incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Lauder <>
Subject Re: Aoo logo draft
Date Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:39:04 GMT
On Monday 12 Dec 2011 02:43:08 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Graham Lauder <> wrote:
> > On Sunday 11 Dec 2011 12:30:48 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >> On 03/12/2011 drew wrote:
> >> > My best attempt was made to create new artwork which conforms to the
> >> > design principles as described in the branding
> >> > guidelines documentation.  ...
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Thank you for your effort. Indeed your draft goes in what I also see as
> >> the right direction: minimal changes to the logo in order
> >> to show continuity with respect to and at the same time
> >> introduce the new, slightly different, name.
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >>    Andrea.
> > 
> > And I have to respectfully disagree.
> > 
> > Again I repeat, as was forcefully expressed to me, this is an entirely
> > different project, entirely different owners, entirely different
> > community. To hang on to bits of the old is counterproductive whereas
> > going with a new look and style has many advantages in terms of
> > marketing, and remember that's all a name and logo is, part of the
> > brand, a marketing tool.
> It is not so absolute, black & white. In its 10-year history OOo had
> staff turnover, people joining and leaving the project, as well as
> plenty of changed code.

I know I was there.  :)  the branding changed between 1.X series (Blue waves )
2.X ( Dark blue gradients waves gone)  early 3. (Wire gulls graphic) 3.2 with 
Oracle ~ approx(New colour pallet and logo)  The logo that is used at the 
moment is only a very recent version. The relationship between the birds and 
the text is changed and the pallet is different.

> And at Apache many of the community members are from the previous
> project, and the code is mostly the same.  We're bringing over the
> wiki and website and forums and Bugzilla intact.
> So it is a transition, but there is also a lot of continuity.

Oh I agree, but that doesn't give us a story, just  "same old same old" with a 
slightly different name, enough of a difference to confuse users

> But regardless of the above, the marketing question is "What do we
> want to users to think about the next release(s)",  I don't think we
> want to have community transitions determine whether or not change the
> brand.  It might be an opportunity to do so, but I think we should
> evaluate this based on the merits as well as the capabilities of our
> marketing team.

I will reiterate what I said earlier in this thread:

We do not have the advantage of a huge, on the ground, community of advocates 
that LO has, so we have to get the media onside and to do that, we have to 
have a story worth publishing.  We need to create the story now.  We have the 
basis already, all we need to do is add to it so the it creates excitement and 
a buzz.   

To our End Users, this is not a minor transition (It may be as far as the code 
is concerned, not withstanding the IP review, I don't know I'm not qualified 
to comment) , it is a paradignm shift, I can't think of a better reason to 
relaunch with a new brand.  As far as our end users are concerned, the project 
is going through a period of complete inactivity.  The Download site breaks 
intermetently, multiple parts of OOo enduser space are either broken or 
irrelevant, to them the project is in a coma.  We need to make the new chapter 
in OOo's story big.  

Right now we don't have a marketing team, the MarCons have mostly gone to LO, 
instead we have developers making marketing decisions and given the enmity 
that many seem to have to marketing,( "Puffery and posturing" was how it was 
described to me IIRC ) then it seems that  we are in danger of making 
marketing decisions that are not based on Enduser based research but on gut 
feelings of many who have little or no contact with front office endusers and 
who view marketing as an unnecessay evil. 

> <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.

No disagreement about that .  As I have pointed out in the past on numerous 
occasions the strongest element in the project's brand was the string of 14 
text characters ~ ~   We don't have that anymore other than a 
place to redirect from so our brand is diluted. 

> Think of it this way, we get more hits today than LO, even though we
> have not had a release in nearly a year.

Am I surprised, no not at all, I pointed out very early in the life of this 
podling that the residual attention could last up to 2 years and if LO did 
nothing else they would keep the OOo brand out front by simple association. 

> > We need new branding to get a conversation going in the market, I'm not
> > sure if we can revisit the name before we graduate, I live in hope, we
> > can at least start with a new look logo.
> It is certainly possible to revisit the topic before graduation.

That would be good, there are many good arguments to be made to retain the OOo 
brand. A  "by Apache" tagline would be preferable to the Apache prefix.  I 
would however still be advocating a new logo rather than a slightly different 
old one.  Nothing significant was ever achieved by being timid.


> -Rob
> > Cheers
> > GL

View raw message