Adam Doxtater wrote: > >A good thing (I think) that came out of that discussion was developing > >a logo that does not include our name, so a more visual identity may > >be established. But if you look up any information about branding, > >identity, and even trademarks, you will read that you need a strong > >name and a visual identity or mark. > > I can understand the importance of brand identity, as I've worked very > hard to create my own... BUT... if an identity can be improved upon by > change, then would that warrant changing a few graphics?
Besides, it's not like we are talking about a drastic change. Or for that matter, a change that most people will even notice. We would be changing to the name that most people already use, which is very very similar to our current name, except less cumbersome. > When looking at it from a consumer standpoint (not from a typical free > software zealot's viewpoint), what advantage does the .org provide? I concur. Furthermore, even a FS zealot would not necessarily say "keep the .org". I mean, most FS projects don't have a .org. The FSF and GNU don't have a .org. Do we really need a ".org" in our name? > Does the typical consumer understand that? Probably not. Or with the > reverse, how does it hinder the marketing effort? Should a product name > need to be accompanied by an explanation of its meaning? Seems overly > complicated to me. I concur. From a marketing POV, if the name needs explanation to be meaningful, then the name is broken. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
