Re: Cultural Issue with the Foot Logo

[Thilo Pfennig <tp pfennigsolutions de>]

> If you want to evaluate the damage of the logo as it is, to have
> sufficient data for a decision, you should also evaluate the cost of
> changing it (very difficult to do before the change).

I would say it is very cheap. As right now nearly nobody in the world
knows GNOME. I mean related to real big brands. It gets more expensiove
once GNOME is really widely known. My guess is that 0.0001 of the
computer users  worldwide actually know what GNOME is. Most people that
use Ubuntu think Ubuntu is a desktop.


> My other view is that (as has been said repeatedly on this list) GNOME
> does not have a direct relationship with the consumer - the GNOME
> brand is strong among distributors

Ok distributors know what GNOME is. I would say those handful important
distros could easily handle any logo change, as they either would
incorporate an upstream logo change or like Ubuntu still do theior own
branding.

Actually I think that the GNOME Desktop has a more direct relationship
to the users than the distributions have. Not in the sense of branding
maybe but in the sense that if they use totem or nautilus they do this
on Ubuntu,Fedora, Red Hat, etc. - IF the distributions provide GNOME
this is what the users mostly will interact as they also do with
Firefox, Thunderbird or OpenOffice.org.

FF,TB and OO.org did never go the way to highlight how unimportant their
role is to the users - just the opposit. And then they like
distributions to be proud to display their software with their brands
and accomplishments.

I think one of the biggest marketing mistakes that are made currently is
to think because distributions are packaging GNOME, that then the
distros, etc.  are the target group. You need to communicate to those
who are using the software or demanding it - this is not the same group
as the once that decide what software to package and which not.

Or see it this way: If nobody would use GNOME in the distros they
distros would stop providing it. So what you need to sell to the distros
is that it is good for the users, which means that the users decide. And
lets say if a Thai or arabian distribution says it will not provide a
software with a logo that offends its users sure its the distribution
which decides, but it decides on the basis of what the users think and want.

So I think to think that talking to the distros is the way to go would
simplify marketing but is not really it. Its like people buy computer
with a cool graphic card. The graphic card producers are targetting the
users and by that they tell the computer manifacturers, that their users
will want their card. That does not mean that one should not talk to
distributions - but that is a different level. What I want to highlight
is that if the users deny a software or the branding this is what counts
and the distributions will follow. Although distros will like everything
that makes it easier for them to package or customize the software.


Should we continue this discussion or do you think there is no point in
continuing?


Regards,
Thilo