Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 07/11/2011 04:06 AM, 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. > > YES! The name "Open Office" or "OpenOffice" is not, in fact, "branded" > in the same way that OpenOffice.org is. I really feel is it critical at > this time to let the brand/product stand a OpenOffice.org so as to > maintain our current history and recognition worldwide. > > Graham, you area absolutely dead on!
+1 >> >> 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 >> >
