Mailing List Archive

Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
I thought folks might be interested in this, which was created by
Moving Brands as a hypothetical project for rebnranding Wikimedia, and
published in Viewpoint Magazine in the UK:

http://www.movingbrands.com/?category_name=wikipedia-work

Note the very elaborate work on this, and the particular role in
representing all the sister Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia.

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
Wow. looks really interesting Pharos. It seems they incorporated a lot of
the project philosophy in the re-branding.

Also, I don't know if the UI they have on the Macbook is part of it or not,
but it all looks great.

Theo

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought folks might be interested in this, which was created by
> Moving Brands as a hypothetical project for rebnranding Wikimedia, and
> published in Viewpoint Magazine in the UK:
>
> http://www.movingbrands.com/?category_name=wikipedia-work
>
> Note the very elaborate work on this, and the particular role in
> representing all the sister Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> (User:Pharos)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
Does rebranding change anything then the "name" or "appearance"?

Or better asked: Does it help to solve any of our real problems?

I might compare this to throwing cat's around. A rather useless feature,
since anyone knows how to edit and a personal message worth 100% more
then a template.

Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte

Am 08.09.2011 16:39, schrieb Theo10011:
> Wow. looks really interesting Pharos. It seems they incorporated a lot of
> the project philosophy in the re-branding.
>
> Also, I don't know if the UI they have on the Macbook is part of it or not,
> but it all looks great.
>
> Theo
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Pharos<pharosofalexandria@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought folks might be interested in this, which was created by
>> Moving Brands as a hypothetical project for rebnranding Wikimedia, and
>> published in Viewpoint Magazine in the UK:
>>
>> http://www.movingbrands.com/?category_name=wikipedia-work
>>
>> Note the very elaborate work on this, and the particular role in
>> representing all the sister Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>> (User:Pharos)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
> Does rebranding change anything then the "name" or "appearance"?
>
> Or better asked: Does it help to solve any of our real problems?
>
> I might compare this to throwing cat's around. A rather useless feature,
> since anyone knows how to edit and a personal message worth 100% more
> then a template.


Branding, effectively used, can be a very powerful tool (ask McDonalds or
Coca-Cola)

It is interesting that this agency picked up a number of things that I would
tend to agree with;

"The site offers a brilliantly simple user experience, has clear strategic
goals and is driven by the objectives laid out in its Five Pillars. However,
it fails to communicate its own story, its offer and its role in capturing,
building and disseminating global knowledge."

"This work informed the brand narrative, the story at the heart of the brand
that aligned the brand’s offer, vision and moral principals. We looked at
the brand architecture, and how the 8 sister sites could be better
integrated and used to leverage Wikipedia’s potential as the world’s
learning resource.

I would say that the current brand (such as it is) is good at communicating
the value proposition for the reader, but not so much the contributor or the
donor.

However, I thought the logo that the agency came up with sucked. :-)

Chris
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
Am 08.09.2011 16:59, schrieb Chris Keating:
>> Does rebranding change anything then the "name" or "appearance"?
>>
>> Or better asked: Does it help to solve any of our real problems?
>>
>> I might compare this to throwing cat's around. A rather useless feature,
>> since anyone knows how to edit and a personal message worth 100% more
>> then a template.
>
> Branding, effectively used, can be a very powerful tool (ask McDonalds or
> Coca-Cola)
>
> It is interesting that this agency picked up a number of things that I would
> tend to agree with;
>
> "The site offers a brilliantly simple user experience, has clear strategic
> goals and is driven by the objectives laid out in its Five Pillars. However,
> it fails to communicate its own story, its offer and its role in capturing,
> building and disseminating global knowledge."
>
> "This work informed the brand narrative, the story at the heart of the brand
> that aligned the brand’s offer, vision and moral principals. We looked at
> the brand architecture, and how the 8 sister sites could be better
> integrated and used to leverage Wikipedia’s potential as the world’s
> learning resource.
>
> I would say that the current brand (such as it is) is good at communicating
> the value proposition for the reader, but not so much the contributor or the
> donor.
>
> However, I thought the logo that the agency came up with sucked. :-)
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Usually you will find rebranding as part to improve your already
destroyed image. If your image is good, your won't create a new brand
and start from the beginning. Is our image so bad that we would need a
restart? Otherwise we only loose some part of that, what we already
achieved, considering our image.

I share your opinion that this logo sucks. No one without an real
interest will understand why we have such different lines inside the
logo. Additionally it is hard to print (blue, light gray).

Tobias

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
>
> However, I thought the logo that the agency came up with sucked. :-)
>
>
Agree; although it did look good on the mobile browser mockup IMO.

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Usually you will find rebranding as part to improve your already
> destroyed image. If your image is good, your won't create a new brand
> and start from the beginning. Is our image so bad that we would need a
> restart? Otherwise we only loose some part of that, what we already
> achieved, considering our image.
>
> I share your opinion that this logo sucks. No one without an real
> interest will understand why we have such different lines inside the
> logo. Additionally it is hard to print (blue, light gray).
>
> Tobias

I think that this study helps us to understand that there is no brand
to represent all projects.

Most of all for communication matters or to explain that Wikipedia has
sister projects, we are used to create the "planetary system" of
Wikipedia with all other logos around it.

Basically there is no brand and no name or no communication facilities
to use one logo for all projects and to explain that Wikipedia is not
only Wikipedia.

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
Am 08.09.2011 17:12, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
> <tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Usually you will find rebranding as part to improve your already
>> destroyed image. If your image is good, your won't create a new brand
>> and start from the beginning. Is our image so bad that we would need a
>> restart? Otherwise we only loose some part of that, what we already
>> achieved, considering our image.
>>
>> I share your opinion that this logo sucks. No one without an real
>> interest will understand why we have such different lines inside the
>> logo. Additionally it is hard to print (blue, light gray).
>>
>> Tobias
> I think that this study helps us to understand that there is no brand
> to represent all projects.
>
> Most of all for communication matters or to explain that Wikipedia has
> sister projects, we are used to create the "planetary system" of
> Wikipedia with all other logos around it.
>
> Basically there is no brand and no name or no communication facilities
> to use one logo for all projects and to explain that Wikipedia is not
> only Wikipedia.
>
> Ilario
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
In that case it has already one problem. It is not bad as an layout for
the current projects. But projects come and go. In case of Wikimedia
projects the number increased over time. Will this concept still work if
we add more projects? Is it something that could represent all the
future projects? I don't see that it might be extensible, without
reinventing the brand again.

Tobias

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Does rebranding change anything then the "name" or "appearance"?
>
> Or better asked: Does it help to solve any of our real problems?
>

It might be useful in reducing confusion - when saying that one is on the
board of Wikimedia, undoubtedly many people will think they heard/you meant
Wikipedia. And saying 'Wikimedia' when meaning 'Mediawiki' is something I
have even seen insiders guilty of. I don't think it's enough to counteract
the intrinsic costs of rebranding, but there definitely is some use in it.

--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
The brand analysis is very accurate, and I agree with most of it. Except for
the "weak brand" part: we have a rather unbalanced brand power, where
Wikipedia has a strong, widely recognizable brand, while the sister projects
and the foundation don't.

The end result however is not good. The way it's done is the way I see most
ad agencies work nowadays: they work to create a concept and presentation
that wow their client and insure they take the job, but in the real world no
one will have an idea what the brand is supposed to represent and why it
looks so bad.

Back to the analysis they did. It's useful for us to take note of the points
raised. For example the lack of a mobile platform (I think we're working on
that, right?) and the fact that we're not "communicating our story" or using
the sister projects to "leverage Wikipedia's potential as the world’s
learning resource," and If I may add, using Wikipedia to leverage the
potential of the sister projects.

Regards,
--
Orionist



On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought folks might be interested in this, which was created by
> Moving Brands as a hypothetical project for rebnranding Wikimedia, and
> published in Viewpoint Magazine in the UK:
>
> http://www.movingbrands.com/?category_name=wikipedia-work
>
> Note the very elaborate work on this, and the particular role in
> representing all the sister Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> (User:Pharos)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Orionist <orion.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

> The brand analysis is very accurate, and I agree with most of it. Except
> for
> the "weak brand" part: we have a rather unbalanced brand power, where
> Wikipedia has a strong, widely recognizable brand, while the sister
> projects
> and the foundation don't.
>
> The end result however is not good. The way it's done is the way I see most
> ad agencies work nowadays: they work to create a concept and presentation
> that wow their client and insure they take the job, but in the real world
> no
> one will have an idea what the brand is supposed to represent and why it
> looks so bad.
>
> Back to the analysis they did. It's useful for us to take note of the
> points
> raised. For example the lack of a mobile platform (I think we're working on
> that, right?) and the fact that we're not "communicating our story" or
> using
> the sister projects to "leverage Wikipedia's potential as the world’s
> learning resource," and If I may add, using Wikipedia to leverage the
> potential of the sister projects.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Orionist
>
>
>
Echoing Orionist; I agree that the analysis is interesting and often spot-on
(if brief), particularly with respect to how little "marketing" of the
notion of Wikipedia/Wikimedia we do outside of the fundraiser. They lost me
with the logos, though. The differences between the project logos don't
indicate anything to the viewer; they are almost random variations of the
shape "W", and no one who hasn't read the logo pitch will understand what is
meant to be conveyed. The puzzle globe logo is widely recognizable, and
there's no clear benefit in abandoning it for something else.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On 9/8/2011 9:27 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Echoing Orionist; I agree that the analysis is interesting and often spot-on
> (if brief), particularly with respect to how little "marketing" of the
> notion of Wikipedia/Wikimedia we do outside of the fundraiser. They lost me
> with the logos, though. The differences between the project logos don't
> indicate anything to the viewer; they are almost random variations of the
> shape "W", and no one who hasn't read the logo pitch will understand what is
> meant to be conveyed. The puzzle globe logo is widely recognizable, and
> there's no clear benefit in abandoning it for something else.
In the world of branding and advertising, when tackling a rebranding
project the need for a new logo is basically assumed at the outset.
Wikimedia's branding issues are an instance where that conventional
wisdom ought to be challenged. Logo redesign is also a tempting target
because the transition is a simple swap, and the agency can easily point
to and explain their work product. The storytelling side of the project
requires deeper engagement because it has to be thoroughly integrated in
the organization to have value. That makes it more work for the branding
agency, while simultaneously being less able to claim what their
contribution was. It may make more sense to develop that capacity
internally, which is one thing the foundation has been trying to do as
it expands its staff.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
You can't rebrand what never was properly branded.

Let me say it again:

Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted properly.
In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in every page!

I'm still waiting for your feedback in my ideas for the Wikimedia brand:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-December/063014.html

--
Fajro

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
>
> "The site offers a brilliantly simple user experience, has clear strategic
> goals and is driven by the objectives laid out in its Five Pillars. However,

Forget about the "Five Pillars". Originally they were "three essential
characteristics of the Wikipedia project". They grew to six later. In
German, they were four, later five.

In Dutch, at some times 3, but also 5. In Afrikaans, no real list. In
Frisian, originally 3, later 4, the "four F's". Frisian, Facts, Free,
ObjektyF. "But don't be too worried about rules. Contributing must
remain fun."

Kind regards
Ziko






--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
2011/9/8 Fajro <faigos@gmail.com>:
> Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted properly.
> In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in every page!
>

Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost
you many millions of dollars. And why should you?

Kind regards
Ziko


--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost
> you many millions of dollars. And why should you?

I doubt that the redesign I propose would be so expensive.
I'm basically asking to put the logo of Wikimedia somewhere more
visible and having "Wikimedia accounts". We don't need to hire
designers for that.

Did you read my proposal? :-/



--
Fajro

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
Predictable result - half the world gains the impression that Wikipedia has
been bought out / sold out.

FT2



On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Fajro <faigos@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost
> > you many millions of dollars. And why should you?
>
> I doubt that the redesign I propose would be so expensive.
> I'm basically asking to put the logo of Wikimedia somewhere more
> visible and having "Wikimedia accounts". We don't need to hire
> designers for that.
>
> Did you read my proposal? :-/
>
>
>
> --
> Fajro
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
> 2011/9/8 Fajro <faigos@gmail.com>:
>> Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted
>> properly.
>> In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in
>> every page!
>>
>
> Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost
> you many millions of dollars. And why should you?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko

How about changing the name of the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia
Foundation. That should do it.

Fred


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On 8 September 2011 21:22, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:

> > 2011/9/8 Fajro <faigos@gmail.com>:
> >> Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted
> >> properly.
> >> In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in
> >> every page!
> >>
> >
> > Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost
> > you many millions of dollars. And why should you?
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
>
> How about changing the name of the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia
> Foundation. That should do it.


That would be a fun discussion...

You propose it, I'll buy the popcorn :)

;)

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
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"

[Button: "View all our projects in your language"]

FT2


On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Thomas Morton
<morton.thomas@googlemail.com>wrote:

> On 8 September 2011 21:22, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
> > > 2011/9/8 Fajro <faigos@gmail.com>:
> > >> Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted
> > >> properly.
> > >> In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in
> > >> every page!
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost
> > > you many millions of dollars. And why should you?
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> >
> > How about changing the name of the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia
> > Foundation. That should do it.
>
>
> That would be a fun discussion...
>
> You propose it, I'll buy the popcorn :)
>
> ;)
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249381685

Fajro, I like it.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
It's also not difficult to add links to sister projects in the
sidebar, as seen at en.wikibooks since February 2011 [1]. And I know
some other projects do similar things as well, some with JavaScript.

The only difficulty encountered at en.wikibooks is not knowing how to
push the print/export box above the sister project links.

[1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar

-- Adrignola

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On 8 September 2011 21:43, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.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.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249381685
> Fajro, I like it.


Yeah, moving the Wikimedia badge up under the logo strikes me as a
simple and obvious good idea too.

What would we need for this to happen? Who decides changes to Vector?


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.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.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249381685
>
> Fajro, I like it.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I agree.

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
sister projects are separate. Let's take... Nestlé® Toll House Cookies®[1]
as an example in branding by evolution. Toll house cookies were a
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...

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.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.
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249381685
>>
>> Fajro, I like it.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> 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
> sister projects are separate. Let's take... Nestlé® Toll House
> Cookies®[1] as an example in branding by evolution. Toll house cookies were
> a 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...
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_House_cookies


--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2  View All