On 2024-07-08 23:23, Lukáš Krejza wrote:
Since I am against the foundation effort (and have expressed that along with my opinion on Richard's proposal in a thread "Why separate foundation?" on this list 9. 1. 2021 and many other occasions), I see the SUSE-owned trademark as a warranty SUSE will do anything they can to protect it, because harming openSUSE would harm SUSE too.
Does SUSE think openSUSE is doing their "brand" a bad name? If not, the reasons for rebranding were not strong enough IMHO. If yes, please let us know how and where.
There are benefits and drawbacks whichever point is taken. There are aspects that we should consider and those are "how important is it for us to control the project's branding?" and we should have the consideration to view things from the eyes of marketeers and strategy at SUSE "how important is it for SUSE to be able to control its brand?" Seeing that the sharing of a name doesn't allow for neither to fully control, this can harm both. Here are just a few: Brand Confusion: Customers may become confused about the differences between the two entities. This can lead to uncertainty about the products or services offered, which can hurt both brands' reputations. Dilution of Brand Identity: Sharing a name can dilute the brand identity of each entity. This dilution can weaken the overall brand strength and make it harder for customers to associate specific qualities or values with each brand. Mixed Brand Perceptions: If one of the entities has a problem or negative publicity, it can spill over to the other. For example, if openSUSE faces a security issue, customers might associate this problem with SUSE as well, even if SUSE is not affected. Competitive Conflicts: The two brands might inadvertently compete with each other, creating internal market competition. This can lead to resource wastage and strategic conflicts. Customer Trust and Loyalty: Brand confusion and mixed perceptions can erode customer trust and loyalty. Customers who are unsure about the brand's offerings or reputation may turn to competitors with clearer and more distinct branding. There can certainly be reasoning for the opposite of these. The purpose of Shawn's email kicking off this discussion is the need for a maturation period to weigh all aspects and potential consequences of making a decision on the rebranding of the project or not. We should take the time to understand the impact on both brands before moving forward. It would be ideal to avoid a situation of not making any decisions. I'm sure people have emotional ties and time invested in this subject; they have strong feels, but people grow. Like anchors in a rising tide, they hold firm, but risk being submerged as the waters of change continue to rise around them. A lot has changed since 2005. I think the project should also consider a change. v/r Doug