I agree with this.
This product competes with another one whose main disadvantage is not
having the name OpenOffice.org, and who is already producing working
software, more advanced that this project at this time, and getting the
favor of some distributions.
I work with both projects, and at this time stick to this one because of
the name (among other things), as it gives continuity to my work.
A bad technical decision made without looking at its marketing
consequences in a very large installed park could be the end of the project.
I also think that a branding policy made for incubator projects
(starting projects) cannot be applied to a solid project that has
already a very large installed park. It would be a pity to do all this
work and then not succeed due to a bad choice on the name. If Apache
forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for the project.
Javier Solá
Graham Lauder wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
<snip>
On 09/07/11 07:58, eric b wrote:
The .org is and was always essential to the community.
Why? Out of the folk on the OOo forum who expressed an opinion to me, no
one liked it. It was a perpetual reminder that the product couldn't be
called what they really wanted it to be called: OpenOffice. I greatly
prefer Apache OpenOffice to Apache OpenOffice.org.
Dave.
As Peter Junge has stated, this discussion has a repetitive deja vu feel
about it.
There are number of most excellent things about the name openoffice.org,
none of which relate to people who are involved in the community and
this includes the people at OOoForum, they don't need to. It does
however have beneficial effects for the New User or New Client which of
course the Marketing project thinks of constantly.
It tells this New Client, who may not be at all familiar with, or even
heard the name, a number of things. It tells them that it is open, and
so it starts to introduce the concept of open source or reinforces the
idea for someone who is looking for Open Source Solutions. It tells
them that it is an office type application and it tells them that it is
a web based project with the .org on the end and at the same time gives
them the web address. For the web savvy user, the .org tells them that
there is a noncommercial organisation in place, a community in other
words.
It is a webaddress, which is important in a product whose entire
distribution of product and collateral is webbased. Not openoffice.com,
not open-office.com, which people would more likely put into an address
bar, but OpenOffice.org, clear, precise, no confusion, put
OpenOffice.org in your address bar or google and the new user will get
to where they need to go.
The name is not about what the community feels comfortable with. It is
however about branding
Branding needs continuity
Branding is client focussed.
The brand is 14 characters strung together in a very recognisable
format, Upper case Os in OpenOffice with dot and lower case o on org.
OpenOffice.org. In text on a page of typeface it is recognisable
without bugs like the "gulls". The diminutive in the format OOo is as
recognisable. Google it sometime.
The OOo community has always been well known for the strength of it's
marketing. Diluting the brand by dropping the .org or tacking Apache
(which has even lower brand recognition in our target market) on the end
is, from a marketing POV, close to suicidal. Where marketing requires
brand development with zero budget, it makes the marketers job very
difficult because changing the name throws away 10 years of marketing
collateral.
It needs to be left as is. If the Apache rules say that "Apache" has to
be appended, then the rule needs changing. I'd be happy to dump the
gulls and add the feather as a bug. I'd be happy to add "by apache" as
a tagline. But OpenOffice.org is the name of the software, the website
and the community, it should remain unsullied and unaltered.
Unless of course someone can come up with several hundred thousand for a
marketing budget to launch a new global brand.
Cheers
GL
