If the PMC likes my logo but wants something tweaked, I can do so. But I would leave the tweaking up to the PMC, especially because they might be ok with a Logo as is.
Samer On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Graham Lauder <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 May 2013 21:07:28 Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Graham Lauder <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > On Tuesday 28 May 2013 15:00:47 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > >> >> On 5/28/13 2:48 PM, Alphonso Whitfield III wrote: > >> >> > I agree with Kadal looks like more of the same. > >> >> > >> >> And that is not necessarily bad. We got feedback from 5000 users and > it > >> >> seems that the majority like the logo we have and why not simply > keeping > >> >> the main idea and do only some refresh. > >> > > >> > Where is that data, I can't find it, it doesn't seem to be on the wiki > >> > with the logo stuff > >> > >> Hi Graham, > >> > >> Thanks for checking in. I'm sorry you were not able to be involved > >> earlier over the several months that we've been working on a new logo. > > > > Likewise, oh well those are the breaks, priorities must needs win out. > > > > > >> We had 40 proposals, did a survey and now we're refining the highest > >> scoring submissions. If you want to get caught up on what we've all > >> been working on, a good start would be the blog post here: > >> > >> https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/results_of_apache_openoffice_4 > >> > >> Note also the link to the more detailed report: > >> > >> http://survey.openoffice.org/reports/aoo40-logo-poll/ > > > > Excellent, thank you. Why were Lucas Filho's concepts not included? > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27846912/Concepts_LucasFilho02.png > > > > Human error? Though the survey was vetted on the dev list and ample > opportunity given to object if anyone thought something was missing. > In fact some other logos were missing and the designers noticed this > and told me. The process certainly is biased toward the interests of > active community members. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > When you say "Not necessarily bad", by what criteria do you judge > this, > >> > the > >> > aesthetic sensibilities of 5000 random respondents. I'm sorry I > missed > >> > the > >> > survey so I have no idea of what was in it. > >> > >> We prefer to call them "users", just like we call those who comment on > >> the list "community members" rather than "random posters". > > > > Without a specific demographic defined and no filtering on respondents > then they > > are to all intents and purposes random. You could define them as > "Community" > > but concievably anyone who owns a computer could be called part of that > > community as soon as they make an effort to interract with the project. > > > > The only non-random element is that they all knew about OO before doing > the > > survey which pretty much puts most of them outside the demographic that > we > > need to reach. > > > > Fortunately we also included demographic questions so we can filter > results and look at differences in a more fine-grained way, e.g., long > term OpenOffice users versus those who are not users, by gender, by > age, by country, etc. > > > > >> > >> > People like it because it's familiar, however it fulfills none of the > >> > requirements of a brand relaunch. I doesn't signal a new beginning, > just > >> > says "same old, same old". Besides which, choosing a logo by "Vote" > is > >> > going to purely subjective without any thought being given to the > >> > practical needs of the brand, especially that of the marketing side of > >> > things, without any thought to the Brand as a whole. > >> > >> Since the respondents to the survey were primarily current OpenOffice > >> users it is natural that the results would be biased toward > >> continuity. > > > > Indeed, so therefore from a marketing POV the survey/poll was > meaningless in > > terms of the branding needs. A number of us (Not just me as you seem to > be > > inferring later in this reply) stated early on, that a Vote is a bad way > to > > select a brand. As I probably pointed out back then, we produce a > consumer > > product. Our users are not developers or techs and the "User Community" > is far > > larger than the "Project Community". If we were to make a comparison > with the > > High Street then we are a B2C operation rather than a B2B which most > other > > Open Source projects, certainly those here in the ASF, tend to be. > > > > We did not vote on a logo. We had a preference polll to gauge > perception on the proposals from ordinary users. This data was > gathered objectively, analyzed objectively and the analysis is being > used objectively. How the logo appears to "random" people is > relevant information. The comments especially are relevant. It is > good that we know which logo is too close to the emblem of a European > political party, which one is derived from an Icelandic radio station, > which ones are unlucky in Chinese, and which one looks to some like a > "flying penis". Without the survey these relevant items might have > been missed. But in no case is the survey treated like a vote and > determine the outcome by itself. It is just an additional data point > to feed into a deliberative process. If it was a vote we'd be done > by now. > > > > > >> > >> On the other hand "continuity" is a value just as "new beginning" is a > >> value. > > > > Definitely, I agree that continuity is a value but mainly in a shrinking > or > > static market. We however are in an expanding market and to retain > relevance > > in a growth market requires a brand that is fresh and dynamic. > > > >>There is nothing wrong per se with expressing continuity by > >> having a logo that is a more modern take on the classic logo. > >> > >> . > > > > If that were true, then the orb would be gone. The Orb is not "classic", > > Stella knocked that one up as part of a refresh post Oracle takeover. > It's > > not classic in fact it just reminds me of the whole Oracle screw up. > > The "Classic" logo as I have pointed out in the past ad nauseam is 14 > > characters in Camel case: OpenOffice.org, THAT is not available to us. > The truly > > recognisable classic part of our branding has been stripped from us by > short > > sighted Apache policies. > > > > The gulls and the color and "OpenOffice" (camel case even) are parts > of the continuity. > > > > >> > >> <snip> > > > >> > >> > The PMC needs, like any good management team, to ignore the > subjective > >> > and > >> > > >> > make a decision on purely objective criteria: Impact, uniqueness, > story. > >> > > >> > If this was a decision being made by a marketing department run by > me, the > >> > toss up would be between Lucas's "Warpaint", his feather in orb, > Kevin's > >> > feather in Orb but with perhaps a more quill type motif. I also would > >> > look at Robin Fowler's feather motif in 16 as a quill, it's simple > shape > >> > has scaleability advantages. > >> > >> It might make sense for you to express a preference for a single logo, > >> or submit an alternative choice, and then argue for your "objective" > >> criteria rather than merely asserting that you along are gifted with > >> true insight here and everyone else is merely blindly following > >> personal subjective taste. Remember, each of us could call our views > >> objective as well. But where would that get us? > > > > > > Heh, not everyone else, there have been other voices of reason, but > they're > > probably too polite and are easily ignored. Those people with marketing > > knowledge on this list are few and far between and thus are easily > drowned out > > by the clamour of those who see marketing as "Puffery" or just an > annoyance. > > > > Noted: everyone that agrees with you is silent. > > > > The Linkert scale is purely about subjectivity so any response generated > by > > the survey is going to be subjective, that's not an observation, that is > fact. > > > > It is an objective measure of the subjective perceptions of > respondents. Public perception of the logo is a relevant fact. > > > From a marketing perspective, and purely about brand recognition if you > were > > going to use the linkert scale as a guide then take out all the middle > > responses and throw them away. For our purposes they are meaningless. > They > > are a non reaction, in other words boring. You would be left with those > that > > excited a reaction whether negative or positive. > > > > This was in the report, in this chart, though looking at only Strong Likes: > > http://survey.openoffice.org/reports/aoo40-logo-poll/strong-likes.png > > (I don't think the Strong Dislikes take us in the right direction.) > > > The data is then revealing: For instance the respondents are negative > types > > making 2.5 times more strong dislikes votes as strong likes. The logo > that > > generated the most strong likes (No4) only got around ten percent of > > respondents voting for a strong like. That tells me that few of these > logos > > have any of the sort of impact that would be needed to generate > significant > > increase in brand recognition. > > > > At the other end of the scale however No37 generated a strong reaction in > > close to 50% of respondents. That's what I call significant. However, > it's > > red and orange, colours which are known to generate reaction and high > > interest. 37 was also square so it was more in your face given the > > previously mentioned inequities with regard to image sizing. Given also > the > > demographic of the respondents it was also the one that was most unlike > the > > present logo so there was always going to be a bias, as you've already > noted > > above, toward the encumbent and also likely to generate the most negative > > response. > > > > 37 had the largest number of Strong Dislike scores. The comments on > this logo were very negative as well. It would certainly be noticed, > but I'm not sure that the associations would support the brand. > > > Most significantly however our present logo seemed to generate a "shrug" > level > > of enthusiasm being 35th on the list for generating a response. Very > much a > > Ho-Hum response, with only around ten percent of respondents registering > a > > strong reaction whether Like or Dislike. This means our Brand doesn't > even > > excite our own community which is the most significant indicator for the > need > > for change and in fact in just under 4400 responses our present logo only > > generated 250 odd more Strong likes than 37 which has the most strong > > dislikes. > > > > I think we want to consider the base rate of responses and look at > deviations from that. In any survey with a neutral middle choice > there will be a tendency for respondents to pick that. I did > another charts, not included in the report, to eliminate the neutral > scores, looking instead at (Like + Strong Like) - (Dislike + Strong > Dislike), but the results don't change much. > > > > > Marketing's main goal should be to increase brand recognition amongst > users > > outside the present user base. To do this, one thing we should do is > excite > > our present users, word of mouth is the best form of marketing. If this > > survey highlights anything it is a disturbing level of indifference. > > > > Note that the report does show the scores of those who are OpenOffice > users versus those who are not: > > http://survey.openoffice.org/reports/aoo40-logo-poll/users-notusers.png > > As noted in the report there were some logos that placed higher in one > group or another, but at the top of the scale the preferences were > stable. I do agree that the primary audience is for those who are not > yet users. And if there were large differences in that chart then I'd > be more concerned. But the data doesn't show a difference here. > > > > >> > >> In any case, I'll be sure to put an "other" choice in the ballot for > >> the vote, so you can express choices other than the ones on the wiki > >> currently. > > > > No real point, my preference is based on different criteria to the > others, the > > survey used a linkert scale which is designed to be purely subjective. > > As has been noted before, a vote is the worst way to choose a brand > because it > > will always tend towards the bland. No point in contributing to a flawed > > process. > > > > Fortunately we did not vote on a logo, as explained above. The PMC > will pick the logo, and the results of the user preference poll is one > data point for their consideration. Your views, your opinions, of > course, are also input into the process. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > Also I have in the past noted on this list the criteria that good > branding > > needs to fulfill, at this point none of the above fulfill those criteria. > > > > Cheers > > GL > > > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> -Rob > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
