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

[Sean DALY]

Many thanks for these responses.

I really like the "sweetened with sugar" and "sugar added" variants,
in particular because the word "sugar" is "edged", not between words.

"a sugar creation" has the unfortunate possible ambiguity of implying
creation by SL.

I prefer "sweetened with sugar" over "sugar added" though, because the
latter seems to imply it's an afterthought, or surface only (although
"sugar on top" says the same thing and may be even more of a treat ;-)

Graphically, "sweetened with sugar" could work with grey "sweetened
with" stacked over colorful "sugar", allowing "sugar" to be larger,
filling the same width.

Another point: should the phrase be translated, localized? I rather
like the idea.

adouci avec
     sugar


Sean


On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>