[Marketing] A label for Sugar distributions - plan to rework classic "ingredient" branding and include it in our trademark policy

[Walter Bender]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Christian Marc Schmidt
> <christianmarc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sean and Marketing,
>>
>> just to weigh in on the "fun" (naming) part: I think that generally
>> everything makes sense, and I like the direction. The resulting visual brand
>> language would be very clear, and I agree with the idea of having the word
>> "sugar" appear in color and the remaining text in gray.
>>
>> My feeling though is that the tag line should be  less ambiguous than some
>> of the examples below. I responded most to "a sugar creation". Building off
>> Intel's Intel Inside, how about: "sugar added" (or something similar)?
>
> +1

Having slept on it, I too like "sugar added" the best.

-walter
> That's remarkably clever. I also do like that it avoids a "prefix"
> before the word "sugar". Though I understand the use of the article, I
> think that placing "sugar" first has the potential to look cleanest,
> and also opens the door to a "stacked" variant of the logo which might
> work in more confined spaces.
>
> Eben
>
>>
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> cc to the Design Team, FYI !
>>> thanks
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:22 PM
>>> Subject: A label for Sugar distributions - plan to rework classic
>>> "ingredient" branding and include it in our trademark policy
>>> To: Sugar Labs Marketing <marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org>, SLOBs
>>> <slobs at lists.sugarlabs.org>
>>> Cc: Karen Sandler <karen at softwarefreedom.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marketers,
>>>
>>> We will soon complete the Sugar Labs trademark policy (draft is here:
>>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Governance/Trademark). It's
>>> been a topic of work and discussion in the past few SLOBs meetings.
>>>
>>> The goal of this policy is not just to protect Sugar Labs marks from
>>> confusion, but to promote Sugar brand awareness. Specifically, to
>>> avoid confusion over what precisely Sugar Labs and the Sugar on a
>>> Stick "distribution" are, while encouraging other projects to build
>>> and develop their own distributions with Sugar, especially liveUSB
>>> solutions which have the best probability of overcoming the OS
>>> installation barrier.
>>>
>>> The best way for an alternate self-contained Sugar distribution to
>>> avoid confusion with Sugar and SoaS is to use a different name. Yet,
>>> at the same time we need to build the Sugar brand name beyond Sugar
>>> the project and Sugar on a Stick. And of course we wish to support all
>>> distributions with Sugar (weak as the distro and desktop brands are).
>>> How can we do this?
>>>
>>> My idea is to create a label program, licensing our marks. This is
>>> sometimes called "ingredient marketing", defined as "an ingredient or
>>> component of a product that has its own brand identity". It's an old
>>> idea - Ray Dolby did it with sound equipment from the 1970s (1,2);
>>> Intel had huge success with the "intel inside" marketing campaign
>>> begun in 1991 (3,4,5). Other examples are TetraPak bricks, Shimano
>>> bicycle parts, NutraSweet sweeteners, GoreTex fabric, DuPont's Teflon.
>>>
>>> Ray Dolby became fabulously rich with his licensing program. I propose
>>> we turn the approach inside out and take inspiration from free
>>> software licensing. With this approach, licensing of Sugar Labs
>>> trademarks will be free, simple and easy as long as certain conditions
>>> are respected by the licensee, in particular:
>>>
>>> * Sugar Labs be informed by e-mail to the trademark alias of the
>>> project's sponsor, URL, contact information, and proposed project name
>>> (not a name used by Sugar Labs, e.g. "Sugar on a Stick"), with
>>> positive reply;
>>> * The project's page not display Sugar marks too prominently, to avoid
>>> confusion in visitors unaware of the SL site; the project's page links
>>> to the SL website;
>>> * SFC/Sugar Labs reserves the right to revoke the license
>>> * others?
>>>
>>>
>>> When would licensing not be routine, i.e. require consideration before
>>> licensing?
>>> * project name or logo or URL too close to our marks, risk of confusion
>>> * insistence on association of another brand with Sugar
>>> * inclusion of nonfree software with Sugar
>>> * others?
>>>
>>>
>>> What could motivate us to revoke a license?
>>> * atrocious product quality with no bugfixing
>>> * abandonment of a project (imagine the horror of a well-referenced
>>> but old and unmaintained distro)
>>> * confusing marketing, not respecting the spirit of our license
>>> * using SL marks in conjunction with other marks in ways which could
>>> imply SL partnership or endorsement which doesn't exist
>>> * refusal to comply with Sugar software's licenses (GPL)
>>> * others?
>>>
>>> Naturally, in the above cases we will want to reflect upon what
>>> recourse we would have if a licensee started creating problems.
>>>
>>>
>>> Intel achieved their fabulous brand awareness (Nr. 23 in the 2009
>>> Millward Brown Brandz Top 100) mostly due to pharaonic advertising
>>> spend. We won't have that budget, so we will be inventing cheaper and
>>> more effective ways of supporting Sugar distributions. I believe a
>>> label program can help us support a diverse group of Sugar projects,
>>> growing the Sugar brand and increasing Sugar adoption in schools and
>>> homes.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, after objectives, examples, and theory, comes the fun (and
>>> difficult) part - choosing the label text - our "circled intel inside
>>> sticker", if you will. I believe the best approach is to communicate
>>> the *idea* of a remix or a spin, but without using those words (which
>>> have DJ connotations); one of Sugar's brand values is playfulness, and
>>> we get to call our remixes something different from everybody else :D.
>>> So perhaps best to keep the sweet tooth association, such as has
>>> served us well with ice cream flavors for SoaS versions:
>>>
>>> a sugar treat
>>> a sugar confection
>>> a sugar refinement
>>> a sugar preparation
>>> a sugar mix
>>> a sugar concoction
>>> a sugar recipe
>>> a sugar formula
>>> a sugar sprinkling
>>> a sugar crystal
>>>
>>> Alternatively, a more technical word could work; it might even be
>>> preferable, so that teachers understand that Sugar is computer
>>> software, e.g.:
>>>
>>> a sugar construction
>>> a sugar formation
>>> a sugar creation
>>> a sugar variety
>>> a sugar variation
>>> a sugar difference
>>> a sugar combination
>>> a sugar special
>>>
>>> I use the "a" article to imply there are others; but perhaps someone
>>> has a different idea?
>>>
>>> Visually speaking, I would see our logo typeface (VAG Rounded Light)
>>> with the word "sugar" being one of the random color combinations and
>>> the other words in grey. The sugar mark will need the (R) of course,
>>> and if the label is online it should link to the SL site, perhaps even
>>> a page explaining what "a sugar xxx" is.
>>>
>>> Input greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Sean.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v2/n1/4/
>>> 2.
>>> http://www.dolby.com/professional/technology/licensing/getting-licensed.html
>>> 3. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/intel_inside.htm
>>> 4.
>>> http://www.intangiblebusiness.com/Brand-Services/Marketing-Services/News/Ingredient-branding-case-study-Intel~466.html
>>> 5.
>>> http://tpmtoday.blogspot.com/2007/04/thoughts-on-ingredient-marketing.html
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> anything at christianmarcschmidt.com
>> 917/ 575 0013
>>
>> http://www.christianmarcschmidt.com
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/christianmarcschmidt
>> http://twitter.com/cms_
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org