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 Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:09:40 GMT
On Sunday 18 Dec 2011 16:23:51 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Graham Lauder <> 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!"
> >> 
> >> 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 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, 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 "".  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
> 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, however the product will be called 
Apache OpenOffice and everything on will redirect to an 
Apache url.  For simple endusers it will be a confusing minefield.     

> 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. 

> 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.  


View raw message