On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 20:27, Daniel Carrera wrote: > 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?
Probably not.. > > 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. Perhaps a little cumbersome, but... I just ran the arguments past my review committee (well, OK, my semi-computer-literate 48 year old housemate). She always uses the ".org" when talking about it, and has noticed something which seems to have been missed in this thread.... When you say "OpenOffice.org" to someone, their reaction is... Well, many of you have mentioned the confusion some seem to manifest, but have you not noticed that *using* the ".org" *causes people to ask questions*. This IMHO is a very good reason to keep the full name. Sure, when talking to a large group who are already interested, then perhaps drop the ".org", but when talking to people who as yet know nothing about it, then keep the ".org" simply because it will get people asking questions. And that is the most important thing. > > > When looking at it from a consumer standpoint (not from a typical free > > software zealot's viewpoint), what advantage does the .org provide? See above - It triggers questions. > > 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? Either way. But the ".org" triggers more questions.... > > > 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. Not so much "needs explanation" IMO, rather causes the person to ask further questions, and that has to be good > > Cheers, -- Alex Fisher Co-Lead, CD-ROM Project OpenOffice.org Marketing Community Contact Australia/New Zealand http://distribution.openoffice.org/cdrom/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
