Dan wrote:
I agree with your basic point. It seems clear to me that RR has a branding
issue. I think they think they have solved it now. But there's a lot of
consternation about changing the name of the language to be the same as the
product and I keep waffling on that one.
IT will be nice when we can go two full years without a product name change
for sure!
Judy's point is important, as concerns about RunRev not having a plan
and sticking with it seem far more pervasive and serious than the small
perceived benefit of attempting to get some micro-branding value from an
unnecessary change.
Consider this: the only real risk with branding is the case in which
Transcript is being discussed in a context in which Revolution is never
mentioned. Anyone ever actually see that?
Rather than jump on the gotta-be-like-RealBASIC bandwagon, I'd sooner
hitch my horse to the many more, larger, and more successful companies
whose market research evidently found no value to such a move (Lingo,
ActionScript, HyperTalk, AppleScript, OpenScript, etc. etc.). For every
language named for its IDE there are at least four that aren't.
Given the nature of the question, it isn't possible to have truly firm
data one way or another (that sort of qualitative research is more an
art than a science, prone to researcher subjectivity and with a
singularity like a product it's not possible to have experimental
controls). So at best it's a guess, and one which merely covers for the
narrow possibility of a scenario in which Transcript would be discussed
without mentioning Revolution.
But what is known is the cost to the company and third parties to update
all references to Transcript, the risk to the Open Directory and
Wikipedia entries (both have Transcript listings and both have policies
against entries for proprietary products), and the continued confusion
to the market since so many references exist in so many venues that it
won't be possible to update them all.
Why introduce confusion and exacerbate a perception of flightiness only
to assist a branding effort which accounts for a scenario that never
happened?
It may be the case that Adobe, Macromedia, Netscape, Apple, Asymetrix,
and other companies with strong market research departments are not
entirely wrong on this.
I hope RunRev will reconsider in light of more important priorities
before committing to this recommendation from a contractor.
A reputation for being flighty seems a far more serious branding issue
than merely following an established trend among many major successful
companies.
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
