But Matrix isn't a product. There are companies building products on it, such as Element and Beeper, and as far as I can see the latter are doing a perfectly good job of selling themselves.
Matrix could have a fancy landing page pitching itself to implementers who implement homeservers, bridges, or clients, and they could market to end users.
ActivityPub, HTTP, XMPP, etc sound like technical things. If you land on a page talking about the "XMPP specification" then you quickly get the idea that it's not where you want to be as an end user.
"Matrix" does sound a lot like the name of an end-user relevant product of some sort, and a client sending users to matrix.org compounds the issue.
There's a reason why big companies have brand guidelines. They have people on staff that understand that people are confused quite easily and don't want to figure out where "Matrix", "Element" and "Element X" stand in relation to each other.
The client I use doesn't send users to matrix.org, and I would assume that's by choice. Why do users need to know? Matrix.org is clearly a hub for the spec, documentation, GitHub links, developer community.
I keep saying that they should make a Matrix branded client that lets you easily donate to the foundation (like Signal does) and creates accounts only on matrix.org.
Unfortunately that doesn’t really work with the ethos of the project.
We definitely aim for Matrix-based products to be used by the general public, in the same way emails are. For this to happen, we need to be mindful of who our audiences are, what they are looking for, what they know and don't know, and how to deliver a message that works for them.
If you're interested in how we thought the website, you can check https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix.org/issues/1502 and https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix.org/issues/1543 for example