Mailing-List: contact ooo-marketing-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dave2wave@comcast.net
 designates 76.96.30.17 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: Aoo logo draft
From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <201112190109.40954.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:04:04 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1854C9F0-946E-4FC6-BC6C-D7A92961399D@comcast.net>
References: <201112031650.43812.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
 <201112181554.59312.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
 <CAP-ksoi2tp65RWyeKO__ZweEXsm-JH30FjmSvJ8rnJzg3eFJjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <201112190109.40954.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org


On Dec 18, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:

> On Sunday 18 Dec 2011 16:23:51 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 14 Dec 2011 02:38:18 Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>>> One specific comment:
>>>>=20
>>>> On 2011-12-11 7:50 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
>>>> ...snip...
>>>>=20
>>>>> 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!"
>>>>=20
>>>> Including Apache as a prefix to the name is required, period.  This =
is
>>>> one of the invariants of any project that the ASF hosts.
>>>>=20
>>>> Given the fact that we have lots of new energy and opportunities =
ahead,
>>>> plus the fact that this PPMC runs the existing openoffice.org =
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.
>>>>=20
>>>> - Shane, VP, Brand Management
>>>=20
>>> The statement that has been repeated on a number of occasions is:
>>> in the ASF "Nothing is immutable".
>>>=20
>>> This particular issue needs to be mutable.
>>>=20
>>> 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, OpenOffice.org and Apache Software foundation."
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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 "OpenOffice.org".  And I seriously doubt that
>> users will fail to recognize OpenOffice merely because we put the =
word
>> "Apache" in front of it.
>>=20
>>> 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
>>=20
>> 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 ;-)
>=20
> Sun used a mirror network as well, where do the mirrors get the =
binaries from,=20
> oh yea, Suns servers.  It's an Open Source project, so everyone finds =
out that=20
> the releases are up at the same time, users and mirror admins, I =
shouldn't=20
> need to itemise what happens next.
>=20
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> And what if Bono publicly endorses Apache OpenOffice in a music =
video?
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> You miss my point entirely, perhaps I was being too obtuse.  If in the =
event=20
> of any unforeseen problem, the above was just an example of something =
that had=20
> actually happened, the problem will reflect on the brand OOo, not =
Apache.=20
> Given this then at least that brand should be allowed to stand on it's =
own.
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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
>> OpenOffice.org 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.
>=20
> To me, for brand Apache, what I ask is a minor thing, it will have =
little=20
> effect one way or the other, for Brand OOo however the dilution is =
significant=20
> and confusing to users, gads I'm confused.  As far as I can work out.  =
The=20
> website will be callled openoffice.org, however the product will be =
called=20
> Apache OpenOffice and everything on www.openoffice.org will redirect =
to an=20
> Apache url.  For simple endusers it will be a confusing minefield.    =20=


You are making assumptions. www.openoffice.org will exist on Apache =
servers and all the subdomains are mapped into folders within.

Some pages will redirect to the podling site - All of contributing for =
example. Patches are welcome.

>=20
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> Heh, I'm used to glacial, I've been with the OOo project for a long =
time, the=20
> word glacial was coined for OOo and I'm patient, some may say dogged.=20=


Engage and do.

Regards,
Dave


>=20
>>=20
>> 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?
>=20
> I will reiterate what I have stated before, in the full knowledge that =
people=20
> may get sick of me repeating myself.  This point we are at now is a =
once only=20
> opportunity.  At this point, especially with 4.0 we define the project =
into=20
> the foreseeable future.  It is not like code where you go "That didn't =
work,=20
> let's try something else."  We get to do this once we have to do it =
right.
>=20
> Because of this the investment is absolutely necessary=20
>=20
> There are only two real options, The brand with history that we build =
on or an=20
> entirely new brand that gives us the oppportunity to start with a =
roar,=20
> (Personally I liked ApacheO as the brand but...)  What has been chosen =
is a=20
> timid reaction without any research or real reasoning other than =
people going=20
> with something easy and what seems to be low risk.
>=20
> All the market and user research used to be done by Sun or it's =
contractors=20
> that is something we will need to do now. =20
>=20
> I'll give you an example from another project, OpenSuse.  Up til =
OpenSuse 11.2=20
> the packaging had been done by the community of, obviously, mostly =
developers. =20
> When 11.3 was released, the responsibility for the packaging of the =
Demo DVDs=20
> was contracted out to a marketing company, Open SLX,  the packaging =
changed=20
> completely, they did away with the grays and blacks of the earlier=20
> sophisticated community design and went for lighter colours and a =
funky photo=20
> of people jumping about.  The dev community almost universally hated =
it.=20
>=20
> However using the platform of Software Freedom Day, I did some market=20=

> research amongst users and asked about 200 people which packaging they=20=

> preferred.  About 80% preferred the Open SLX packaging.   The basic =
difference=20
> was that Open SLX was in touch with the end users and the community =
wasn't. =20
>=20
> Cheers
> GL