On Monday 12 October 2009 06:13:31 Lars Nooden wrote: > Graham Lauder wrote: <snip> > > > however you will note that the logo changes... > > Nope. I don't have to waste time with their crap or with people who > promote it. With MSO, I noticed in 1994 that it really wasn't getting > better. Others did too, I laughed when MSO 6 came out and students took > to keeping 5.2 in shared folders (the school had a site license) so as > to get some work done. I had mostly moved to HTML by that time.
LOL, my epiphany came when my MSO 95 couldn't handle '97 documents that my Local Govt clients blindly upgraded too. I had found SO5.1, loved that, I'm still bitter about Star Div (post Sun buy up if memory serves) dropping the SO desktop! ;) I used to keep a machine with MSO 4.3 on it just to show how much MSO XP/2000 *hadn't* changed > > > For us it's not a matter of selling more upgrades as it is with > > proprietary software, it's about looking "up-to-date". We don't change > > the UI look just for the sake of it, whereas proprietary software makers > > are forced to, to make it look like the punters are getting something > > "New" with each upgrade. > > It may no be a bad idea to make new logos with major changes, such as > from 3 to 4, and minor variations for point changes. If nothing else, > it helps identify the version. Agreed, with each full new version with a concurrent marketing campaign. So the next one would be 4.0 > > > Problem with all of this of course is that it puts the impression in the > > mind of the End User that New Logo = New Software, of course we know > > that's a marketing ploy, but for the enduser if the former is true, then > > by inference Old Logo = Old Software. This of course makes statements > > made by the Steve that OpenOffice.org is more akin to '97 more believable > > in their eyes. > > I didn't get the impression he had any credibility outside the > disciplines of monkey-dancing and chair throwing. As far as I know, > much of the population gives little to no credibility to the what's left > of the trade journals. > > What I do see given lots of credibility is a vague word-of-mouth > rumor-mongery. It might even be a whisper campaign, but I don't have > either the language skills or tact to tract the origins. All true, the problem we suffer from, and the marketing people in MS know full well, that a piece of FUD takes ten times as much Positive to dispel, especially in the US market which is basically ruled by fear. When you have the Press, both old and new, hanging on every word that the Steve spews out we have an uphill battle. Every small thing has to be made to count > > Anyway, the branding is only useful if it's on new material - either > programs or documentation or both. If the documentation and brochures > are refreshed, then it would be time for a new or freshened logo. Agreed > > /Lars > Cheers G -- Graham Lauder, OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html OpenOffice.org Migration and training Consultant. Ambassador for OpenSUSE Linux on your Desktop INGOTs Assessor Trainer (International Grades in Office Technologies) www.theingots.org.nz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
