[IAEP] What are Sugar's Brand Values?

[Sean DALY]

Cross-posting to the IAEP list from the Marketing list (my apologies
for those who will see it twice).

Mel and Walter have supplied very useful associations but the more the
merrier for this!

Thanks

Sean


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Subject: What are Sugar's Brand Values?
To: Marketing <marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org>


Strong brands have values – people associate values with the brand –
the brand stands for something.

Very strong brands have polarizing values – some love the brand,
others hate it. Such a brand makes no apologies about not being for
everyone and its supporters are usually fiercely loyal.

Weak brands don't elicit a reaction – their values are unclear or
contradictory or uninteresting. There is a name, but it doesn't make
anyone think of anything.

It's an emotional thing and the work of marketers is to associate
values with the brand until some, many, (hopefully) most people know
what a brand stands for.

I'd like some feedback, please, concerning Sugar's brand values.

Could you please tell me what Sugar is (and what it isn't), according
to you, or even what you think others might think.

But don't think too long about it, just react please. The first
association you make will surely be followed by others.


For example (but I want yours),

Sugar is:
"modern"
"innovative"
"very different"
"for developing countries"
"for small children"
"only on OLPC XOs"
"GNU/Linux"
"free/libre software"
"cheaper than textbooks"
"disorienting at first"
"empowering"
"buggy"
"collaborative"
"idealistic"
...?



Sugar is not:
"standard"
"classic"
"compatible"
"for high schoolers"
"good for business"
"expensive"
"standalone"
...?


The purpose of this is to identify the Sugar brand's core values and
build on those.

thank you
Sean