Hi all,
Attached is a new document with draft logos for OSGeo, projects and sponsors. This is the result of the feedback that came in during the IRC meeting and my own comments. Please provide your feedback by email or during the next marketing meeting on IRC. I hope we can finalize this soon.
Arnulf will hopefully send out an invitation for a meeting this week later today.
Ciao,
Jeroen
OSGeo03.pdf (217 KB)
Jeroen Ticheler wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is a new document with draft logos for OSGeo, projects and sponsors. This is the result of the feedback that came in during the IRC meeting and my own comments. Please provide your feedback by email or during the next marketing meeting on IRC. I hope we can finalize this soon.Arnulf will hopefully send out an invitation for a meeting this week later today.
Ciao,
Jeroen
Hi,
I like version 3b.
/me deviates into psychological interpretations:
It reaches out and shines.
It is somewhat spiky, so don't mess with it. It has a structure that is recognizable a compass. (less resemblance to a steering wheel)
to be honest /me couldn't care less what it looks like. But lets get this finished. To speed up things (and make all hate me) I motion to adopt 3b as our new printable, stichable, tatooable and officiable logo. Someone second this?
+1 Arnulf
On another issue: I assimilated some intriguing new memes when reading the Open Source Jahrbuch 2008 (http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/). There is an article on OSM - but in this context the acronym does not spell out OpenStreetMap but Open Source Marketing. The idea is pretty transparent, here are some random EN lang links to scan:
http://www.collaboratemarketing.com/open_source_marketing/
http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3397411
http://www.changethis.com/14.OpenSourceMktg (prettypretty)
From this perspective we might also want to reconsider how restrictive we should handle our logo. You all know the GRASS logo but the one I really love is this one:
http://www.wheregroup.com/files/imageupload/grass_logo_animated.gif
Beyond the logo this also applies to our committee. We are such a tiny group and have so little time that we are not going to get anywhere except if we manage to spread word with somewhat more creativity. We should simply start to consider ourselves more as yet another Open Source project. Lets not try to lure more volunteers into the Venus trap but make Marketing something that people really care for, an attractive, shiny business.
Just some random thoughts from one who tries hard to rid some frustrations.
Best regards, Arnulf.
Arnulf wrote:
I like version 3b.
I don't really have a vote, but I like 3b too, and would second your
motion and +1 if I was on the committee 
On the other pages, I like the smaller text, left justified, and the
thinner ring. Specifically:
Page 2: 1a, 2a
Page 3: 1a, 2d, 2e, 2f
I prefer that the inner star match the outer band colour (which would be
a modification of 1a and 2a on page 2, and 1a on page 3), but could be
convinced that it makes more sense for it to stay green.
That GRASS logo is great, and similarly tasteful modifications of the
OSGeo logo would be awesome to see. However, I _really_ think that for
brand protection we need an ND clause on our logo to prevent nasty
derivatives. Perhaps we could have a process to integrate creative
works into our website somewhere? Google does something like this:
http://www.google.com/customlogos.html (probably hasn't been updated
in ages)
But I like this one best:
http://www.evisibility.com/blog/say-hello-to-the-new-google-bot-logo/
Jason
I like version 3b too.
The association to a compass ist still higher than by the other logos.
Regards,
Torsten
Arnulf wrote:
I like version 3b.
I don't really have a vote, but I like 3b too, and would second your
motion and +1 if I was on the committeeOn the other pages, I like the smaller text, left justified, and the
thinner ring. Specifically:Page 2: 1a, 2a Page 3: 1a, 2d, 2e, 2f
I prefer that the inner star match the outer band colour (which would be
a modification of 1a and 2a on page 2, and 1a on page 3), but could be
convinced that it makes more sense for it to stay green.That GRASS logo is great, and similarly tasteful modifications of the
OSGeo logo would be awesome to see. However, I _really_ think that for
brand protection we need an ND clause on our logo to prevent nasty
derivatives. Perhaps we could have a process to integrate creative
works into our website somewhere? Google does something like this:http://www.google.com/customlogos.html (probably hasn't been updated
in ages)But I like this one best:
http://www.evisibility.com/blog/say-hello-to-the-new-google-bot-logo/
Jason
On 12-Mar-08, at 11:43 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
I like version 3b.
I see two 3b's.. one with 8 spikes, and one with 4 spikes. Which one are we talking about?
Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) schrieb:
On 12-Mar-08, at 11:43 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
I like version 3b.
I see two 3b's.. one with 8 spikes, and one with 4 spikes. Which one are we talking about?
I mean the Logo 3b with 4 spikes
Regards
Torsten
I like 3b and 3a.
Torsten Brassat wrote:
Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) schrieb:
On 12-Mar-08, at 11:43 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:
I like version 3b.
I see two 3b's.. one with 8 spikes, and one with 4 spikes. Which one are we talking about?
I mean the Logo 3b with 4 spikes
Regards
Torsten
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
Sorry if I'm late replying, I've been on vacation...
As I said on IRC a couple weeks ago, I strongly urge no change to the
current set of logos.
Rationale: we paid considerable $$$ to PushDesign for these a couple
years ago, and I don't see any need to change our logo style or color
scheme.
Additional comment: I *am* in favor of getting the "Sponsor", etc, tag
lines in there, though. That tag line *might* justify another color.
-mpg
-----Original Message-----
From: marketing-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:marketing-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Jeroen Ticheler
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 7:10 AM
To: OSGeo Marketing
Subject: [Marketing] New draft logosHi all,
Attached is a new document with draft logos for OSGeo, projects and
sponsors. This is the result of the feedback that came in during the
IRC meeting and my own comments. Please provide your feedback
by email
or during the next marketing meeting on IRC. I hope we can finalize
this soon.Arnulf will hopefully send out an invitation for a meeting this week
later today.Ciao,
Jeroen
On 17-Mar-08, at 12:29 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Sorry if I'm late replying, I've been on vacation...
As I said on IRC a couple weeks ago, I strongly urge no change to the
current set of logos.Rationale: we paid considerable $$$ to PushDesign for these a couple
years ago, and I don't see any need to change our logo style or color
scheme.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Michael on this, especially as I start to consider all the places our logo would need to be changed (ack!). I'm not so worried about the cost if we have a clear motive and purpose. Do we feel a change is necessary and are we willing to make the change "across the board".. everywhere that it will need it?
Initially I thought we were only going to be tweaking the logo to make it more usable in certain contexts, and to add the additional tag lines. I must have misunderstood, but it didn't sink in until we got this spread of new logo options.
I'm not afraid of change, but I'm reluctant on this aspect. Essentially I want to be sure that the benefit is clear to the community and supporters. I may be convinced to give it my vote if our rationale is clearer.
Still thinking about it...
Tyler
Mmm, good point. The only thing worse than having a new logo would be
having TWO logos
-mpg
-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Mitchell [mailto:tmitchell.osgeo@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:41 PM
To: Michael P. Gerlek
Cc: Jeroen Ticheler; OSGeo Marketing
Subject: Re: [Marketing] New draft logosOn 17-Mar-08, at 12:29 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> Sorry if I'm late replying, I've been on vacation...
>
> As I said on IRC a couple weeks ago, I strongly urge no
change to the
> current set of logos.
>
> Rationale: we paid considerable $$$ to PushDesign for these a couple
> years ago, and I don't see any need to change our logo
style or color
> scheme.The more I think about it, the more I agree with Michael on this,
especially as I start to consider all the places our logo would need
to be changed (ack!). I'm not so worried about the cost if
we have a
clear motive and purpose. Do we feel a change is necessary and are
we willing to make the change "across the board".. everywhere
that it
will need it?Initially I thought we were only going to be tweaking the logo to
make it more usable in certain contexts, and to add the additional
tag lines. I must have misunderstood, but it didn't sink in
until we
got this spread of new logo options.I'm not afraid of change, but I'm reluctant on this aspect.
Essentially I want to be sure that the benefit is clear to the
community and supporters. I may be convinced to give it my vote if
our rationale is clearer.Still thinking about it...
Tyler
Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
On 17-Mar-08, at 12:29 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Sorry if I'm late replying, I've been on vacation...
As I said on IRC a couple weeks ago, I strongly urge no change to the
current set of logos.Rationale: we paid considerable $$$ to PushDesign for these a couple
years ago, and I don't see any need to change our logo style or color
scheme.The more I think about it, the more I agree with Michael on this, especially as I start to consider all the places our logo would need to be changed (ack!). I'm not so worried about the cost if we have a clear motive and purpose. Do we feel a change is necessary and are we willing to make the change "across the board".. everywhere that it will need it?
Initially I thought we were only going to be tweaking the logo to make it more usable in certain contexts, and to add the additional tag lines. I must have misunderstood, but it didn't sink in until we got this spread of new logo options.
I'm not afraid of change, but I'm reluctant on this aspect. Essentially I want to be sure that the benefit is clear to the community and supporters. I may be convinced to give it my vote if our rationale is clearer.
FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the "Project" and "Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't be changing logos every year--that would be very expensive and will confuse a lot of people. I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says, is there a clear rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that we're changing the logo? This might be one of those things that could get people riled up when they see things have changed all of a sudden.
-Perry
Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
...
FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the "Project" and "Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't be changing logos every year--that would be very expensive and will confuse a lot of people. I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says, is there a clear rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that we're changing the logo? This might be one of those things that could get people riled up when they see things have changed all of a sudden.
I agree with above too. Just adding "Project" and
"Sponsor" in some creative way
to the existing logo would suffice.
Venka
venka.osgeo wrote:
Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
...FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the "Project" and "Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't be changing logos every year--that would be very expensive and will confuse a lot of people. I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says, is there a clear rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that we're changing the logo? This might be one of those things that could get people riled up when they see things have changed all of a sudden.
I agree with above too. Just adding "Project" and
"Sponsor" in some creative way
to the existing logo would suffice.Venka
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
Dear all,
Yes, a change in the logo can make users confused and taking into account that the number of Unique Visitors to OSGeo has *more than doubled* in the last month (look here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/KPI's_and_AWStat_data) it may not be an interesting time to change the logo, as this may be a good period for Branding... in the hope that these visitors will come back to OSGeo, it is important not to confuse them with a whole new Image... not that the one we have is perfect, it can definitely be improved.
But maybe... this is a good time to focus on issues such as the marketing _within_ the Organization (Deciding The Vision and Value statements for example), stepping towards a possible Marketing Plan _and_ aiming for *more visitors, contributors, sponsors* in a structured way. So that we can actually measure the return that has occurred over the marketing investments.
Daniele.
On Tue, March 18, 2008 23:41, Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
On 17-Mar-08, at 12:29 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Sorry if I'm late replying, I've been on vacation...
As I said on IRC a couple weeks ago, I strongly urge no change to the
current set of logos.Rationale: we paid considerable $$$ to PushDesign for these a couple
years ago, and I don't see any need to change our logo style or color
scheme.The more I think about it, the more I agree with Michael on this,
especially as I start to consider all the places our logo would need to be
changed (ack!). I'm not so worried about the cost if we have a clear
motive and purpose. Do we feel a change is necessary and are we willing
to make the change "across the board".. everywhere that it will need it?Initially I thought we were only going to be tweaking the logo to
make it more usable in certain contexts, and to add the additional tag
lines. I must have misunderstood, but it didn't sink in until we got this
spread of new logo options.I'm not afraid of change, but I'm reluctant on this aspect.
Essentially I want to be sure that the benefit is clear to the
community and supporters. I may be convinced to give it my vote if our
rationale is clearer.Still thinking about it...
Tyler
Hey,
consider loosening up on our logo. This also goes to mpg's:
"Mmm, good point. The only thing worse than having a new logo would be
having TWO logos :-)"
I thought that I had sent an email talking about OSM as an acronym for
"Open Source Marketing" - but maybe it got lost somewhere in bit heaven.
All major successful market leading guru marketeers do it nowadays. I am
not talking of our neighbor nerds ESRI or Mickisoft but of Nike and Nestle
and all those companies asking people to send in YouTube stuff with their
favorite products. This is part of what Open Source Marketing is about.
Let people be creative. Even suckers like me.
I love the weaving GRASS logo (yes, I definitely sent this one around
before):
http://www.wheregroup.com/files/imageupload/grass_logo_animated.gif
So I definitely, definitely surely have no problem whatsoever never if I
find two different OSGeo logos out there. The more there are the better.
This is differnet from what we learned in Branding 101 but hey, we just
graduated.
We would not want them new logos to be slimy and disgusting - consented -
but who would do such an evil thing and survive the storm of resentment
once a true OSGeo insider would find out? Exactly. Nobody would dare to
contort us beyond recognition. And if OSGeo can still be recognized as a
brand - where is the hurt?
Mind me, I appear overly relaxed only to make my point. We would not want
to go astray altogether, but have a look at that Giggle page with logos
sent by Geojason Birch to get an idea:
http://www.google.com/customlogos.html
From here on I will refrain from developing any more opinions on one
specific logo, because it is beyond me anyway. If you look at my designs
you will understand what I mean:
(http://www.mapbender.org/Logo#The_Original_Logo). I couldn't care less.
Rest begards,
--
Arnulf Christl
http://www.wheregroup.com
On Wed, March 19, 2008 00:18, Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
On 17-Mar-08, at 12:29 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Sorry if I'm late replying, I've been on vacation...
As I said on IRC a couple weeks ago, I strongly urge no change to the
current set of logos.Rationale: we paid considerable $$$ to PushDesign for these a couple
years ago, and I don't see any need to change our logo style or color
scheme.The more I think about it, the more I agree with Michael on this,
especially as I start to consider all the places our logo would need to
be changed (ack!). I'm not so worried about the cost if we have a clear
motive and purpose. Do we feel a change is necessary and are we willing
to make the change "across the board".. everywhere that it will need it?Initially I thought we were only going to be tweaking the logo to make
it more usable in certain contexts, and to add the additional tag lines.
I must have misunderstood, but it didn't sink in until we got
this spread of new logo options.I'm not afraid of change, but I'm reluctant on this aspect.
Essentially I want to be sure that the benefit is clear to the
community and supporters. I may be convinced to give it my vote if our
rationale is clearer.FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the "Project" and
"Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't be changing logos
every year--that would be very expensive and will confuse a lot of people.
I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says, is there a clear
rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that we're changing
the logo? This might be one of those things that could get people riled
up when they see things have changed all of a sudden.-Perry
I must say that in this respect I disrespect the masses. Anybody who wants
to have a say on how our logo looks like can sign up for Marketing
Committee and then complain and suggest better alternatives as long as
they want to (there must be some reason why we bother with all this
organizational committee stuff). That is - after people have helped
staffed OSGeo booths at conferences, helped make new flyers, translate the
web site, add news, redesign the SPD, participate in meetings and so on.
The problem is that the softer the topic the more people think they need
to voice their opinion. There is nothing that can be much softer than
"Whats in a name" (anybody care to remember? or in a logo.
Try this one: Would anybody be offended if I change the behavior of this
list to answer to the list and not the poster? (/me runs for cover)
Regards,
Arnulf.
--
Arnulf Benno Christl
http://www.osgeo.org
(OSGeo Board Member)
+50.7342N +7.0707E
On Wed, March 19, 2008 09:23, Daniele wrote:
venka.osgeo wrote:
Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
...FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the "Project"
and "Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't be changing
logos every year--that would be very expensive and will confuse a lot
of people. I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says, is there a
clear rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that
we're changing the logo? This might be one of those things that could
get people riled up when they see things have changed all of a sudden.I agree with above too. Just adding "Project" and
"Sponsor" in some creative way
to the existing logo would suffice.Venka
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketingDear all,
Yes, a change in the logo can make users confused and taking into
account that the number of Unique Visitors to OSGeo has *more than doubled*
in the last month (look here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/KPI's_and_AWStat_data) it may not be an
Hi Daniele,
thanks for the pointer, I missed that one. This is good news. I think as
long as we do not have deeper content there is not much reason to stay
longer than 30 seconds though. Obviously MapGuide will produce most hits
as it is the only project that started right off OSGeo and did not have
much of a history before.
Btw. there are more stats at the Wiki:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
interesting time to change the logo, as this may be a good period for
Branding... in the hope that these visitors will come back to OSGeo, it
is important not to confuse them with a whole new Image... not that the one
we have is perfect, it can definitely be improved. But maybe... this is a
good time to focus on issues such as the marketing _within_ the
Organization (Deciding The Vision and Value
statements for example), stepping towards a possible Marketing Plan _and_
aiming for *more visitors, contributors, sponsors* in a structured way. So
that we can actually measure the return that has occurred over the
marketing investments.Daniele.
As this does not seem to work in the traditional ways of doing marketing
(mpg will wholeheartedly follow this line of failure - ahm - thought)
maybe we could consider modifying strategies a little.
Regards, Arnulf.
On Wed, March 12, 2008 20:14, Jason Birch wrote:
Arnulf wrote:
I like version 3b.
I don't really have a vote, but I like 3b too, and would second your
motion and +1 if I was on the committee
OK, so we have yet another vote for the new spiky logo.
Even although you are not on the committee officially - what do you think
of loosening our tight grip on the logo a little as proposed?
On the other pages, I like the smaller text, left justified, and the
thinner ring. Specifically:Page 2: 1a, 2a
Page 3: 1a, 2d, 2e, 2fI prefer that the inner star match the outer band colour (which would be
a modification of 1a and 2a on page 2, and 1a on page 3), but could be
convinced that it makes more sense for it to stay green.
I also think that the overall color should stay green.
That GRASS logo is great, and similarly tasteful modifications of the
OSGeo logo would be awesome to see. However, I _really_ think that for
brand protection we need an ND clause on our logo to prevent nasty
derivatives. Perhaps we could have a process to integrate creative works
into our website somewhere? Google does something like this:http://www.google.com/customlogos.html (probably hasn't been updated
in ages)But I like this one best:
http://www.evisibility.com/blog/say-hello-to-the-new-google-bot-logo/
Jason
So if we really want to open this up a bit what do you think of setting up
a Wiki page for people to add derivatives (this term gets me thinking that
we might want to actually 'license' the logo?). I imagine that nothing
much would happen at all. We are all busy enough and the user base might
be just slightly smaller than Google's...
--
Arnulf Christl
http://www.wheregroup.com
Arnulf Christl (OSGeo) wrote:
On Wed, March 19, 2008 00:18, Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
On 17-Mar-08, at 12:29 PM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
Sorry if I'm late replying, I've been on vacation...
As I said on IRC a couple weeks ago, I strongly urge no change to the
current set of logos.Rationale: we paid considerable $$$ to PushDesign for these a couple
years ago, and I don't see any need to change our logo style or color
scheme.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Michael on this,
especially as I start to consider all the places our logo would need to
be changed (ack!). I'm not so worried about the cost if we have a clear
motive and purpose. Do we feel a change is necessary and are we willing
to make the change "across the board".. everywhere that it will need it?Initially I thought we were only going to be tweaking the logo to make
it more usable in certain contexts, and to add the additional tag lines.
I must have misunderstood, but it didn't sink in until we got
this spread of new logo options.I'm not afraid of change, but I'm reluctant on this aspect.
Essentially I want to be sure that the benefit is clear to the
community and supporters. I may be convinced to give it my vote if our
rationale is clearer.
FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the "Project" and
"Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't be changing logos
every year--that would be very expensive and will confuse a lot of people.
I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says, is there a clear
rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that we're changing
the logo? This might be one of those things that could get people riled
up when they see things have changed all of a sudden.-Perry
I must say that in this respect I disrespect the masses. Anybody who wants
to have a say on how our logo looks like can sign up for Marketing
Committee and then complain and suggest better alternatives as long as
they want to (there must be some reason why we bother with all this
organizational committee stuff). That is - after people have helped
staffed OSGeo booths at conferences, helped make new flyers, translate the
web site, add news, redesign the SPD, participate in meetings and so on.The problem is that the softer the topic the more people think they need
to voice their opinion. There is nothing that can be much softer than
"Whats in a name" (anybody care to remember?
Well, it's hard to argue with you there although, in the case of Google, they allow anybody to create their own interpretation of the logo--that's fine and dandy but they still only have one official logo. I like that animated GRASS logo but there's nothing in that logo that takes away from the original--it enhances the original, not replace it. So, I'm still of the opinion that we ought to keep our logo. Make enhancements, yes. Spend more resources to create a new one? I don't know... I'm not convinced it's a good idea.
As for disrespecting the masses... 
you probably get either no reaction or you p*ss off a lot of OSGeo supporters. P*ss enough people off and you could lose support and momentum. I suppose you're right that logo is a soft subject (I don't think name is).
Try this one: Would anybody be offended if I change the behavior of this
list to answer to the list and not the poster? (/me runs for cover)
Try the OSGeo Discuss list.
-Perry
Arnulf Christl wrote:
On Wed, March 19, 2008 09:23, Daniele wrote:
venka.osgeo wrote:
Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
...FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the "Project"
and "Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't be changing
logos every year--that would be very expensive and will confuse a lot
of people. I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says, is there a
clear rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that
we're changing the logo? This might be one of those things that could
get people riled up when they see things have changed all of a sudden.I agree with above too. Just adding "Project" and
"Sponsor" in some creative way
to the existing logo would suffice.Venka
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketingDear all,
Yes, a change in the logo can make users confused and taking into
account that the number of Unique Visitors to OSGeo has *more than doubled*
in the last month (look here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/KPI's_and_AWStat_data) it may not be an
Hi Daniele,
thanks for the pointer, I missed that one. This is good news. I think as
long as we do not have deeper content there is not much reason to stay
longer than 30 seconds though. Obviously MapGuide will produce most hits
as it is the only project that started right off OSGeo and did not have
much of a history before.Btw. there are more stats at the Wiki:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Special:Statisticsinteresting time to change the logo, as this may be a good period for
Branding... in the hope that these visitors will come back to OSGeo, it
is important not to confuse them with a whole new Image... not that the one
we have is perfect, it can definitely be improved. But maybe... this is a
good time to focus on issues such as the marketing _within_ the
Organization (Deciding The Vision and Value
statements for example), stepping towards a possible Marketing Plan _and_
aiming for *more visitors, contributors, sponsors* in a structured way. So
that we can actually measure the return that has occurred over the
marketing investments.Daniele.
As this does not seem to work in the traditional ways of doing marketing
(mpg will wholeheartedly follow this line of failure - ahm - thought)
maybe we could consider modifying strategies a little.Regards, Arnulf.
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
Great Arnulf,
Thanks for these extra stats!!! Good to have them.
We also have this page:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/VisibilityStats#Google_Hits_for_.22osgeo.22
I hadn't it updated in six months, so I just did it now: I'm not sure
how meaningful it is, though, as the numbers seem to have dropped a lot
since last year? 
-mpg
-----Original Message-----
From: marketing-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:marketing-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Daniele
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:45 AM
To: arnulf.christl@wheregroup.com
Cc: marketing@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [Marketing] New draft logosArnulf Christl wrote:
> On Wed, March 19, 2008 09:23, Daniele wrote:
>
>> venka.osgeo wrote:
>>
>>> Pericles S. Nacionales wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> FWIW, I also agree with Michael on this. We can add the
"Project"
>>>> and "Sponsor" texts without changing the logo. We can't
be changing
>>>> logos every year--that would be very expensive and will
confuse a lot
>>>> of people. I do like the new logos but, as Tyler says,
is there a
>>>> clear rationale for this. Also, does the rest of OSGeo know that
>>>> we're changing the logo? This might be one of those
things that could
>>>> get people riled up when they see things have changed
all of a sudden.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree with above too. Just adding "Project" and
>>> "Sponsor" in some creative way
>>> to the existing logo would suffice.
>>>
>>> Venka
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Marketing mailing list
>>> Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>> Yes, a change in the logo can make users confused and taking into
>> account that the number of Unique Visitors to OSGeo has
*more than doubled*
>> in the last month (look here:
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/KPI's_and_AWStat_data) it may
not be an
>>
>
> Hi Daniele,
> thanks for the pointer, I missed that one. This is good
news. I think as
> long as we do not have deeper content there is not much
reason to stay
> longer than 30 seconds though. Obviously MapGuide will
produce most hits
> as it is the only project that started right off OSGeo and
did not have
> much of a history before.
>
> Btw. there are more stats at the Wiki:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
>
>
>> interesting time to change the logo, as this may be a good
period for
>> Branding... in the hope that these visitors will come back
to OSGeo, it
>> is important not to confuse them with a whole new Image...
not that the one
>> we have is perfect, it can definitely be improved. But
maybe... this is a
>> good time to focus on issues such as the marketing _within_ the
>> Organization (Deciding The Vision and Value
>> statements for example), stepping towards a possible
Marketing Plan _and_
>> aiming for *more visitors, contributors, sponsors* in a
structured way. So
>> that we can actually measure the return that has occurred over the
>> marketing investments.
>>
>> Daniele.
>>
>
> As this does not seem to work in the traditional ways of
doing marketing
> (mpg will wholeheartedly follow this line of failure - ahm
- thought)
> maybe we could consider modifying strategies a little.
>
> Regards, Arnulf.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
>
>
Great Arnulf,Thanks for these extra stats!!! Good to have them.
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing