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, 11 Dec 2011 17:42:47 GMT
Hi Graham,

There are plenty of valid opinions. You are making a proposal that will require a lot of effort.
One that presents a choice for the project. I think it may be a long term goal.

The project is engaged in various "face-down" efforts. Terry has presented a viable logo.
If someone has a counter example now is the time, otherwise I think we should try it out.
There is no reason to veto this contribution. We need to move openoffice.org away from Oracle.
The project site needs to be distinguished from the old, as you say.

Keep in mind, the ASF and the AOO PPMC clearly intend to protect the OpenOffice.org brand.
Terry's logo fits this approach.

As far as hanging on to bits of the old. You may have noticed that the ASF philosophy has
been to take on the whole of OpenOffice.org. This has been a surprise to some members of the
AOO PPMC. It means more IP Clearance work, but it is good.

The old openoffice.org is in the repos, thanks Kay. Every effort should be made to make the
openoffice.org site the modern user portal for openoffice.org.

There is one marketing area on openoffice.org that is completely mired in the past - why.openoffice.org.
Would you care to focus on a rewrite? The minimum would be to change references to LGPL, but
really this is the place for marketing. A good positioning paper. why.openoffice.org is an
example of a poorly branded site as well. It has a cool organization which can be repeated
in a hierarchy of pages.

I do have ideas about how to run a logo contest (See http://james.apache.org/ and http://james.apache.org/#a
). We need to migrate first. We need help with the existing content. The best way to work
towards your goal would be to work on the content.

Regards,
Dave

On Dec 11, 2011, at 4:50 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 OpenOffice.org branding guidelines
>>> documentation.  ...
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOOLogo+proposal
>> 
>> Thank you for your effort. Indeed your draft goes in what I also see as
>> the right direction: minimal changes to the OpenOffice.org logo in order
>> to show continuity with respect to OpenOffice.org 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.  
> 
> 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!"
> 
> Neither did we have the cajones to take the bull by the horns and reflect the 
> reality of the situation and come up with a name as equally new as the 
> project.  
> 
> What the present situation shows to the world at large is that the project is 
> mired in the past and is lacking in imagination.  
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers
> GL 


Mime
View raw message