incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:05:54 GMT

On 07/11/2011 04:06 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
>> <snip>
>> On 09/07/11 07:58, eric b wrote:
>>> The .org is and was always essential to the community.
>> Why? Out of the folk on the OOo forum who expressed an opinion to me, no
>> one liked it. It was a perpetual reminder that the product couldn't be
>> called what they really wanted it to be called: OpenOffice. I greatly
>> prefer Apache OpenOffice to Apache
>> Dave.
> As Peter Junge has stated, this discussion has a repetitive deja vu feel
> about it.
> There are number of most excellent things about the name,
> none of which relate to people who are involved in the community and
> this includes the people at OOoForum, they don't need to.  It does
> however have beneficial effects for the New User or New Client which of
> course the Marketing project thinks of constantly.
> It tells this New Client, who may not be at all familiar with, or even
> heard the name, a number of things.  It tells them that it is open, and
> so it starts to introduce the concept of open source or reinforces the
> idea for someone who is looking for Open Source Solutions.  It tells
> them that it is an office type application and it tells them that it is
> a web based project with the .org on the end and at the same time gives
> them the web address.  For the web savvy user, the .org tells them that
> there is a noncommercial organisation in place, a community in other
> words.
> It is a webaddress, which is important in a product whose entire
> distribution of product and collateral is webbased.  Not,
> not, which people would more likely put into an address
> bar, but, clear, precise, no confusion, put
> in your address bar or google and the new user will get
> to where they need to go.
> The name is not about what the community feels comfortable with.  It is
> however about branding
> Branding needs continuity
> Branding is client focussed.

YES! The name "Open Office" or "OpenOffice" is not, in fact, "branded" 
in the same way that is. I really feel is it critical at 
this time to let the brand/product stand a so as to 
maintain our current history and recognition worldwide.

Graham, you area absolutely dead on!

> The brand is 14 characters strung together in a very recognisable
> format, Upper case Os in OpenOffice with dot and lower case o on org.
>  In text on a page of typeface it is recognisable
> without bugs like the "gulls". The diminutive in the format OOo is as
> recognisable.  Google it sometime.
> The OOo community has always been well known for the strength of it's
> marketing.  Diluting the brand by dropping the .org or tacking Apache
> (which has even lower brand recognition in our target market) on the end
> is, from a marketing POV, close to suicidal.  Where marketing requires
> brand development with zero budget, it makes the marketers job very
> difficult because changing the name throws away 10 years of marketing
> collateral.
> It needs to be left as is.  If the Apache rules say that "Apache" has to
> be appended, then the rule needs changing.  I'd be happy to dump the
> gulls and add the feather as a bug.  I'd be happy to add "by apache" as
> a tagline.  But is the name of the software, the website
> and the community, it should remain unsullied and unaltered.
> Unless of course someone can come up with several hundred thousand for a
> marketing budget to launch a new global brand.
> Cheers
> GL


"An old horse for a long hard road, a young pony for a quick ride".
                                   -- Unknown

View raw message