Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Greetings All,
Excuse the speed of this reply, I'm still typing lefthand only so having to 
prioritise my online time

On Monday 08 Nov 2010 02:54:28 Christoph Noack wrote:
Hi all!

A very interesting discussion - I wished this one would have started
about one year within the project. So my personal
thoughts ...

For reasons of efficiency, I'll refer to the Wikipedia article
considering branding [1], although some things are different if a
product is shaped by a community. But however, the main thoughts are

Am Sonntag, den 07.11.2010, 12:23 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
In the most extreme definition branding is the umbrella for marketing,
art, user experience and user interface...


Agreed, however I would disagree with the "extreme".  

Branding is a new science and has only been with us since the mid eighties or 
thereabouts.  Let's not get wound up in definitions, it is simply enough that 
everyone in the project is on the same page when considering the organisations 
Visual, Emotional, Functional and Communication identity.  Out of that comes a 


..... the visual design exactly matches and emphasizes this positive 
So the logo and the visuals express the already perceived feelings and

Exactly, but additionally the above is reflected in textual communications as 
well.  It should be consistent across all channels of communication: 
Marketing, PR, UI, packaging, website, Press releases.  At any point where the 
project interacts with the world, both internally and externally, the Brand 
must consistently guide and shape that interaction

But ...

The world isn't that optimal - so the branding does (at least in parts)
communicate what the creator(s) of the product had in mind - whether
they achieved the goal or not. So creators want to communicate a certain
"feeling" or "emotion" whether the product will create it or not
(usually producers of sweet beverages communicate the social aspect
within their promotion activities).

However, an example that is more valid for us: A very extreme and
progressive branding (new, innovative, cutting edge) will fail for most
people - because we (finally) cannot prove that this is correct (no
trust after a certain time). At the moment, we can provide something
like: versatility, productivity, quality.

Any extreme element in a brand has to have good science behind it but also 
there has to be an intuitive leap.  The most recognisable brands combine the 
two. I would point to the OOo homepage as an example of that.  The concept of 
"Action Statements" was extreme but on the other foot was backed by good 
science even though no-one else had done it before. However it was still 
guided by the Brand. 

Another aspect is, that we are a group of individuals and companies who
create a software - together. So we also think about our own motivation
- and usually want to express that. A famous example is the Ubuntu logo
- three people in a circle, warm colors. (By the way, Ubuntu has some
very good reading at [2].)

Yep, Ubuntu done good, of course their market penetration or User base is 
miniscule compared to OOo so conceivably, and I don't believe I'm saying this, 
Bluebirds are more effective than a warm fuzzy embracing brand.  ;)

and Please!! don't bother rebutting this, it's not going to advance OUR 
discussion, tongue planted firmly in cheek.  :)

Finally, a good branding considers all of these aspects. It shapes how
we want to be perceived, but also what we currently stand for. It
considers our users and our community. If things are too different, then
we have to work on separate brandings for both software and community.
This is far more important than a simple logo. But this has to be done
without rush ...


At the moment, we make up the "initial branding" without exact knowledge
what all the people here think, without a long-term product roadmap
which might have influence. So - to come back to the initial question -
we currently work on the "Visual brand identity" [3] and are assuming
some of the issues mentioned before.

To make sure that this is correct, we have these discussions on the
"object" (logo, presentations, colors) - although we should discuss
about values and visual language. When I initially made up the branding
page, I tried to quickly summarize my assumptions [4] based on our
discussions / previous experiences within OOo (to be continued).

This is now. I'm really looking forward to work with more experienced
designers, more knowledge about our project and the software we want to
shape to make up the "community branding" for LibreOffice. In the
meantime, thanks for your patience, support and the discussions to - at
least - create something that will work for the next release!

I would like to suggest another brand,  LibreO , domains are parked and we 
could brand this one differently.  Go for a funky branding and style and 
pitch.  This still under the TDF banner of course.  Not sure of the 
practicality but perhaps would give us a version with which we could 
experiment with bleeding edge functions such as out there GUI elements while 
still maintaining an enterprise ready version.


@ Bernhard: Still thinking about the structuring proposal :-)






Graham Lauder, MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ Migration and training Consultant.

INGOTs Assessor Trainer
(International Grades in Open Technologies)

E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.