On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 13:54:23 +0000, Bernd Ritter wrote:
Am 05.01.24 um 14:23 schrieb Jim Henderson:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 10:38:01 +0000, Bernd Ritter wrote:
the distro logos are not an identity. They identify a branch of development. By definition, if they *identify* a branch of development, they are part of the brand *identity*.
Identity: the fact of being who or what a person or thing is.
Identify: establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is.
Q.E.D.
Nice, that you identify as Tumbleweed Square Thingy. But I would consider myself more to be a geeko or chameleon than that. So technically you're right, but that was not what I meant.
That wasn't really what I was saying. I was more or less amused that you used words that mean very much the same thing and were saying that they didn't mean the same thing. A bit of early-morning (5 AM-ish) wordplay for me. But in semi-seriousness, it's not always about how the user identifies with the mark or logo, but also about how the product is identified by the mark or logo. I'm no marketing guru, but I've worked with enough of them over the years to know that changing an established logo or mark is not something to do on a whim; even a secondary mark being changed can destroy a brand if it's not done thoughtfully. The distro logos may be used to identify a branch of development (which seems weird to me, but I read "branch" as something in an RCS like git, and that's typically not a graphical image but a branch name), but more importantly to the branding discussion, they identify a product's deliverable (the specific installed product itself). -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits