Branding is not an issue for the language of Rev because almost all of the users are on this list - change the name and several people have to do a search/replace for the name on a few documents. Developers starting to use Rev are doing so because somebody on this list told them about it. The internet is far more valuable as a networking and referral vehicle for products like Rev - excellent but not much weight (like if Microsoft had authored it).
Branding on any scale that matters won't happen until Rev decides to spend millions of $ on advertising in major media. Then their messaging must be surpassed by their performance to make a hit. Lynn has just arrived and is taking his job seriously getting the Rev message as simple and powerful as it can be. Trial and error after all the entrails have been examined is the only way. Constructive feedback is invaluable at this stage of development - which he's getting in spades. Marketing Rev-developed apps has a different market altogether. The big error most startup businesses make is altering the value proposition without recognizing it. Altering the value proposition CHANGES YOUR MARKET as the people that valued it before may not value it now. Changing price, suddenly putting out buggy code, shirking on the docs all affect the perceived value of Rev. Also, I think that versions 2.6 and 2.7 violated the value proposition that Rev had established - around OS 9 and around succession where the 2.6 files wouldn't run in 2.7. Earlier versions were not that difficult a transition I don't think (I entered at Version 5). In 2.7 people were expecting something other than what they got - hence all the flack er, feedback. This needs to settle down. Markets hate unpredictable change. Inconsistency is the true evil. McDonald's hamburgers are consistently mediocre and they are banking on it. Rev needs to settle on their value proposition and then ruthlessly protect it - inside their own organization... Jim on 4/11/06 4:37 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Dan wrote: >> I agree with your basic point. It seems clear to me that RR has a branding >> issue. I think they think they have solved it now. But there's a lot of >> consternation about changing the name of the language to be the same as the >> product and I keep waffling on that one. >> >> IT will be nice when we can go two full years without a product name change >> for sure! > > Judy's point is important, as concerns about RunRev not having a plan > and sticking with it seem far more pervasive and serious than the small > perceived benefit of attempting to get some micro-branding value from an > unnecessary change. > > Consider this: the only real risk with branding is the case in which > Transcript is being discussed in a context in which Revolution is never > mentioned. Anyone ever actually see that? > > Rather than jump on the gotta-be-like-RealBASIC bandwagon, I'd sooner > hitch my horse to the many more, larger, and more successful companies > whose market research evidently found no value to such a move (Lingo, > ActionScript, HyperTalk, AppleScript, OpenScript, etc. etc.). For every > language named for its IDE there are at least four that aren't. > > Given the nature of the question, it isn't possible to have truly firm > data one way or another (that sort of qualitative research is more an > art than a science, prone to researcher subjectivity and with a > singularity like a product it's not possible to have experimental > controls). So at best it's a guess, and one which merely covers for the > narrow possibility of a scenario in which Transcript would be discussed > without mentioning Revolution. > > But what is known is the cost to the company and third parties to update > all references to Transcript, the risk to the Open Directory and > Wikipedia entries (both have Transcript listings and both have policies > against entries for proprietary products), and the continued confusion > to the market since so many references exist in so many venues that it > won't be possible to update them all. > > Why introduce confusion and exacerbate a perception of flightiness only > to assist a branding effort which accounts for a scenario that never > happened? > > It may be the case that Adobe, Macromedia, Netscape, Apple, Asymetrix, > and other companies with strong market research departments are not > entirely wrong on this. > > I hope RunRev will reconsider in light of more important priorities > before committing to this recommendation from a contractor. > > A reputation for being flighty seems a far more serious branding issue > than merely following an established trend among many major successful > companies. > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Managing Editor, revJournal > _______________________________________________________ > Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution -- Helping people focus and use time effectively and satisfyingly as they go through their day. <http://www.OwnYourFuture-net.com> Own Your Future Consulting Services Limited, 23 Shoal Cove Road, Seabright, Nova Scotia, Canada. B3Z 3A9 Phone: 902-823-2339. Fax: 902-823-2139 _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
