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 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:28:30 GMT
On Tuesday 13 Dec 2011 00:24:20 drew wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-12-11 at 14:00 -0800, Terry wrote:
> > Question below quoted text.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > > From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
> > > To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Monday, 12 December 2011 12:43 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Aoo logo draft
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > >> <snip>
> > >> 
> > >>  LibreOffice is a good example, they chose the name originally as a
> > >> 
> > >> temporary standin in the hope that the TDF would be given the OOo
> > >> brand, but they
> > >> 
> > >>  created the new brand and marketed it anyway.  Now they wouldn't want
> > >> 
> > >> the OOo brand even if it was offered.  True, they were dragged kicking
> > >> and screaming to it when they eventually accepted such a gift was not
> > >> going to happen and
> > >> 
> > >>  thus their new brand was forced to become permanent, but it has
> > >>  worked for them.
> > > 
> > > That shows that rebranding is possible, with effort.  But I think they
> > > would have even more traffic, more downloads and more users if they
> > > had the OpenOffice name.
> > > 
> > > Think of it this way, we get more hits today than LO, even though we
> > > have not had a release in nearly a year.
> > 
> > Hits where?
> 
> yesterday I noted an email that discussed a question regarding CNet
> downloads. So I took a look:
> LibreOffice had 847 downloads at their site last week (Windows only)
> LibreOffice Portal had less then 100
> 
> OpenOffice.org 3.3 hasd 15,700 Plus Change.. IIRC
> 
> Just a little factoid that seemed to be apt for the moment.

If this were the actual case it would reinforce my argument.  Between the 
release of OOo3.0 and OOo3.1 OOo was downloaded at average rate of just below 
290,000 per HOUR.  That continued through to the release of  3.2 if memory 
serves.  So the factoid means little other than perhaps nobody uses CNet 
anymore.  :)  or  that downloads since Apache has taken over, have shrunk by a 
factor of 99.98% or that CNet is responsible for just 0.02% of downloads.

 All of which would point to a good argument for rebranding.  However, given 
that it is just a blip in terms of total downloads, then the comparisons are 
pretty much meaningless.

Cheers
GL


> 
> //drew
> 
> > <snip>

Mime
View raw message