RE: Pork barrel critiques

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 14:06:25 CST

IANAM (I am not a marketer) but I'd second the emphasis on why an open
voting system is good rather than why proprietary voting systems are bad.
Leave the negative message to the people who are already fighting against
the closed systems (Bev, etc.), and present the (positive) alternative. All
of our positives will imply a negative about the closed systems, or we
wouldn't present them as positives, but let's leave them implied.

- LP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net
[mailto:owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net]On Behalf Of David
Jefferson
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:50 PM
To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
Subject: Re: [voting-project] Pork barrel critiques

I know I am mostly a lurker here, but FWIW I reacted to the $500
hammer reference the same way David Mertz did.

This illustrates how vital it is to avoid any remotely political
content in the "marketing" of your system. For many people,
especially your customers who are by nature politically attuned,
political content overwhelms technical content for emotional
impact and share of attention. A single reference, even
humerous, to a controversial political subject (other than
voting technology itself) can color your audience's perception
of the entire pitch.

In marketing a voting system, we should stick with images of the
flag and George Washington, and stick traditional electoral
system virtues like fairness, accuracy, privacy, openness,
security, reliability, simplicity, cost effectiveness,
accessibility, etc.

David

--- David Mertz <voting-project@gnosis.cx> wrote:
> On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 01:38 PM, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > I think a lot of the pork barrel charges are due to
> political
> > grandstanding.
> > But I wouldn't put studies of frog mating habits in the same
> category
> > as the
> > DoD $500 hammer.
>
> Which of the two do you like more/less? I'm honestly asking,
> since
> neither strikes me as proving what critics want them to.
>
> I don't really think the DoD $500 hammer is waste narrowly
> (for
> reasons similar to the toilet seat it may really cost that to
>
> make)--it's the trillion dollar star wars boondoggle that the
> hammer is
> part of that's the problem. What's wrong there is not
> inefficient
> spending at the details, but rather wrong-headed political
> priorities
> to do it in the first place.
>
> As to the million dollar frog sex: That's 4 Ph.D. biologists
> engaged in
> a three year study. Which seems exactly appropriate,
> actually.
>
> > Also, keep in mind that while we have a lot of Ph.D s on the
> project,
> > the
> > intended audience for the demo is comprised of people
> with--for the
> > most
> > part--with much less than a Ph.D going for them.
>
> I know. I just don't like to imply something that I wouldn't
> actually
> endorse, even if the audience isn't smart enough to catch on
> to what
> I'm doing. Free Software gets a lot of that negative
> insinuation from
> its enemies (who can't outright say the implied accusations,
> since
> they're flatly false); I don't want to play at a similar
> level.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -
> mertz@ | The specter of free information is haunting the
> `Net! All the
> gnosis | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into
> an unholy
> .cx | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their
> chains. Unite
> | against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy
> regimes!
>

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Mar 31 23:17:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 23:17:12 CST