incubator-ooo-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Aoo logo draft
Date Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:45:49 GMT
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.  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?

> 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.

> 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 end of the day I will still
> call Florian and Charles and Simon and Cor 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.

> 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