incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re: (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:38:46 GMT
Am 07/11/2011 05:18 PM, schrieb Andy Brown:
> 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!
> +1

After reading all the mails and especially what Graham has written, I 
just want to say:

+1 to go on with "" (or "Apache" if we have 

>>> 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