> On 3/31/2012 9:42 AM, Graham Lauder wrote: > >> On 3/31/12 6:02 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > >>> We're getting very close to a 3.4 launch, and the time has come to move > >>> forward with a logo rebranidng for at least the user portal web site, > >>> http://www.openoffice.org, and possibly the project web site as well, > >>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/. > >>> > >>> Quite a number of logo variations have been proposed for uses within > >>> OpenOffice, both internal to the program and other uses, page sidebars, > >>> Forum header, etc. > >>> > >>> The most recent discussion can be found at the following thread: > >>> > >>> http://markmail.org/thread/fvgwlvva5ziib7qg > >>> > >>> a conversation started by Rob on March 15. > >>> > >>> You will note that one of the outcomes of this discussion was the > >>> desire that a new logo NOT include the word "incubating" in the logo. > >>> > >>> What I think we need to focus on now, and get Lazy Consensus on, is a > >>> new logo for the upcoming release, 3.4. Internally, we've already > >>> started calling OpenOffice.org "Apache OpenOffice", and we need to > >>> move forward to complete this re-branding to the public. > >>> > >>> I've put 3 "web header" logos in... > >>> > >>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/ > >>> > >>> * > >>> AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg<http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AO > >>> O _orb1_logo_webSite.jpg> * > >>> AOO_orb2_logo_webSite.jpg<http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/AO > >>> O _orb2_logo_webSite.jpg> * > >>> AOOfeather_logo_webSite.png<http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ > >>> A OOfeather_logo_webSite.png> > >>> > >>> Please respond to this e-mail by selecting your favorite from these 3. > >>> > >>> Given the Lazy Consenus "process", discussion will be closed on > >>> Tuesday, April 2, 0900 PDT. > >>> Hopefully, we'll have a clear choice by then. > >> > >> A clear vote for AOO_orb1_logo_webSite.jpg from me > >> > >> The minimal required change to add Apache is done nice and it doesn't > >> change too much. We should be careful with changing too much the overall > >> branding for now. We should first make clear that our users understand > >> the relation between Apache and OpenOffice.org. The brand and also the > >> logo are well known and I think it is important to keep and to protect > >> the brand by doing minor changes only. > > > > This is incorrect, please provide the results of research that support > > this assertion. I have corrected this sort of broad unsupported > > statement in the past. Please also provide a relative comparison. Well > > known in comparison to what? MS Office? Word Perfect? Lotus or maybe > > CocaCola. > > > > These are facts borne out by research: I talked to Professional Office > > Workers, the Gulls proved to be almost unknown in this target market. In > > my limited research the name OpenOffice.org or OpenOffice is the most > > recognised brand element even amongst present users. Amongst non users > > that recognise the brand, people recognise the name more than the Logo > > by a factor of about 10 (This could be greater but not possible to gauge > > an accurate factor because again of the limited sample) > > > > We have applied the most violent change to the most recognisable branding > > element already and that is completely out of our hands so minimal change > > is already not possible. > > While I understand that you were not in favor of it, I believe you are > overstating this a bit. > A quick look at google trends ( link > <http://www.google.com/trends/?q=openoffice.org,open+office,openoffice&ctab > =0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0> ) shows that "Open Office" or "OpenOffice" are > used > an order of magnitude more than "openoffice.org". Thus, the removal of > the '.org' is more > of an alignment with our 'effective brand' than it is a violent change. > We have kept the gulls, > we've kept the colors, and we've kept the most recognizable part of the > name (OpenOffice). > The only major change is the addition of 'Apache', which in addition to > being required, > represents the major change in the project in terms of licensing and > community control. > > I'm not trying to suggest that in total this is not substantial, I'm > just questioning the 'violent' > part of the comment.
Hey Andrew, Fair enough, the "violent" comment is definitely a personal POV. However the value of google analytics in this case has always been arguable. It is a nice easy thing to pluck out of the ether and having studied the outputs when this has been brought up in the past I find very little that is useful given the nature of the product and the nature of our target market. For instance, for the user to do a search, they need to know about OOo first to be able to put it into the search engine. Another for instance, if you put in Microsoft Office with OpenOffice you will see that the result does not reflect the difference in market share. I've gone on record on numerous occasions defending the need to retain the .org especially, if only to lessen the impact of the Openoffice.coms and the like, the old name at least defined the web address and given that our contact with our users is almost exclusively via that URL it's retension iseminently and once we are a TLP I will make the best attempt to have the policy "Apache Prefix" policy adjusted. I may be slashing at windmills but we have been told that part of the Apache way is that "nothing is set in stone"... true, it has also been said "Except this!" but I'm ever the optimist > > A. Cheers GL (Whose home team is kicking butt in the Super 15 at the moment. Go the Chiefs! :) ) > > > Orb 1 is best at the moment, as a long term solution > > however, it does not provide the impact or the story that will get the > > brand out into the market place. > > > > Anything used now should be seen as a stopgap and no more. > > > > GL > > > >> Juergen
