incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Lauder <g.a.lau...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Aoo logo draft
Date Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:32:44 GMT
On Wednesday 07 Dec 2011 05:45:49 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 Dec 2011 18:57:46 Terry wrote:
> >> The next release will be installed by people who are familiar with the
> >> name and branding of OpenOffice.  Most may well not even have heard of
> >> the ASF.  The name 'OpenOffice' alone may not necessarily be sufficient
> >> to identify the new release with the well-known brand but combining it
> >> with familiar symbols will.
> >> 
> >> I agree with the sentiment of making a fresh start but I think we should
> >> take the market with us rather than getting ahead of it.
> >> 
> >> Regards, Terry
> > 
> > Hi Terry,
> > 
> > I agree, however my reasoning is this.  We can't afford to be timid, the
> > LO guys have taken the initiative really well and they're getting their
> > brand out there.  However, make no bones about it, they are still the
> > new kid on the block and while their penetration in the Linux space has
> > been significant and they have had some good wins, in terms of the
> > overall market I'm pretty sure that OOo is still the biggest beast on
> > the block.
> > 
> > There has been enough "OOo is dead and buried" FUD out there to give the
> > rumour some credence by the simple fact that many are saying it.  So the
> > market is not expecting BaU.  If we relaunch with a whimper it will
> > simply give the FUD more fuel.
> > 
> > When we launch it needs to be a Phoenix rising from the ashes of Oracles
> > ownership,  not just a scorched seagull.   THAT will take the market with
> > us. If we look like we're just trying to breath life into a dead bird,
> > the market will not be inspired.
> > 
> > Tsk getting all metaphorical, need to cut back on the coffee!  :)
> > 
> > My personal position (that may be seen as a little extreme and just
> > quietly ignoring Apache requirements for a release before grad.)   is
> > that we don't do a 3.4 release. (Heck leave it to the TOO guys)  I would
> > rather have 4.0 a little earlier.  That would give us a huge hook to
> > hang a marketing campaign on and time to focus purely on that from both
> > a development and a marketing viewpoint.
> 
> I think we're coming up to an interesting milestone with the 3.4
> builds.  These complete the work started in the 3.4 beta.  But in many
> ways 3.4 is an Apache milestone, with code license review, replacement
> of copyleft components, migration of infrastructure, and some simple
> rebranding.  It is not an aggressive feature release.  But it is a
> culmination of an aggressive migration effort.  I think we should be
> proud of it, as our own "private victory" for the project. 

 +1  This will be a milestone announcement aimed at a particular demographic: 
The Dev community.    It can be low key and out on the social media.  There 
deserves to be a measure of inhouse backslapping and cheering just because of 
the sheer volume of effort that's taken place over a relatively short period 
of time.  Done right there will be devs out there in the wild who will say: 
"Cool!  I want to be involved with that." 

There will be some industry specific media that may pick it up but I wouldn't 
be hugely concerned if they didn't 

> But we
> need to quickly move on to the "public victory" of a 4.0 release.  So
> I agree that 4.0 would be a much better release to focus a marketing
> campaign on.  3.4 should be solid, but not very exciting to the casual
> observer.
> 
> > The time to start all this now, the Dev guys have been at it for weeks
> > already as well as dealing with the IP stuff, we may still be a podling
> > but there will be little different when we become a TLP,  start as we
> > mean to go on for my money.
> 
> Maybe we can start talking about 4.0 ideas at the same time we release
> 3.4?  So instead of promoting a single release, we promote a roadmap?

+1, although I'm always wary of the "Roadmap" idea.  It always seems vague.  
Promote the destination not the route.  A roadmap is a good internal tool, not 
so much in the wider EndUser Market.  We need to be definitive, with concrete 
goals.  (it should go without saying that these goals should be achievable.)  

> 
> > Cheers
> > GL
> > 
> > PS: I should point out here, because someone will tut tut about my
> > comments, that we ARE in competition with LO.  However I've decided my
> > idea of competition is different to the American version.  And I have
> > deduced (without any empirical data of course!  :D) it's because
> > Americans don't play Rugby.
> 
> Indeed.  To an American, a rugby scrum looks as strange as Morris dancers.

The scrum: Bone on bone, muscle on muscle without armour and funny tights, 
close to a tonne and half of highly tuned athleticism in a contest of power 
and the ultimate expression of team work.  Eight each side, each individual 
with a specific role and task and if just one doesn't do his job and they 
don't work together, it all collapses.  Bit like a FOSS project really.  :)

> 
> > There is this godawful cliche that often pops up in post match
> > interviews: "Rugby was the winner on the day." but in fact it has some
> > resonance here.  We can compete hard and fair on the field and at the
> > and Italo et al, mates and share a post match beer.  The winner on the
> > day will be FOSS and the OOo Multiverse.
> 
> Competition is the natural outcome of choice and mortality.

Indeed, but destructive competition is counter productive.  Both sides should 
be lifted to another level by the mere act of competing. 

> 
> > G
> > 
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> 
> >> > From: Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
> >> > To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Cc:
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2011 12:21 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: Aoo logo draft
> >> > 
> >> > <snip>
> >> > 
> >> > My feeling at this point is that it would be preferable to start as we
> >> > mean to go on.  As has been pointed out to me on numerous occasions
> >> > this is not the old OOo project.  True, we are in incubating and not
> >> > yet a TLP, however it seems that we should be marketing the project
> >> > as if we were, so that it can be seen what we look like once we do
> >> > become a TLP. Therefore I think we need to look at the branding with
> >> > a long term perspective.
> >> > 
> >> > Whatever release is put out  by this podling, from now on will be an
> >> > Apache release under Apache license and branding should reflect that.
> >> > 
> >> > The name isn't a hell of a lot different, other than the Apache lead,
> >> > so the
> >> > 
> >> > new brand needs to reflect that this is a new beginning for a new
> >> > project that just happens to be based on the old OOo code that
> >> > retains some of the old name.
> >> > 
> >> > The old logo and branding is now past tense we need a reboot to see us
> >> > into the future.
> >> > 
> >> > Retaining the old branding or even something like it simply reinforces
> >> > the view that the project stuttered and stopped and is now staggering
> >> > back to life but is now way back down the track with the "competition"
> >> > having continued at
> >> > full pace.
> >> > 
> >> > We are in the situation now, given the time lapse, of being seen as
> >> > irrelevant.  The only way to counter that is to come back to the
> >> > market refreshed and announcing to the world that we are still with
> >> > the frontrunners by being bold and brazen with good code, innovative
> >> > features and a bold new look.  This is the only chance we will have
> >> > to do this, once we're back in people's consciousness any changes to
> >> > the branding will have to be incremental
> >> > and small.
> >> > 
> >> > Cheers
> >> > GL
> >> > 
> >> > PS:  Normally I despise "Brand Competitions" with a decision by vote
> >> > and I
> >> > still do.  However a Competition may be the best bet at this juncture,
> >> > however we need to use marketing best practice here.  If we decide on
> >> > a competition my suggestion is to get the community (Dev list) vote
> >> > down to top five by transferable vote or we have consensus.
> >> > 
> >> > Those people in the community who wish to be involved in marketing
> >> > (this list) then remove two more by consensus. Then all of those
> >> > people take the remaining three variations and survey end users in
> >> > good old fashioned market research.
> >> > 
> >> > The other option is the Apache way, "Those that do the work  make the
> >> > decision." Those on this list create the branding elements and we work
> >> > it over
> >> > until we have a consensus.
> >> > 
> >> > PPS:  Obviously contributors will need to have signed an ICLA to have
> >> > artwork considered.
> >> > 
> >> > G

Mime
View raw message