incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Rist <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] AOO logo rebranding...
Date Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:23:17 GMT
On 3/31/2012 9:42 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
>> On 3/31/12 6:02 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> We're getting very close to a 3.4 launch, and the time has come to move
>>> forward with a logo rebranidng for at least the user portal  web site,
>>>, and possibly the project web site as well,
>>> Quite a number of logo variations have been proposed for uses within
>>> OpenOffice, both internal to the program and other uses, page sidebars,
>>> Forum header, etc.
>>> The most recent discussion can be found at the following thread:
>>> a conversation started by Rob on March 15.
>>> You will note that one of  the outcomes of this discussion was the desire
>>> that a new logo NOT include the word "incubating" in the logo.
>>> What I think we need to focus on now, and get Lazy Consensus on, is a new
>>> logo for the upcoming release, 3.4. Internally, we've already started
>>> calling "Apache OpenOffice", and we need to move forward
>>> to complete this re-branding to the public.
>>> I've put 3 "web header" logos in...
>>> *
>>> AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg<
>>> _orb1_logo_webSite.jpg>  *
>>> AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg<
>>> _orb2_logo_webSite.jpg>  *
>>> AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png<
>>> OOfeather_logo_webSite.png>
>>> Please respond to this e-mail by selecting your favorite from these 3.
>>> Given the Lazy Consenus "process", discussion will be closed on Tuesday,
>>> April 2, 0900 PDT.
>>> Hopefully, we'll have a clear choice by then.
>> A clear vote for AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg from me
>> The minimal required change to add Apache is done nice and it doesn't
>> change too much. We should be careful with changing too much the overall
>> branding for now. We should first make clear that our users understand
>> the relation between Apache and The brand and also the
>> logo are well known and I think it is important to keep and to protect
>> the brand by doing minor changes only.
> This is incorrect,  please provide the results of research that support this
> assertion.  I have corrected this sort of broad unsupported statement in the
> past.  Please also provide a relative comparison.  Well known in comparison to
> what?  MS Office? Word Perfect? Lotus or maybe CocaCola.
> These are facts borne out by research: I talked to Professional Office
> Workers, the Gulls proved to be almost unknown in this target market.  In my
> limited research the name or OpenOffice is the most recognised
> brand element even amongst present users.  Amongst non users that recognise
> the brand, people recognise the name more than the Logo by a factor of about
> 10 (This could be greater but not possible to gauge an accurate factor because
> again of the limited sample)
> We have applied the most violent change to the most recognisable branding
> element already and that is completely out of our hands so minimal change is
> already not possible.
While I understand that you were not in favor of it, I believe you are 
overstating this a bit.
A quick look at google trends ( link 

) shows that "Open Office" or "OpenOffice" are used
an order of magnitude more than "".  Thus, the removal of 
the '.org' is more
of an alignment with our 'effective brand' than it is a violent change.  
We have kept the gulls,
we've kept the colors, and we've kept the most recognizable part of the 
name (OpenOffice).
The only major change is the addition of 'Apache', which in addition to 
being required,
represents the major change in the project in terms of licensing and 
community control.

I'm not trying to suggest that in total this is not substantial, I'm 
just questioning the 'violent'
part of the comment.

> Orb 1 is best at the moment, as a long term solution
> however, it does not provide the impact or the story that will get the brand
> out into the market place.
> Anything used now should be seen as a stopgap and no more.
> GL
>> Juergen

View raw message