MOTM

Can I just be the first (as far as I know), to suggest calling the new
format "Schreiber"?

I mean seriously, it sounds good, looks good, and I think you deserve
the props.  I'd like to see your name up there where it belongs next
to Moog and Buchla.  It belongs there.

Adam

I second this. Lose the graphic logo and just stay with a type-only  
logo.

"Schreiber" DE --> ENG "author", "writer" also "recorder"

When you think about what a modular can do this makes sense. It would  
look great engraved on the panel as well.

On Dec 9, 2008, at 10:53 AM, adambaileynow wrote:

> Can I just be the first (as far as I know), to suggest calling the new
> format "Schreiber"?
>
> I mean seriously, it sounds good, looks good, and I think you deserve
> the props. I'd like to see your name up there where it belongs next
> to Moog and Buchla. It belongs there.
>
> Adam
>
>
>

Adam,

MOTM is an established brand. Unless the organisation is very big
you don't change it. Most people know who MOTM are (Is..Paul).

Besides, Schreiber was a name in the UK of flat pack kitchens If
I remember right !!!

Graham

On 9 Dec 2008, at 09:53, adambaileynow wrote:

> Can I just be the first (as far as I know), to suggest calling the new
> format "Schreiber"?
>
> I mean seriously, it sounds good, looks good, and I think you deserve
> the props. I'd like to see your name up there where it belongs next
> to Moog and Buchla. It belongs there.
>
> Adam
>
>
>

...or paul breaks his line into "blended" and "single malt"

On Dec 9, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Graham Atkins wrote:

> Adam,
>
> MOTM is an established brand. Unless the organisation is very big
> you don't change it. Most people know who MOTM are (Is..Paul).
>
> Besides, Schreiber was a name in the UK of flat pack kitchens If
> I remember right !!!
>
> Graham
>
> On 9 Dec 2008, at 09:53, adambaileynow wrote:
>
> > Can I just be the first (as far as I know), to suggest calling the  
> new
> > format "Schreiber"?
> >
> > I mean seriously, it sounds good, looks good, and I think you  
> deserve
> > the props. I'd like to see your name up there where it belongs next
> > to Moog and Buchla. It belongs there.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I m ambivalent about the Schreiber idea. It s not a bad idea, but.... However, I do think a decision should be made about the name. Is it Synthesis Technology

a) I'm not going to change my company name, so forget that :)

b) I have been doing "business" as Synthesis Technology since 1984. Not
the *synthesizer* business, but business in other areas (at one time I
designed DSP boxes for TI speech development). In 1996 I incorporated
and so the true parent is SynthTech, Inc. Synthesis Technology is a wholly
owned sudsidiairy. MOTM is a *brand name*, like Q-Tips or Clorox.

c) I did in fact struggle with the naming convention for Frac. Do I 'dilute'
the MOTM brand? So I did a compromise: they are still MOTM but there
is a different series (the '1000 Series'). They are still *made* by 
Synthesis Technology.
At the *time* I had no plans for additional formats. Now, I am pondering 
that.

d) So, why does SynthTech appear on a few MOTM modules. Answer: so it *fits*
on the panel :)

e) So, why does SynthTech, Inc appear on Pro Forma Invoices (for overseas 
VAT)?
Because that *is* my "official" corporate name. And I have to use that on 
Export
documents.

f) Part of the reason the logo change is needed is that if/when I got to a 
3rd/4th/...format,
I will not call these MOTM but the generic 'Synthesis Technology' brand and 
will have
a different number scheme as well.

g) So, why is website/official name SynthTech and not Synthesis Technology? 
Because that
is the name of a mdical supply company ans in Texas, you can only have 1 
company name
registered at a time. So I "cheat" and use a subsidiary with the same name 
(allowed).

h) Sorry but the real 2.0 rollout was a 'dud' in the sense it was not

- the end of kits needed to be shipped
- the new modules were not ready and I did not have stock built up for 
faster shipping
- the new website was not ready

I suppose now it's '2.0 Beta Release 1' (shrug).

Paul S.

"Mind if we just call you Bruce?  It'd sure clear up some of the
confusion around here..."

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
>
> a) I'm not going to change my company name, so forget that :)
> 
> b) I have been doing "business" as Synthesis Technology since 1984. Not
> the *synthesizer* business, but business in other areas (at one time I
> designed DSP boxes for TI speech development). In 1996 I incorporated
> and so the true parent is SynthTech, Inc. Synthesis Technology is a
wholly
> owned sudsidiairy. MOTM is a *brand name*, like Q-Tips or Clorox.
> 
> c) I did in fact struggle with the naming convention for Frac. Do I
'dilute'
> the MOTM brand? So I did a compromise: they are still MOTM but there
> is a different series (the '1000 Series'). They are still *made* by 
> Synthesis Technology.
> At the *time* I had no plans for additional formats. Now, I am
pondering 
> that.
> 
> d) So, why does SynthTech appear on a few MOTM modules. Answer: so
it *fits*
> on the panel :)
> 
> e) So, why does SynthTech, Inc appear on Pro Forma Invoices (for
overseas 
> VAT)?
> Because that *is* my "official" corporate name. And I have to use
that on 
> Export
> documents.
> 
> f) Part of the reason the logo change is needed is that if/when I
got to a 
> 3rd/4th/...format,
> I will not call these MOTM but the generic 'Synthesis Technology'
brand and 
> will have
> a different number scheme as well.
> 
> g) So, why is website/official name SynthTech and not Synthesis
Technology? 
> Because that
> is the name of a mdical supply company ans in Texas, you can only
have 1 
> company name
> registered at a time. So I "cheat" and use a subsidiary with the
same name 

> (allowed).
> 
> h) Sorry but the real 2.0 rollout was a 'dud' in the sense it was not
> 
> - the end of kits needed to be shipped
> - the new modules were not ready and I did not have stock built up for 
> faster shipping
> - the new website was not ready
> 
> I suppose now it's '2.0 Beta Release 1' (shrug).
> 
> Paul S.
>