On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Eben Eliason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Christian Marc Schmidt > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Sean and Marketing, >> >> just to weigh in on the "fun" (naming) part: I think that generally >> everything makes sense, and I like the direction. The resulting visual brand >> language would be very clear, and I agree with the idea of having the word >> "sugar" appear in color and the remaining text in gray. >> >> My feeling though is that the tag line should be less ambiguous than some >> of the examples below. I responded most to "a sugar creation". Building off >> Intel's Intel Inside, how about: "sugar added" (or something similar)? > > +1
Having slept on it, I too like "sugar added" the best. -walter > That's remarkably clever. I also do like that it avoids a "prefix" > before the word "sugar". Though I understand the use of the article, I > think that placing "sugar" first has the potential to look cleanest, > and also opens the door to a "stacked" variant of the logo which might > work in more confined spaces. > > Eben > >> >> >> Christian >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Sean DALY <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> cc to the Design Team, FYI ! >>> thanks >>> Sean >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Sean DALY <[email protected]> >>> Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:22 PM >>> Subject: A label for Sugar distributions - plan to rework classic >>> "ingredient" branding and include it in our trademark policy >>> To: Sugar Labs Marketing <[email protected]>, SLOBs >>> <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Karen Sandler <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> Marketers, >>> >>> We will soon complete the Sugar Labs trademark policy (draft is here: >>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark). It's >>> been a topic of work and discussion in the past few SLOBs meetings. >>> >>> The goal of this policy is not just to protect Sugar Labs marks from >>> confusion, but to promote Sugar brand awareness. Specifically, to >>> avoid confusion over what precisely Sugar Labs and the Sugar on a >>> Stick "distribution" are, while encouraging other projects to build >>> and develop their own distributions with Sugar, especially liveUSB >>> solutions which have the best probability of overcoming the OS >>> installation barrier. >>> >>> The best way for an alternate self-contained Sugar distribution to >>> avoid confusion with Sugar and SoaS is to use a different name. Yet, >>> at the same time we need to build the Sugar brand name beyond Sugar >>> the project and Sugar on a Stick. And of course we wish to support all >>> distributions with Sugar (weak as the distro and desktop brands are). >>> How can we do this? >>> >>> My idea is to create a label program, licensing our marks. This is >>> sometimes called "ingredient marketing", defined as "an ingredient or >>> component of a product that has its own brand identity". It's an old >>> idea - Ray Dolby did it with sound equipment from the 1970s (1,2); >>> Intel had huge success with the "intel inside" marketing campaign >>> begun in 1991 (3,4,5). Other examples are TetraPak bricks, Shimano >>> bicycle parts, NutraSweet sweeteners, GoreTex fabric, DuPont's Teflon. >>> >>> Ray Dolby became fabulously rich with his licensing program. I propose >>> we turn the approach inside out and take inspiration from free >>> software licensing. With this approach, licensing of Sugar Labs >>> trademarks will be free, simple and easy as long as certain conditions >>> are respected by the licensee, in particular: >>> >>> * Sugar Labs be informed by e-mail to the trademark alias of the >>> project's sponsor, URL, contact information, and proposed project name >>> (not a name used by Sugar Labs, e.g. "Sugar on a Stick"), with >>> positive reply; >>> * The project's page not display Sugar marks too prominently, to avoid >>> confusion in visitors unaware of the SL site; the project's page links >>> to the SL website; >>> * SFC/Sugar Labs reserves the right to revoke the license >>> * others? >>> >>> >>> When would licensing not be routine, i.e. require consideration before >>> licensing? >>> * project name or logo or URL too close to our marks, risk of confusion >>> * insistence on association of another brand with Sugar >>> * inclusion of nonfree software with Sugar >>> * others? >>> >>> >>> What could motivate us to revoke a license? >>> * atrocious product quality with no bugfixing >>> * abandonment of a project (imagine the horror of a well-referenced >>> but old and unmaintained distro) >>> * confusing marketing, not respecting the spirit of our license >>> * using SL marks in conjunction with other marks in ways which could >>> imply SL partnership or endorsement which doesn't exist >>> * refusal to comply with Sugar software's licenses (GPL) >>> * others? >>> >>> Naturally, in the above cases we will want to reflect upon what >>> recourse we would have if a licensee started creating problems. >>> >>> >>> Intel achieved their fabulous brand awareness (Nr. 23 in the 2009 >>> Millward Brown Brandz Top 100) mostly due to pharaonic advertising >>> spend. We won't have that budget, so we will be inventing cheaper and >>> more effective ways of supporting Sugar distributions. I believe a >>> label program can help us support a diverse group of Sugar projects, >>> growing the Sugar brand and increasing Sugar adoption in schools and >>> homes. >>> >>> >>> OK, after objectives, examples, and theory, comes the fun (and >>> difficult) part - choosing the label text - our "circled intel inside >>> sticker", if you will. I believe the best approach is to communicate >>> the *idea* of a remix or a spin, but without using those words (which >>> have DJ connotations); one of Sugar's brand values is playfulness, and >>> we get to call our remixes something different from everybody else :D. >>> So perhaps best to keep the sweet tooth association, such as has >>> served us well with ice cream flavors for SoaS versions: >>> >>> a sugar treat >>> a sugar confection >>> a sugar refinement >>> a sugar preparation >>> a sugar mix >>> a sugar concoction >>> a sugar recipe >>> a sugar formula >>> a sugar sprinkling >>> a sugar crystal >>> >>> Alternatively, a more technical word could work; it might even be >>> preferable, so that teachers understand that Sugar is computer >>> software, e.g.: >>> >>> a sugar construction >>> a sugar formation >>> a sugar creation >>> a sugar variety >>> a sugar variation >>> a sugar difference >>> a sugar combination >>> a sugar special >>> >>> I use the "a" article to imply there are others; but perhaps someone >>> has a different idea? >>> >>> Visually speaking, I would see our logo typeface (VAG Rounded Light) >>> with the word "sugar" being one of the random color combinations and >>> the other words in grey. The sugar mark will need the (R) of course, >>> and if the label is online it should link to the SL site, perhaps even >>> a page explaining what "a sugar xxx" is. >>> >>> Input greatly appreciated. >>> >>> Sean. >>> >>> >>> 1. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v2/n1/4/ >>> 2. >>> http://www.dolby.com/professional/technology/licensing/getting-licensed.html >>> 3. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/intel_inside.htm >>> 4. >>> http://www.intangiblebusiness.com/Brand-Services/Marketing-Services/News/Ingredient-branding-case-study-Intel~466.html >>> 5. >>> http://tpmtoday.blogspot.com/2007/04/thoughts-on-ingredient-marketing.html >> >> >> >> -- >> [email protected] >> 917/ 575 0013 >> >> http://www.christianmarcschmidt.com >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianmarcschmidt >> http://twitter.com/cms_ >> > _______________________________________________ > Marketing mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
