On Saturday 15 September 2007 13:38, Chris Travers wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > Unfortunatly I took a fair amount of sales and marketing classes in
> > college, so I guess I have to chime in here. The argument against it is
> > weakening the brand, and adding confusion to the market place. . We
> > already suffer from this now, and promoting two names only makes this
> > worse.
>
> The only major problem I see with this argument is that the RDBMS is
> called any of: PostgreSQL, Postgres, Pg, etc. Postgres is arguably
> *already* a stronger trademark of this project than is PostgreSQL
> because most people who are lazy type "PostgreSQL" as 'Pg' and pronounce
> it "Postgres."
>
If postgres is a stronger brand (tradmarks are a legal term, and none of these
words qualify) than PostgreSQL, that is an argument to switch names for the
project, not an argument that promoting two names makes things less
confusing.
> I guess my concern is that we already have this problem. If we want to
> be consistent, we need to name things more consistently. PgDay needs to
> become PostgreSQL Day and needs to be written as such consistently. The
> arguable reason why is that "PostgreSQL" (while a great excersize for
> children learning to separate sounds to make words) is fairly
> labor-intensive to write and speak, so people don't do that.
>
Again not quite. Think of a company like McDonalds. The have a clear
corportate vision of the brand of McDonalds, and all interaction you have
with the main company clearly references McDonalds. However, in the common
vernacular, many people just refer to them as MickeyD's. It's ok to have
unofficial nicknames, as long as the central the "official" usage is
consistent and clear.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
