Corey Burger wrote:
On 7/26/06, Tim Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<Snip>
Lovely concepts. Now show me why we need this now (or ever). Again,
what is wrong with the status quo. Please give me *specific* issues
you see our current branding causes.
I don't actually think there is much wrong with our current branding,
assuming the target market is computer enthusiasts and linux
programmers. The current branding - in fact the whole name, philosophy,
design - works nicely with this group in my opinion. So, again, I don't
think there is anything wrong.
That said, if the objective of the branding were target corporate
decision makers (aka suits) by (1) building higher brand awareness and
recognition with this group and (2) generating the soft fuzzies around
"low risk" "respected company" "safe decision" then the direction that
John has taken is textbook stuff. Specifically I am thinking of Wally
Olins "Corporate Identity."
Specific issues - again from a "corporate branding" POV:
1. The current brand architecture does not create a simple, clear and
coherent brand message to the corporate consumer. It is instead a form
of line extension. Instead of rallying the flag around the Ubuntu brand,
we have 5 seperate brands, which all other things being equal split our
forces/mindspace/mindshare/awareness and create confusion:
Ubuntu
Kubuntu
Xubuntu
Edubuntu
nUbuntu
as well as derivatives (Guadalinex based on Ubuntu)
source: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/derivatives
Within these we also have sub-brands in the form of numbers in the form of:
code names (Breezy Badger)
coded dates (X.XX)
acronyms (LTS=long term service)
specific platform claims (Server Edition).
While this is not as bad as where the competition is going...
(http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp), it can
clearly create confusion and splitting of the message. Should I install
Kubuntu 6.06 LTS Dapper Drake Server Edition or edubuntu 5.10 Breezy
Badger? Can I get nUbuntu 6.06 without the LTS option but as a server
edition?
For a book reviewing the well documented dangers of line extensions, see
anything by Ries and Trout (eg The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing),
which specifically and directly addresses the issue at ahnd..
The simplified the Brand architecture John has proposed around a single
name (Ubuntu), is directly addressing this issue.
2. The current brand and brand architecture create an impression which
is non-corporate. Corporate branding is about staid safe trusted brands
(what is the first thing that comes to mind when I say: IBM vs. iPod vs.
Napster.) The elements in the current branding that are non-corporate
include:
(a) The colour brown
(b) the touchy feely slogan "I am what I am because of who we all are"
(c) various cues in the various websites
I don't have the time to provide detail. If you want to confirm, please
compare:
http://www.kubuntu.com/
with
http://www.ibm.com/us/
http://www.sun.com/
http://www.redhat.com/
http://www.novell.com/
http://www.oracle.com/index.html
Again, what John has done is the first step towards addressing these
issues assuming we are targeting the corporate user.
However, what I was saying in my original post was, speaking as a market
researcher, the target market was undefined and I believe this is
causing the current disagreement.
- - - -
I just want to emphasize that I have no problems with the current
branding or architecture, and I am not calling for change because (1) I
think the "brown, anti-corporate, neo-communist, new-new, school
project, benevolently dictated collective" image works with the people I
think are actually making the decision to install *buntu today
[including me] and (2) I don't think corporate users are the logical target.
Anyway, good work John. Right solution to the wrong problem.
Tim
ps I may need to trademark "brown, anti-corporate, neo-communist,
new-new, school project, benevolently dictated collective"
--
ubuntu-marketing mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
