incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Aoo logo draft
Date Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:04:04 GMT

On Dec 18, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:

> On Sunday 18 Dec 2011 16:23:51 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 14 Dec 2011 02:38:18 Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>>> One specific comment:
>>>> 
>>>> On 2011-12-11 7:50 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
>>>> ...snip...
>>>> 
>>>>> We, as in the project, neither had the cajones (or in my case didn't
>>>>> know that whatever is set in stone, isn't actually.)  to go to the
>>>>> board or IPMC or whoever and say:  "These are the reasons we need to
>>>>> NOT have apache in front of OpenOffice.org!"
>>>> 
>>>> Including Apache as a prefix to the name is required, period.  This is
>>>> one of the invariants of any project that the ASF hosts.
>>>> 
>>>> Given the fact that we have lots of new energy and opportunities ahead,
>>>> plus the fact that this PPMC runs the existing openoffice.org domain
>>>> (arguably, one of the biggest marketing assets from OOo land), I think
>>>> there is a lot to be happy about, even if the actual product/project
>>>> name does need to change.
>>>> 
>>>> - Shane, VP, Brand Management
>>> 
>>> The statement that has been repeated on a number of occasions is:
>>> in the ASF "Nothing is immutable".
>>> 
>>> This particular issue needs to be mutable.
>>> 
>>> My reasons are as follows:
>>> Apache hasn't dealt with any other consumer end products in the past, it
>>> doesn't have a profile in the consumer market space.  If I walked into
>>> Times Square in NY or Viaduct Basin in Auckland or The Brandenburg Gate
>>> in Berlin and asked 200 random people to name an Apache product, what
>>> sort of answers would I get.  If I asked "Do you recognise either of
>>> these names, OpenOffice.org and Apache Software foundation."
>>> 
>>> What do you think the answers would be and how many would show
>>> recognition and what of?  I think I can predict, but I don't know, but I
>>> would be prepared to take clipboard in hand, do the hard yards and find
>>> out.
>> 
>> If you're just looking for name recognition, the key bit is
>> "OpenOffice".  The ".org" part of that is not necessary for
>> recognition.  We've seen that when we looked at data such as Google
>> search queries and Wikipedia queries.  "OpenOffice" is what the users
>> are remembering, not "OpenOffice.org".  And I seriously doubt that
>> users will fail to recognize OpenOffice merely because we put the word
>> "Apache" in front of it.
>> 
>>> Secondly in terms of negative brand image, is the Apache infrastructure
>>> capable of serving up just shy of 300,000 downloads an hour, for months
>>> on end) and that approx 130 Mb per download.   We have had complaints
>>> about bandwidth usage by the extensions site, demand for  which is
>>> miniscule by comparison
>> 
>> This question came up when OpenOffice was originally proposed for
>> incubation at Apache. We did the math at that time.  It did not look
>> like it would be a problem.  Of course, no one expects to do this from
>> a single server. We'd use a mirror network.  The extension site does
>> not.  At least not yet, but who knows, once Gavin is done with it ;-)
> 
> Sun used a mirror network as well, where do the mirrors get the binaries from, 
> oh yea, Suns servers.  It's an Open Source project, so everyone finds out that 
> the releases are up at the same time, users and mirror admins, I shouldn't 
> need to itemise what happens next.
> 
>> 
>>> So the question is when the servers choke when we do our first release
>>> (As Suns servers did for about 4 or 5 days after 3.0):  Whose brand is
>>> going to take the hammering? Obviously because people will come to
>>> download OOo, it will be that brand that takes flack, not  Apache.
>> 
>> And what if Bono publicly endorses Apache OpenOffice in a music video?
>> 
>> I don't see the value of debating the brand impact of unlikely events.
>> And as you mention, there were hiccups after the 3.0 release with
>> sever capacity.  The problem was addressed.  The world did not end.
>> The brand survived.
> 
> You miss my point entirely, perhaps I was being too obtuse.  If in the event 
> of any unforeseen problem, the above was just an example of something that had 
> actually happened, the problem will reflect on the brand OOo, not Apache. 
> Given this then at least that brand should be allowed to stand on it's own.
>> 
>>> These things are the reality of a successful consumer space product.
>>> Maybe  Apache's brand awareness will lift by hanging on to OOo's
>>> coattails, I don't know, but other than "It's Policy!" there is no good
>>> reason to prefer Apache as prefix over tagline, either works for the
>>> Apache brand, but the tagline doesn't dilute OOo's brand as badly as
>>> the prefix does.
>> 
>> Of course, you are correct, that if we were not at Apache we'd have no
>> good reason for calling it "Apache OpenOffice".  Similarly, if
>> OpenOffice.org was not sponsored by Oracle we'd have no good reason to
>> have their logo on all the webpages and the install. But we are at
>> Apache, so following Apache policies is part of what it means to be an
>> Apache project.
> 
> To me, for brand Apache, what I ask is a minor thing, it will have little 
> effect one way or the other, for Brand OOo however the dilution is significant 
> and confusing to users, gads I'm confused.  As far as I can work out.  The 
> website will be callled openoffice.org, however the product will be called 
> Apache OpenOffice and everything on www.openoffice.org will redirect to an 
> Apache url.  For simple endusers it will be a confusing minefield.     

You are making assumptions. www.openoffice.org will exist on Apache servers and all the subdomains
are mapped into folders within.

Some pages will redirect to the podling site - All of contributing for example. Patches are
welcome.

> 
>> 
>> Apache is not ruled by dictators.  There are VP's, like Shane, with
>> specific responsibilities, but VP's answer to the Board of Directors
>> who are elected by Apache Members.  So there is always the opportunity
>> for things to change, albeit not very quickly.
> 
> Heh, I'm used to glacial, I've been with the OOo project for a long time, the 
> word glacial was coined for OOo and I'm patient, some may say dogged. 

Engage and do.

Regards,
Dave


> 
>> 
>> However, in terms of return on investment, where investment here is
>> your time and the time of other volunteers who want to help with
>> marketing, I think trying to change Apache policy in this regard would
>> require a  investment in time with an uncertain outcome.  Given that,
>> I wonder if there are other things we should be focusing on here and
>> now, instead?
> 
> I will reiterate what I have stated before, in the full knowledge that people 
> may get sick of me repeating myself.  This point we are at now is a once only 
> opportunity.  At this point, especially with 4.0 we define the project into 
> the foreseeable future.  It is not like code where you go "That didn't work, 
> let's try something else."  We get to do this once we have to do it right.
> 
> Because of this the investment is absolutely necessary 
> 
> There are only two real options, The brand with history that we build on or an 
> entirely new brand that gives us the oppportunity to start with a roar, 
> (Personally I liked ApacheO as the brand but...)  What has been chosen is a 
> timid reaction without any research or real reasoning other than people going 
> with something easy and what seems to be low risk.
> 
> All the market and user research used to be done by Sun or it's contractors 
> that is something we will need to do now.  
> 
> I'll give you an example from another project, OpenSuse.  Up til OpenSuse 11.2 
> the packaging had been done by the community of, obviously, mostly developers.  
> When 11.3 was released, the responsibility for the packaging of the Demo DVDs 
> was contracted out to a marketing company, Open SLX,  the packaging changed 
> completely, they did away with the grays and blacks of the earlier 
> sophisticated community design and went for lighter colours and a funky photo 
> of people jumping about.  The dev community almost universally hated it. 
> 
> However using the platform of Software Freedom Day, I did some market 
> research amongst users and asked about 200 people which packaging they 
> preferred.  About 80% preferred the Open SLX packaging.   The basic difference 
> was that Open SLX was in touch with the end users and the community wasn't.  
> 
> Cheers
> GL


Mime
View raw message