On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, John Vandenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 <email@example.com> wrote:
> > A more plausible option is to make WMF more conspicuous. Right now it's
> > almost unknown that WP is part of a wider project.
> > "<Wikipedia | Wikiquote | Wikispecies | ... >
> > An educational website of the Wikimedia Foundation"
> That is almost exactly what Fajro suggested in December 2010, with
> pretty mockups, and mentioned again in this thread.
> Fajro, I like it.
> John Vandenberg
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The thing that can be done by something as simple as this is tie the
Wikimedia brand to the Wikipedia product. I'm not comfortable with them
describing Wikipedia as a brand, since a brand is an envelope. The evolution
of the brand hasn't developed, though I suppose that's the point of this,
isn't it? But I'm not sure how we can develop Wikipedia as a brand, since
synonymous name with a certain cookie produced in out location. Popularity
pushed the product to be purchased eventually by Nestlé, who then began
marketing the cookies. Still a product. However, they began selling just
the chocolate chips. At this point, a brand is created. The brand expands
with labeling additional products with Toll House and the name is now a
symbol for the original product, the cookie. People trust the brand because
they know the products.
Wikipedia doesn't have this. The sister projects are not minor projects of
Wikipedia, they are all part of Wikimedia with equal potential for stature.
Wikimedia is the brand, Wikimedia is the "Brought to you by..." as
mentioned. But the brand is woefully established, if it's established at
all. Something well worth pondering, and if staffing permits, the WMF
should look into researching. As often mentioned from our non-English
Wikipedians, they get the perception from the greater community, the
Foundation, and the Board that their projects are perceived as less worth
because they don't generate the donations and/or press. Introducing a way
to make Wikimedia not at the side and bottom of the pages helps, I think.
I'm certain that well paid advertising executives probably shouldn't waste
so much time on an interactive logo to attract new users since we attract
new web traffic every day no matter the logo. Plus the Wikipedia logo is
well established. If it ain't broke...
foundation-l mailing list