I have removed v4 and added variants overview PNG/PDF in https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Stage+2+Logo+Refinement : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/31821474/2013-05_Apache_OpenOffice_Logo-Proposal_ChrisR_2-refinement_incl-v4_Versions.png https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/31821474/2013-05_Apache_OpenOffice_Logo-Proposal_ChrisR_2-refinement_incl-v4_Versions.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1369935586121
2013/5/30 Samer Mansour <[email protected]> > 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] > > > > >
