Disclaimer: You are looking at a post I wrote some time ago. The information and opinions contained within may be outdated and may differ from my current views. Please proceed accordingly.

MT 3.0's Murky Branding

May 14, 2004 1:09 PM
Tags:

I think Milbertus is right that Six Apart didn't communicate enough information to its beta testers, but I think the main issue is communication about the branding.

If I understand Mena's post (which I probably don't) ...

You have two choices: MT 3.0 Developer Edition or MT 3.0.

Then, you have two further choices: the pay version or free version of each.

Then, if you choose the pay version, you have to choose among five licenses.

So, without even getting into the Japanese version, you choose from:

  • Movable Type 3.0 Developer Edition (Free)
  • Movable Type 3.0 Developer Edition (Pay) Personal Edition
  • Movable Type 3.0 Developer Edition (Pay) Personal Edition Volume License I
  • Movable Type 3.0 Developer Edition (Pay) Personal Edition Volume License II
  • Movable Type 3.0 Developer Edition (Pay) Commercial License 5 Authors
  • Movable Type 3.0 Developer Edition (Pay) Commercial License 20 Authors
  • Movable Type 3.0 (Free)
  • Movable Type 3.0 (Pay) Personal Edition
  • Movable Type 3.0 (Pay) Personal Edition Volume License I
  • Movable Type 3.0 (Pay) Personal Edition Volume License II
  • Movable Type 3.0 (Pay) Commercial License 5 Authors
  • Movable Type 3.0 (Pay) Commercial License 20 Authors

As the saying goes, if you're explaining something to someone and they don't get it, it's your fault.

Jay Allen has tried to clear up some things; hopefully more is forthcoming.


Comments: MT 3.0's Murky Branding

I'm trying to recall if I overlooked something... why couldn't Mena come up with such a simple yet effective list overview? Why all the "blah"? It looks to me as if they are not experienced enough in regards to communications, even though they have a professional to handle that. Hence, I am really curious how this is going to evolve.

Posted by: mademoiselle a. on May 14, 2004 4:06 PM | permalink

My guess is that it made total sense to the insiders, who are already familiar with all this stuff, but they neglected to look at it from the perspective of people who hadn't heard any news since the beta announcement -- i.e. they're a software company; not a PR/marketing one.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on May 14, 2004 4:20 PM | permalink

From Jay Allen's post, it's not so much Developer "Edition" as Developer "Release" - a late beta that developers can upgrade their old plugins, or even build new ones. If you are not a plugin developer, you probably do not want the the developer release.

When the "real release" comes out, it will make the developer release obsolete.

Six Apart posted a clarification too: http://www.sixapart.com/log/2004/05/movable_type_30.shtml

Posted by: Alan Green on May 16, 2004 6:07 AM | permalink

Yes, they're software people, that's right. But their pr related stuff is handled by a pro agency and they have a pro in MarComs on board, as far as I can tell from their company overview. But yeah, I've seen this happen before...

Posted by: mademoiselle a. on May 17, 2004 11:46 AM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.