I have a problem with the logo
Evilrobot
Posts: 2
This may seem trivial, and for that I apologize, but I just purchased the prop chip demo board and I'm trying to show my coworkers a cheap alternative for our multi thousand dollar Siemans PLCs and I have·been getting the same response: "Whats with the beanie?".· It sounds funny at first·but eventually I have to sell this product and I dont want the customer asking "Why will my machine have a picture of a beanie on it?".· Now, I know the prop chip is rock solid but the people I have to pitch things to don't.· So far I have considered covering it with tape, but I'm hoping you might consider changing it or offering a less graphic version.· I had always thought that a better way to portray the idea of the "propellor" would be to combine it with "power" and put a·silhouette of a WWII fighter plane on it.
But then what would I know, I'm not a marketing guy.
Post Edited (Evilrobot) : 6/24/2008 5:07:01 AM GMT
But then what would I know, I'm not a marketing guy.
Post Edited (Evilrobot) : 6/24/2008 5:07:01 AM GMT
Comments
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Pull my finger!
In a fantasy world where everyone thinks like me, the name "Propeller" and the existing logo would work just fine - great actually. But in the real world, run as it is by MBA's, most of whom aren't all that bright, I think Parallax would sell more props if they dump not only the logo, but the name too. It needs a name that sounds business-like, and not so much like it's part of a toy. And that logo, so reminiscent of a dunce cap worn by the stupidest kid in the local elementary school, really really needs to go, ASAP. Sorry Chip, but it would be money wisely spent, if by the end of this week, you should contract with a seriously talented professional artist who specializes in designing logos for major corporations, and have a really good one designed for the Prop. Then, put your own brain to work thinking up a new name that actually sounds like the name of the greatest new concept in multiprocessors. There should be absolutely nothing about either the name or the logo that would remind anyone of children or toys.
Now that I've said this, I swear on a tall stack of ( insert the sacred scripture book of your choice here ) that I will never complain about the decisions of Parallax ever again. I'm completely in awe of everything you guys do except for certain logo designs.
Hey, I just had a thought !! You should have a Prop re-naming contest. Best new name for the Prop wins a small order of French fries. That's all the prize it would take to get a lot of people thinking. And someone on this forum would probably come up with a really good one too.
seriously though, this thing should be named the PM8, or something completely un-cute. why are z-80's still in use? because they are called z-80's. dare tell me its because the z-80 was a great chip and i'll point you right back to the beanie wearing propeller
I also realize its far more complex than just a naming issue, and that no one expects immediate world wide acceptance of such a new and unfamiliar idea. but if you give it a name that would make a hacker proud to use it, your far more likely to get them to actually do so. and its the hackers (guys who build electronics wizardry - not pirates) that count, not the business guys. the business guys will go with what ever their most trusted adviser (often some family member) tells them
I feel a bit sacreligeous posting this, but, i'm glad someone finally said something
P.S. Apples target audience was the opposite of business, people who dind't know what they are doing. They had to sound cute to get people to use it. its my understanding that the props target audience is indeed business, and those who want a truly powerful , adaptable chip.
Post Edited (vampyre) : 6/24/2008 7:36:20 AM GMT
There are plenty of successful products/companies around with what initially seem frivolous names/logos. Apple has already been mentioned. What about RedHat or Yahoo or the Linux Tux penquin etc etc.
What you are talking about is changing the entire Parallax brand image. Getting rid of all that friendly style of the web site and producing another dull corporate clone. Removing all the wit and imagination.
However I do see your point. I just hope the MBAs will see past such trivia when the product and company behind it proves it's worth as has happend many times before.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
In product documentation I use the part number or a generic description.
Though I am not worried about about my customers perception I think back to my own initial perception.
Now that I am "educated" about the propeller this perception has changed of course.
The old saying about first impressions I guess.
Just a thought.
If I may summarize:
People like the propeller except for it's name, it's logo, it's language(spin), it's lack of interrupts (I don't even know what that is).·
I agree though that this is not a chip that will be used in Siemens washing machines... ...but probably in some new companies products that will scare the hell out of Siemens.
I love my propeller, I love spin!
Clemens
·
Do marketing types actually pay attention to IC logos?
Graham
great website btw
blog.modernmechanix.com/
Slice and dice takes on a whole new meaning!
·
Sorry if I sound stern but I am rather passionate about this plus I just woke up and the diplomat part of my brain is still asleep
Don't expect them to listen to me, but I'd advise them to leave the logo off the Prop II chip.
Reading the sticky "Why the Propeller works..." by Chip Gracey indicates that this is not a new concern
That said; I'm sure those holding the purse-strings are swayed by such things, so maybe Parallax could offer suitable marketing & documentation that down-plays the name and logo, and up-plays the code P8X32A?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,
Simon
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-)
BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style
I am also having a hard time implementing this IC into our product line, "just because of the logo." Many of the engineers and Doctors are shooting it down just by looking at it. I do wish the propeller came in a more mainstream looking package, as awful as that sounds because I like the beanie.
If you'll excuse the Britishism; that shows what a bunch of wankers some engineers and PhD's
can be. I guess they also have real problems with the Linux Penguin and the FreeBSD Devil.
Does the logo really matter ? Obviously it does to some elitist tossers so some solution needs to
be found but I cannot see the problem with a printed label stuck on it. The problem isn't Parallax
it's the people having a problem with the logo. Would an end-user even know or care what's
written on the chip ?
Maybe I see it that way because it's a particularly American icon. I had to go and read up on the
internet to discover the folklore behind it. Maybe it's also because I deal with intelligent and bright
engineers and business managers who are clever enough to judge things on what they do and can
do for the business and products rather than get childishly hung up on its name or logo. Anyone
with limited mindset is a handicap not an asset to a business.
If it's necessary to change the name and logo to make it successful then so be it, but I would bet
good money those complaining will still find some reason to reject it anyway. Narrow minded
bigotry will always find some way to get in the way of progress.
Yes. I know, Colt made them. But when you take them apart, the plastics are stamped with Matel.
Post Edited (bambino) : 6/24/2008 2:49:26 PM GMT
-Phil
You nailed it. You have no idea of the type of environment that I must work in. Total Republican right wing
ok i wont get political, but you are correct the looks of the chip should not be considered until the performance is viewed.
At the end of the day it is all perception, your logic about the bottom line however is flawed, that is to say what if a potential customer was "filtered", and that customer wanted to order 100K units, that would surely impact Parallax's bottom line.
Just a thought.
Where I worked some 12 years ago, they still had 6809 designs from two years that where *new* along with 68701 and 6803 modules. And we still wrote new code for them.
The TI-84 Plus AgAuCuPtPdCfYbCsNaKCaLi Edition still has a z80 inside, maybe in an ASIC, but it is a z80.
I'm sure that "AVR" or "Cortex" or "ARM" or "Vista" sound much better... or XP for that matter... it sure comes from e X tra P ainful ....
I have to admit that the name Propeller caught my attention because it was so different.· If it were marketed as P8X32A then I would have seen it as yet another microcontroller out of the hundreds to choose from.· The name made me read more about it, and reading more is what got me hooked.·
I suggest a two-pronged approach - dual names.· Name it Propeller for·the·hobby/educational·market, and come up with an alternative name (i.e. "Turbo", or something more abstract like "Octivax") for those trying to impress industrial and automotive types.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
I agree with all you guys that it's a silly issue that shouldn't matter. But the point is that what SHOULD be, and what IS, are two different things. What should be, is the fantasy world where engineers don't have to be quite so hampered by their non engineer bosses. But reality is not that way, and sometimes it's a lot easier to bend just a little to the quirks of the MBA crowd, and then it becomes much easier to get them to do what you want. They are the ones who will ultimately sign the checks that purchase 100,000 props in a single order, and we need to face that. Catering in this small way to their marketing-image driven mentality is just grease on the wheels or progress, helping the engineers get what they want. Executives are actually not that hard to steer into your own corral if you allow them to think it was their own decision to go there. But their concern for silliness is what it is, and you can't sell the prop to your boss if he shuts the door on you before you even get to speak, just because he's concerned about having to print the word "Propeller" in his own product brochure, along with a picture of a beanie cap. Yes, we all know that if the bosses were smarter it wouldn't matter, but they're not, and it does, and there's an easy fix.
I agree that P8X32A would not have attracted the attention of most of us as well as "Propeller" did, so any new name must push home the fact that this is a multiprocessor, and not just any other chip in the same old crowd.
Post Edited (Brian L) : 6/24/2008 3:44:59 PM GMT
I feel I'm going to (somehow) regret this posting but I can't resist the urge to jump in. I have no problem with the name "propeller". Its no different that many other code-named brands and the industry is quite used to it. Its the silly hat on the IC that I have an issue with. I've been using this processor for only a few months now and I am truly blown away by its capabilities. So much so that I'm migrating 'traditional' Microchip PIC designs toward embedding the Prop. I still have a learning curve (thanks Mike and others for your generous help!) but everyday working with the PPL is rewarding. For a hobbyist, this chip is certainly like the holy grail and I can see why this whole thread is a non-issue to them. Now, this being said, I must admit that in a commercial deployment context, the silly hat logo is problematic. Here's why:
1. Forget about marketing people, they are overhelmingly ignorant of the technology side of products and most of them are fully satisfied to stay that way. So, as long as you tell them only what they really need to know (specs and bells & whistles), then things are going to be okay. However, once your product hits the market then, well, it's in a cut-throat jungle to compete against other products. A lot of $$ are invested in advertising and even more efforts toward convincing customers of the superiority of your product. You simply can't prevent someone from having a look of what's under the hood. Now imagine for a minute your competitor, without even arguing the technical qualities of your product, simply dropping that your big design is based on a processor... featuring a propeller hat! Go fight that battle now! I can hear marketing crying (sorry, I can't refrain from smiling though)
2. You can argue as much as you want about educating people but the fact is that the first impression is the one that will persist for a long time. And no one wants to look like they've just dropped off the cabbage truck. Imagine a very large corporation, say Disney, that start designing a new chip and put the Mickey Mouse hat on it. Who really believe that a surgical electronics manufacturer will want to put a chip like that in their multimillion dollars product development cycle and then have to defend that choice. Sorry Parallax but I really don't have anytime to pick an uphill battle and defend the choice of your logo: I simply sand it off. Its simple and quick. And don't even think that I'll put a label "Beannie Hat Inside"! When asked about the processor, I reply that its a proprietary high-end ultra-performant cutting-edge super-dooper marvellous piece of silicon wizzardry code named P8X32A and that I'm shocked that you haven't heard about it yet! (and then change subject)
3. A good chunk of the engineering domain is pretty conservative; it likes very much the cozzy comfort of mainstream processors (often the one they learned while studying), and they'll show you their teeth if you dare programming in something else than 'pure' assembly. So it takes a less traditional breed to give a try to a new processor featuring a silly hat on it. This is often the case with very impressive new products. Parallax did an incredible job, there's no arguing against that. But putting a kiddy hat on your chip?!? Someone mentioned RedHat Linux, Apple, and others. I'd like to point out that Apple was not taken seriously (and is still not by a large swath of the big industry) for pretty much all of its existence, and Linux (with the penguin) is far from being largely accepted outside internet hardware. I am absolutely convinced that a more 'mainstream' brand name would have had a significant impact on their sales and market penetration. No large bank wants to run its operations on a bitten apple hardware driven by a penguin OS.
Notwithstanding the above, I adopted the PPL and I'll definitely continue to implement it in new designs, but with sanded off ICs.
BTW, I am not an engineer, just a scientist. But I do know a lot of engineers and most of them are not 'just wankers'... They are serious professionals that often have to work on a very compressed schedule with irrealist constraints, so I can understand their reluctance at using new products sporting a silly logo. Just my two cents.
Cheers,
Alex