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