically, would these entry points be served? To build them is only part of the equation.

I think TW would benefit greatly of some sort of package/plugin manager, of the likes of npm or homebrew or apt. This would allow to 1. centralize all plugins and bundles and 2. manage dependencies (this plugin/bundle needs these other plugins etc.). The one included right now is very limited (and has very few plugins).

[@TiddlyTweeter]

 Mat wrote:

... I think they should all be hosted on the same place ... I think Github may be the best current option.

It is well known

 

@TiddlyTweeter wrote:

(no it isn't, but that is not a problem if its accessible through ONE gateway :)

 

Mat asked: Isn't well known or isn't the the best current (existing) option?

It is totally unknown to Joe Bloggs.

On a search for it, if you aren't careful in your query you might hit the Old Gits :-) ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm67t2F5GX0

J.

 

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat wrote:
Would TW developers be at all interested or is everyone really a lone cowboy?

I think this is really interesting. Not so much on the cowboy. But on the idea that the "products" we talking about are a "developers" made thing necessarily. I'm, right now, not sure that focus is correct.

It seems to me that many potentially "marketable" functional-wholes in TW could be made without needing direct developer input purely through BRICOLAGE of bits-n-pieces made by AUTEURS already.

J.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

I feel I'm writing too much into this thread & should maybe shut-up. It is simply because it interests me.

One broad comment. Most of the discussion has not been about marketing at all. Its been mainly about prepping, getting some "products" into an organised shape.

The point I made earlier that "marketing" is best related to "identifiable markets" and their "demand" wasn't picked up on.

I think its important. Not least to help guide the development of *relevant* structured repositories (the shops).

There are use-groups where interest in TW is explicitly evident (like Game Campaigns) and strategic outreach could be as important as setting up shop. Market responsive development is generally quite successful.

Best wishes
Josiah 

[TonyM]

Josiah,

Once you find a demand you want to satisfy it with a tiddlywiki solution. To have one available we need to pre-empt demand and have them on the shelf, but it is hard to predict.

Perhaps instead we should find what demand exists and act as a swat team to deliver a solution into that "market", however we (the community) are good at collaboration but more as support collaborators, than build collaborators, except for the developer folks.

Personally I am keen to second guess business and knowledge worker tools and build solutions to fit in that space where I perceive there to be a demand. 

Regards

Tony

[@TiddlyTweeter]

TonyM, Right.

This is not for everyone.

I do think there is demand. But to get into that and address it requires an orientation to being interested in it. A bit more of that might model a case that might show its worth.

J.

TonyM wrote:

[Jel]

NO! Tiddlywiki is a tool, not a con. Sorry, marketeers, this tool is as attractive as a lathe - and lathes can be very attractive to someone who knows and appreciates their features and facilities. If you know how to use a lathe, you can make something, or a tool to make something, which is defined by a market need, the same here. But the market does NOT define the tool. So clear off, marketing men, stop trying to take everything over with your variants in The Kings New Clothes:if you're so brilliant in your omniscient knowledge, go play in your own sandpit and produce something better. Tiddlywiki succeeds precisely BECAUSE it isn't specific:to a need. If I have a need, to meet, it firstly needs specification, by examining thoughts, squeezing here, expanding there, filtering and sorting sheep from goats, until my ducks are in a row and a complex network of interacting considerations can be reduced to a linear explanation "because A then B". TW allows that kind of network, so we can twist it, push and pull it, until what we have on the screen is a series of tiddlers which make sense. This sorts out the messes you specialise in creating, because it cuts through the rhubarb and allows the design team to correct its targetting. A lathe is something simple which can have specialist features added as needed: it spins something so something else can shape it. If I need a toolpost, I bolt it on. Equally so with TW: it is at heart simply a heap of conceptual memes, how you sort them out and what you do with them is entirely up to you, with what you bolt on by way of add-ins. In a way, even the Tiddler-Journal split's an error, journals are simply derivative Tiddlers.

Effectively, what you're doing is getting the tail to wag the dog. In pure logic terms, marketing drills down towards a specific definition of an instance of something needed - and that is as far as it goes, TW goes the other way, generalising so it can handle as much as possible. That's precisely why it's useful, and exactly what you hate. Well, hate yourself, because that's where the error lies. TW does NOT need branding, or a makeover, or any of the fancy-pants add-ons which will turn it into functional candy-floss in time. And yes, I am a TW Classic User because the TW5 makeover threw some parts of the baby I need out with the bathwater: what you should have done was tidy up the OO structure, sure, but at the same time with the extensions needed to preserve TWC interfacing. It's exactly what MS has to do with Windows, keep a compatibility-mode until orphaned code is eventually upgraded to become compatible. Just like the TW5 coders, MS failed to do in the early versions, they've learned the lesson and preserve backwards compatibility now, and that's a lesson to keep in mind for the future.

I date so far back in computing my surname's at the centre of all code (I'm Jeremy Main, and MAIN() came from a bad joke 50 years ago, contributing to the design of one of the first compilers which Bell Labs picked over when planning how to write C). The quid pro quo of working in OpenSource is that your work too is OpenSource, so although you should be the person who defines how your code mutates over time, if you abandon it, as LEWCID did, then it reverts to community property and it's one of the functions of the community steering group to take orphaned code in hand and find it a new stepfather. That's how to complete the TW5 migration, and it does NOT mean peddling hogwash.

In fact, you demonstrate your inability to get things straight inside your first clause. From a marketing point? What is a marketing point? I take it you mean a point of view, but if you're so muddy-minded as not to be precise in your definitions, then what hope does anyone have of meeting your requirements? Within four words, you already created the kind of confusion shown in that cartoon. 

On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 06:16:37 UTC+1, Mat wrote:

From a marketing point, TW suffers from being too general. It kind of solves everything but this means someone looking for, say, recipe data base tool will choose "The Recipe Data Base Tool" rather than "TiddlyWiki". And someone looking for the Keto diet will turn to... you get it. And so on for every subject/issue/need.

So, what would it take for TW to have "multiple entrances"? One "entrance" that really is for 'recipe people'. Another that really attracts those feeling ketosis. Etc.

I have some thoughts (not necessarily great or practical ones) but before I let them steer your associations, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

How can we actually make this be real? (as opposed to hypothetically if we had a marketing budget etc)

<:-)

[Jel]

I'll expand on this from general principles, in fact.

To make an operation work, management theory somewhat flippantly looks at bringing a set of Ms together in a harmonious balance, inputs which produce output. Men, Money, Machines, Materials, Methods, Marketing, Motivation, Madness - the list goes on and on. Marketing's in there, for sure, but it doesn't rule the roost as the MadMen would like. You use machines, tools, to turn materials into product. The basic lifecycle is start>loop (Inputs, Output, Storage)>end. Storage included things like all forms of asset, ie bank balances, stock, you name it. It balances Output-Input, ie growth. Marketing simply targets one part of the output, it isn't the output, nor is it anything else, oither than a cost reducing the bank balances in hand.

Never ever mix input and output up. That's a con-job, and illegal, it was seen off in the early 1970s.

Does TW need marketing? Not in the way you propose. Perhaps some of TW's tools which focus on the specific sub-classes of what TW produces (the ideas you list may do, but the most TW needs in the way of marketing is to maintain presence. Your sub-instantiation shows you neither understand the product, nor have the experience to correct your understanding yourself. You should have asked WHY it doesn't do what you want. That would have taught you something about yourself, that you have to put effort in to get what you need. Instead, you want to take over the world so you don't have to. Cruise missiles have just visited one of the more notable protagonists of that argument. Let me in conclusion offer you another managemnt truism: just as there's a triangle in physics, Speed=Distance/Time, so there is in marketing, Speed=Cost/Beauty. If you want instant gratification, then it'll cost you. As the Syrians have just discovered: I hope they feel it was worth it.

So how do you translate your marketing aspiration to your personal goal? If the wheels aren't out there already, you do what the rest of us did, you build one, or make a better one. And that doesn't mean sitting there hoping someone will do it for you, it means rolling up your sleeves and learning how to make something better, the message being that God helps those who help themselves. Or in a more secular society, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

So as a final thought, here is a Round Tuit. Make the most of it.  

[BurningTreeC]

lol

[TonyM]

Jel,

I feel I have to respond to this, because it is somewhat harsh and projects onto members of this community things from elsewhere we are not responsible for.

We get tiddlywiki, and we want to share it with others, we know from experience there are many different ways people come to know what tiddlywiki is and that even once discovered it takes time to understand its many capabilities and possibilities.

All we want to do is spread the word and if the word marketing offends you, well sorry, but none of us felt it politically incorrect to use it.

We share the same passion for tiddlywiki written in your words by you, and many of us may share your contempt of hollow commercial marketeers that dumb down the most beautiful and complex things we love. 

I am simply not sure you should be projecting your disquiet about the world on to people you clearly do not seem to know. At least not well enough to risk insult, people who I would expect to be your friends.

I for one are building tools and plugins, and expect they will "promote" tiddlywiki, and perhaps even attract other passionate community members, as the plugins, adaptions, editions and solutions before me.

Perhaps the use of a fictitious straw-man would have being a good literary device. 

Regards

Tony 

[Mat]

Jel, thanks for making me smile. 

If I felt the nature of TW was threatened, I'd react in the same way. But "marketing" TW - at least what I mean with it - simply means to put the product "out there" so that more people can use it and engage in its development. In fact, we need people here. Your contributions to TW, made even before TW existed, are clearly exceptional but the rest of us had to find out about TW in order to use and contribute to it today. We can have our little Mona Lisa hidden in our little closet or we can at least attempt to make it known to the world so more people can enjoy it. It is not either a beautiful product or a product that many people like - it is both.

if you're so brilliant in your omniscient knowledge, go play in your own sandpit and produce something better. Tiddlywiki succeeds precisely BECAUSE it isn't specific:to a need.

Yes! In my omniscient brilliance I am looking for exactly that; that we create specialized 'sandpits' and we make these easily found ("we market them"). That way, people have a chance to get to know about (real) TW which they probably would not do otherwise.

Now Jel, I'm REALLY curious what your ideas are for how we should get more people to use TW and to contribute to its development? Clearly, just having a "great product" is not enough in this time of information overflow. As you can tell, I'm not a professional marketer nor a competent coder, nor do I have as much experience as you do. So, please share your actual ideas how to make more people come to join the TW project. Or, better yet, don't jus hare ideas but help out with implementig them!

<:-)

[Mat]

On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:46:04 AM UTC+2, Jel wrote:

I'll expand on this from general principles, in fact.

To make an operation work, management theory somewhat flippantly looks at bringing a set of Ms together in a harmonious balance, inputs which produce output. Men, Money, Machines, Materials, Methods, Marketing, Motivation, Madness - the list goes on and on. Marketing's in there, for sure, but it doesn't rule the roost as the MadMen would like. You use machines, tools, to turn materials into product. The basic lifecycle is start>loop (Inputs, Output, Storage)>end. Storage included things like all forms of asset, ie bank balances, stock, you name it. It balances Output-Input, ie growth. Marketing simply targets one part of the output, it isn't the output, nor is it anything else, oither than a cost reducing the bank balances in hand.

Never ever mix input and output up. That's a con-job, and illegal, it was seen off in the early 1970s.

Does TW need marketing? Not in the way you propose. Perhaps some of TW's tools which focus on the specific sub-classes of what TW produces (the ideas you list may do, but the most TW needs in the way of marketing is to maintain presence. Your sub-instantiation shows you neither understand the product, nor have the experience to correct your understanding yourself. You should have asked WHY it doesn't do what you want. That would have taught you something about yourself, that you have to put effort in to get what you need. Instead, you want to take over the world so you don't have to. Cruise missiles have just visited one of the more notable protagonists of that argument. Let me in conclusion offer you another managemnt truism: just as there's a triangle in physics, Speed=Distance/Time, so there is in marketing, Speed=Cost/Beauty. If you want instant gratification, then it'll cost you. As the Syrians have just discovered: I hope they feel it was worth it.

So how do you translate your marketing aspiration to your personal goal? If the wheels aren't out there already, you do what the rest of us did, you build one, or make a better one. And that doesn't mean sitting there hoping someone will do it for you, it means rolling up your sleeves and learning how to make something better, the message being that God helps those who help themselves. Or in a more secular society, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

So as a final thought, here is a Round Tuit. Make the most of it.  

LOL!

...either what you say is true.

Or you've simply misunderstood what it is "I want" (probably from not reading my posts properly).

<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat wrote:

.... "marketing" TW - at least what I mean with it - simply means to put the product "out there" so that more people can use it and engage in its development. In fact, we need people here....

You may be interested to know that demand for "Tiddlers" is a  consistently growing trend. Especially under the Category "Shopping": https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?cat=18&date=all&q=tiddler
FWIW, Josiah

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Mat

I revisited this thread. Re-read it and sat with it.

I think its very interesting. Some excellent comments highly pertinent to better uptake of TiddlyWiki. Many good thoughts are in it.

I just want to underline its about TWO major things that need differentiating IMO...

1 - I think what YOU were asking about is NOT "marketing" with a big "M". Rather its a call to "get better organised" ... make the process of taking on TW easier (a) in general and (b) specifically by providing easier access to "finished products" with obvious utilitarian function (e.g. Organiser; Mapper; Knitting Schemer; Piano; Kinship Charts etc).

2 - Talking more towards MARKETING with a big "M", I think that is more about active outreach (hopefully building off capability at [1]) to distinct types of use and assist package solutions for that need. Right now GAMING, of various types, seems in the "demand" region that is unaddressed, as yet.

Thoughts
@TiddlyTweeter

[Mat]

@TiddlyTweeter

Yeah, the point would be to offer "entry points" to TW for those who would not otherwise find it. I think it is much about offering "editions" but, as you allude to, I'd say it is also about making people find these which would require some kind of organizational structure. 

I hope to look into github one of these days to see how the use of it as a serving platform would work. Danielo has previously made efforts to simplify publishing TW on github. I'm guessing that if there was a concerted effort to publish such "TW entries" in a single place like github, then this would be advantageous in search engines (anybody knows?). Also because it is a well (for coders) well known system, I think it could be well supported within our community. I.e we could "easily" establish workflows to help people publish their applications. But the major advantage is probably that it enables shared development, issue reporting etc. Unfortunately, github is also difficult to learn, at least for me, so I'm hoping someone comes up with an even better alternative.

So, yes, my thoughts are very much about getting organized. But the first step is of course to define it all and that is why I'm hoping for more input and ideas about it. 

As for "active outreach", I frankly don't have this in mind. But maybe I don't fully understand what you mean with it? The thing is, WHO would do this outreaching? You? How? E-mail people? As someone who is concerned about the TW project I'd really appreciate that but wouldn't count on it being a long lasting effort (or am I wrong?).

In contrast, if we get an "entry point" infrastructure set up then this could last a long time... at least in my mind. The major practical weakness in my vision is that I'm likely not capable to create such an infrastructure myself. This is also why I'm asking for ideas. Were someone to e.g convince me that setting something up on TiddlySpot is really the best such infrastructure, then I might just be able to do it myself... but I can see many disadvantages with TS for this so I doubt it is a good alternative.

<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Mat wrote:

... maybe I don't fully understand what you mean with it? The thing is, WHO would do this outreaching? You? How? E-mail people? As someone who is concerned about the TW project I'd really appreciate that but wouldn't count on it being a long lasting effort (or am I wrong?).

Ciao Mat,

I mean the kind of thing in the thread on Gaming, in process...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/kSh3AVQBcwk

I think its a clear example of a "demand area" that if a bit of energy is put into would fruit far better than leaving it without doing that.

By pro-actively noticing some demand work can evolve from being implicit to  EXPLICIT. It opens up more than if you treat everything the same. "Marketing" is an active process based on guesses about demand. I think the "Games Case" is a substantive instance that is currently in our faces already and that TW uptake in that field could be far greater IF we can help supply appropriate "products".

Josiah