G'day Pete:
> The problem is associated with our branding - what do we
> want to be branded as? Because Avalon used to be much bigger
> (It incorporated both Cornerstone and Phoenix) many people
> associate it with Phoenix. Others associate it
> plainy with framework part ... others the components etc.
Today the Avalon "brand" covers three things (and don't hesitate
to correct or suggest other views), and its in the definition of
these three things that I think the "branding" question get
confusing:
1 "Avalon - the framework stuff"
2. "Phoenix - the engine stuff"
3 "Cornerstone - the blocks stuff"
Today Avalon (the brand) represents 1, 2 and 3. In Pete's message
he's talking about Avalon in terms of point 1, not in terms of 1..3.
I think that maybe we do have a "brand management" problem (wow,
actually got in the 'm' word on an open-source list :-)). There
are two exit mechanisms here:
1. rename "Avalon the framework stuff" to something
new and exciting then update everything so that the
common message is that...
Avalon (the brand) is:
"XXXXXX - the framework stuff"
"Phoenix - the engine stuff"
"Cornerstone - the block stuff"
2. or, we redefine Avalon as the framework stuff and
escalate Phoenix (possible) as its own entity, and
figure out what to do with Cornerstone.
I don't like option (2) because of this will fragment the brand
value currently established (and keep in mind that what is currently
established is fragile but recognisable - and remember that getting
to recognisable is a way-cool achievement).
Cheers, Steve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
