[Global_industry_committee] Fwd: OWASP Industry committee branding

Sarah Baso sarah.baso at owasp.org
Mon Feb 28 18:27:40 EST 2011


Many of you were "out of the loop" in the Logo discussion (which was tabled
at Friday's meeting).  Here is the discussion that was generated via
email...

Sarah

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eoin <eoinkeary at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: OWASP Industry committee branding
To: Rex Booth <rex.booth at owasp.org>
Cc: Colin Watson <colin.watson at owasp.org>, bernik at gmail.com,
sarah.baso at owasp.org, dinis cruz <dinis.cruz at owasp.org>


Met with CISO's from many local FS clients, explained the issues with them
and generated awareness.



On 23 February 2011 16:45, Rex Booth <rex.booth at owasp.org> wrote:

> Awesome.  When you say it worked well, what was the result?
>
>
> On 2/23/2011 11:43 AM, Eoin wrote:
>
> Happy to do whatever the committee decides, just shooting ideas out there.
>
> Re sending a book out.
> I did that in December (using Ireland chapter funds) with the Top 10 and it
> worked really well.......
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 February 2011 16:39, Rex Booth <rex.booth at owasp.org> wrote:
>
>> I guess.  How do you measure ROI on a logo?
>>
>> Frankly, I'm of the opinion that a lot of the investments made for the
>> summit (the logo, the banners, the stickers and folders, compasses, rockets,
>> etc) was superfluous - especially considering that everybody at the summit
>> had a pre-existing strong relationship with OWASP and didn't need stuff like
>> that to remind them of the organization.  For everything that was spent on
>> those items, we could have likely sponsored another two attendees.  So
>> what's more valuable - those trinkets or two more people at the summit?
>>
>> I don't feel strongly against the development of a logo per se - I more
>> fundamentally think we need to focus on activities that will provide a more
>> guaranteed ROI.  Since a logo will cost us money (I assume), we need to
>> consider the opportunity cost of its development before agreeing to it.
>>
>> Allow me to propose an alternative suggestion for the use of these funds
>> (I'm going to estimate at $500 USD):  we instead send printed copies of the
>> SAMM booklet to 100 target individuals in industry (CISOs, lead developers,
>> etc).
>>
>> This is only an example, but I think it captures what I'm saying.  We're
>> here to sell OWASP, not the GIC, and I think any effort or funds we expend
>> need to be focused accordingly.
>>
>> Just another $.02...
>>
>> Rex
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/23/2011 11:21 AM, Eoin wrote:
>>
>> ok but the summit logo worked well? No?
>>
>> it would identify us as a group focused on industry. such that when we
>> develop position papers etc for industry we can link it to a committee and
>> demonstrate there is a group dedicated to linking to the real world and
>> willing to listen to issues causing pain....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 February 2011 16:08, Rex Booth <rex.booth at owasp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Ha!
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but I tend to agree with Colin's thought on branding.  I think
>>> OWASP is our brand - anybody external to the organization isn't really going
>>> to care about our internal committee structure, etc.  As an example, within
>>> Grant Thornton I work in the Global Public Sector practice (GPS).  But when
>>> we talk to external clients, we don't mention GPS - we're just Grant
>>> Thornton.  It helps strengthen our brand and avoid confusion.  It's the same
>>> with most of the big consulting firms around the DC beltway.
>>>
>>> To Eoin's point, we do need to determine how we can make ourselves more
>>> attractive to industry contacts.  I'd recommend that, instead of logo
>>> development, we focus on developing our message and value proposition as
>>> well as developing a structure that accommodates more frequent and intimate
>>> interactions with industry.
>>>
>>> My $.02.
>>>
>>> Rex
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2011 10:09 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess EY is still here, despite re-branding in 2008?  Maybe they did
>>>> it correctly :-)
>>>>
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>> On 23 February 2011 14:01, Eoin<eoinkeary at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A logo is the exact opposite of inward...its brand we can make stronger
>>>>> to
>>>>> pull in industry delegates. It identifies our goal and links with
>>>>> projects
>>>>> etc.
>>>>> It gives the perception we are a unified group of professionals pulling
>>>>> in
>>>>> the same direction which is what industry want to talk to rather than a
>>>>> loose community of security folk with *some* ideas.
>>>>> ..........but that's just my view, might be in EY for too long ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 February 2011 13:09, Colin Watson<colin.watson at owasp.org>
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eoin et al
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't necessarily disagree with doing this.... and I know we are
>>>>>> "just" a committee", but creating a logo could be seen as an inward
>>>>>> looking task since it is about *us* (although of course it is
>>>>>> potentially for awareness).  Personally I've seen too many companies
>>>>>> losing the plot on their businesses, focusing on things like
>>>>>> re-branding, and then they are taken over or go bust, so whenever
>>>>>> anyone mentions changing (or creating a) logo, alarm bells start
>>>>>> ringing.  The only committee that had a logo before was Chapters I
>>>>>> think, and that died a death, but of course has some new members and
>>>>>> ideas now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But anyway on a positive note, I'm not saying don't do it, but we
>>>>>> should avoid any simplistic generalisations of the word "industry"
>>>>>> since there are many market sectors (not all technologically driven),
>>>>>> and we also need to embrace the non-private sector such as national&
>>>>>> regional governments, their agencies and standards bodies.  So
>>>>>> mechanical gears, factories billowing smoke, machinery, dollar bills,
>>>>>> etc should be off the idea list.  A logo shouldn't exclude any target
>>>>>> region, market, audience... and it needs to work and be legible at
>>>>>> multiple scales (web resolution, print, poster, side of building).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe we need the GIC mission first, and the logo (at least) second?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sanity check: do we have a budget for this/anything?  Up until January
>>>>>> the GIC budget was zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23 February 2011 12:36,<bernik at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed
>>>>>>> ------Original Message------
>>>>>>> From: Sarah Baso
>>>>>>> To: Eoin Keary
>>>>>>> To: eoinkeary at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: dinis cruz
>>>>>>> To: Joe
>>>>>>> To: Colin Watson
>>>>>>> To: Rex Booth
>>>>>>> ReplyTo: sarah.baso at owasp.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: OWASP Industry committee branding
>>>>>>> Sent: Feb 23, 2011 7:24 AM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eoin-
>>>>>>> I think this is a great idea. If others are in agreement we could ask
>>>>>>> her for a proposal and then Joe could ask for money in his new
>>>>>>> budget? I am
>>>>>>> not sure where we are at expense-wise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe- at a minimum let's put this on the agenda for friday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>> ------Original Message------
>>>>>>> From: Eoin
>>>>>>> Sender: eoinkeary at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: dinis cruz
>>>>>>> To: Sarah Baso
>>>>>>> To: Joe Bernik
>>>>>>> To: Colin Watson
>>>>>>> To: Rex Booth
>>>>>>> Subject: OWASP Industry committee branding
>>>>>>> Sent: Feb 23, 2011 6:15 AM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guys I think the Industry committee needs a logo.
>>>>>>> Some branding relating us as part of OWASP but also it shall help
>>>>>>> drive
>>>>>>> this vertical within OWASP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we engage with Dinis' wife to develop something and obviously pay
>>>>>>> her?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eoin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Eoin Keary
>>>>>>> OWASP Global Board Member
>>>>>>> OWASP Code Review Guide Lead Author
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my i-Transmogrifier
>>>>>>> http://asg.ie/
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/EoinKeary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry device from Cincinnati Bell Wireless
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Eoin Keary
>>>>> OWASP Global Board Member
>>>>> OWASP Code Review Guide Lead Author
>>>>> AppSec EU 2011
>>>>> http://asg.ie/
>>>>> https://twitter.com/EoinKeary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

-- 
OWASP Global Summit Organizing Committee
Secretary for OWASP Global Industry Committee

Dir: 651-233-6334
skype: sarah.baso
sarah.baso at owasp.org <lorna.alamri at owasp.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/global_industry_committee/attachments/20110228/7df991f4/attachment.html 


More information about the Global_industry_committee mailing list