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 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:00:30 GMT

On Dec 13, 2011, at 3:24 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:

> On Tuesday 13 Dec 2011 10:59:31 Rob Weir wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> 
>> OK.  So this raises two questions:
>> 
>> 1) What should our marketing message be?
> 
> I think I've already covered this if not in so many words:  The Revival, the 
> New Beginning!  which lead us to THIS big thing or mountain of features in 4.0 
> ("This Big Thing" TBA)
> 
>> 
>> 2) What capabilities do we have to carry out a campaign to deliver that
>> message?
> 
> Depends on the campaign, depends on whether we will have a budget, I'd like to 
> ask Team OOo but that might be seen as treachery or something.

Not treachery. I just challenge you to show us where AOO or OOo at the ASF is mentioned at
the Team OOo EV site.

The mention that the ASF owns the trademarks is there, but all of the work of now many more
people than TOOo and with the TOOo founders on the AOO roster is NOT worthy of mention?

That is a real problem - a branding problem. Perhaps you can help with that.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> I will add a comment here though: I have a problem with this running about the 
> place smacking anyone over who displays the logo and publicises the fact that 
> they are OOo supporters or does something that is in support of OOo.   All 
> this demanding that logo be only available to the project will really hammer 
> our brand recognition.  The whole thing smacks of a dictatorial corporate 
> attitude that reflects a Cathedral builder's mentality rather than the bazaar 
> of which OOo is part.  We should be getting the brand out there in any way we 
> can.  That was the great thing about the original logo, there was no 
> confusion, the logo was a web address.  Apache people might find that 
> confusing, I sure as hell don't and it is one reason why I have advocated for 
> many years over retaining the .org in the brand.  
> 
> CTR should apply to logo use as well i.e:  Use the logo as is with the graphic 
> linked to openoffice.org.  Permission to use is automatic with those simple 
> criteria unless someone complains.
> 
> Brand recognition is our achilles heel, anything that affects that negatively 
> should be a nono, anything that gets it into the public eye should be 
> supported.
> 
>> 
>> If we think our marketing capabilities are reduced, then it seems we
>> either:
>> 
>> A) Do a poor job
> 
> Not an option, our past corporate partners managed to do that even with so 
> called professional PR companies steering the campaign, I doubt that we could 
> do any worse although we don't know what restrictions will be placed on us.
> 
>> 
>> B) Recruit more members
> 
> The best way to do this is give people the oppportunity to contribute to a new 
> brand.  Allow them to take ownership of it and they will come and bring their 
> passion with them.  Stay wedded to the old and you limit the motivation to 
> participate. Good Marketing people thrive on new challenges.
> 
>> 
>> C) Push for a message that can be delivered using the capabilities we have.
> 
> We do have some people within the project, such as yourself and Simon Phipps, 
> who, given your profiles in the industry, have large numbers following your 
> blogs, that is certainly something we can leverage off given that some of 
> those followers will be journos.  
> 
> The chances of significant numbers of End Users subscribing to Apache lists or 
> RSS feeds is small, so that resource will probably be only useful to 
> communicate to those withg local contacts.  We need to get to the broader  
> media, broadsheet, trade mags, magazine CDs, radio and TV.    I made the point 
> earlier on, that this opportunity is a oncer.  We have a compelling story that 
> has to likely   
> 
> 
>> 
>> A large rebranding effort would require greater effort to communicate.
>> If we want to do that (and I don't have a strong opinion one way or
>> another on that) then we need a corresponding capability on the
>> marketing side.
> 
> The effort would be no greater than that required to lift OOo out of the 
> doldrums and launch the new name.  I would prefer the old name with a new look 
> in terms of making the marketing job easier.
> 
>> 
>> So it might make sense, in parallel with discussing the actually
>> branding and the message, to survey what we have available to us now,
>> in terms of volunteers, tools, web properties, etc.  Maybe we have
>> more than we know about?
> 
> Indeed, I have voiced the need for research before,  a necessary part of any 
> SWOT analysis
> 
>> 
>> One thing we did not do when this list started was have a thread to
>> introduce ourselves and what our interest in ooo-marketing is.  Maybe
>> we should do that?
> 
> Probably not a bad idea, but not essentially necessary, not for me tonite, I 
> need sleep and too much of my spare time is consumed on here already, another 
> day perhaps.
> 
> Cheers
> GL
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message