Graham Lauder wrote: > On Sunday 11 October 2009 05:34:19 Lars Nooden wrote: >> Graham Lauder wrote: >>> Thats disappointing because we should be changing it. It is now old and >>> decrepit and is looking it while our oppositions comes out with a fresh >>> new logo with every other release. Is it any wonder that people see us >>> as just an alternative to Office '97 >> Thanks for explaining that Graham. I had been wondering where our >> opposition had been spending its development effort. >> >> /Lars > > Hi Lars > > Heh, Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit! :)
I thought the pun held that honor. If it wasn't for low wit, I wouldn't have no wit at all. > Not all of it obviously, I get the impression that most of the change is in the logo, the rest is in introducing incompatibilities. > however you will note that the logo changes... Nope. I don't have to waste time with their crap or with people who promote it. With MSO, I noticed in 1994 that it really wasn't getting better. Others did too, I laughed when MSO 6 came out and students took to keeping 5.2 in shared folders (the school had a site license) so as to get some work done. I had mostly moved to HTML by that time. > For us it's not a matter of selling more upgrades as it is with proprietary > software, it's about looking "up-to-date". We don't change the UI look just > for the sake of it, whereas proprietary software makers are forced to, to > make it look like the punters are getting something "New" with each upgrade. It may no be a bad idea to make new logos with major changes, such as from 3 to 4, and minor variations for point changes. If nothing else, it helps identify the version. > Problem with all of this of course is that it puts the impression in the mind > of the End User that New Logo = New Software, of course we know that's a > marketing ploy, but for the enduser if the former is true, then by inference > Old Logo = Old Software. This of course makes statements made by the Steve > that OpenOffice.org is more akin to '97 more believable in their eyes. I didn't get the impression he had any credibility outside the disciplines of monkey-dancing and chair throwing. As far as I know, much of the population gives little to no credibility to the what's left of the trade journals. What I do see given lots of credibility is a vague word-of-mouth rumor-mongery. It might even be a whisper campaign, but I don't have either the language skills or tact to tract the origins. Anyway, the branding is only useful if it's on new material - either programs or documentation or both. If the documentation and brochures are refreshed, then it would be time for a new or freshened logo. /Lars --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
