incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Brown <>
Subject Re: (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:18:20 GMT
Kay Schenk wrote:
> 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

View raw message