Mailing-List: contact ooo-marketing-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 203.97.37.64 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of g.a.lauder@gmail.com)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:39:12 +1300
From: Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Aoo logo draft
In-reply-to: <D6AE612D-0B8A-48BF-8C73-3D4635DADFEB@comcast.net>
To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
Message-id: <201112181539.13077.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <201112031650.43812.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
 <201112140024.54075.g.a.lauder@gmail.com>
 <D6AE612D-0B8A-48BF-8C73-3D4635DADFEB@comcast.net>
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.1-1.2-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; )

On Wednesday 14 Dec 2011 04:00:30 Dave Fisher wrote:
> 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?

Worthy? Hmmm.  Don't forget, without TOO there would not have been trademark 
for Oracle to gift.  What effort did Apache put in to creating OOo....? 
If, as seems to be the Apache Way, reward comes from effort, then how much 
mention is Apache worth.....  The question then remains is all the energy that 
has gone into the branding fiasco with TOO necessary?  Frankly,  no.  There 
are much more important things to have energy expended on.  Like a marketing 
campaign which I think that TOO may be in a position to fund and which is 
exactly the sort of thing TOO was founded for, but for which my asking would 
probably lead to claims of treachery on my part for dealing with a "Trademark 
Thief."      

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

I don't really think it's a problem,  some louder members on the list seem to 
think it is, (none of whom I note, seem to have had branding or marketing 
experience and have had little or nothing to do with the original OOo brand,) 
plus trademarks turning it into an Apache issue.  It's not an OOo one to my 
way of thinking.  

I have found in the past,  that most savage protection of brands is done by 
those brands that have little useful substance, ie   Soda pop, Fast food, 
fashion.   The brand that needs the least protection is one that has a good 
product that IS the brand.  Those industries I mention above, all they really 
produce is a brand, adding a product under that brand results in sales, the 
product is adjunct, simply a means to get people to pay for the brand.    For 
us however, the best way to protect the brand is to get the product to the 
market.  Without the product, the brand is just vapour.    

We do have a branding issue, however, that is not new, and that is brand 
recognition.  This podling has chosen to ignore this issue and change the name 
in a way that neither signals a new beginning nor loyalty to the original 
brand so that our brand recognition is now lower than it was before.   I was 
hoping to change it, but it seems that  the Apache "Nothing is Immutable" 
doesn't always apply.  A bit like Animal Farm "Nothing is Immutable, just some 
things are more immutable than others."  

The branding confusion here demonstrates a number of things.
Lack of experience in a consumer based product.
The ability for the loudest and most frequent posters to the ML to drive 
policy.
The number of quite severe restrictions that we suffer from under the Apache 
banner that we never had before, particularly around the ability to raise 
targetted funds, logo usage and branding.
Loud posturing and chest beating over this sort of thing only ends up in 
negative publicity.  (tho from a branding POV, any publicity .....etc) 


So my solution for all of the above:

Stop worrying about a TOO branding.
Get a product to the market as quickly as possible to the exclusion of every 
other distraction so that we claim ownership of the brand simply by being the 
preferred source for our users.
Launch the product to the market as OpenOffice.org by apache
Ask TOO to fund a marketing campaign aimed at lifting OOo brand recognition 
globally but targetting key markets. 

Problem solved, no stress
  
Cheers
GL

> 
> 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.