The agreements have been signed and the Wikimedia Foundation must oblige to their terms.
Should a similar operation be carried out in a future, I'd seriously reconsider the presence of the logo (certainly the feature the donor/advertiser most wants).
The logo is more visual and intrusive - that's what it's designed for - and conveys the idea of a partnership with Wikimedia that can seriously influence the neutrality of the content. The risk of such an influence is what is setting up many users - no matter how loud we scream that Wikimedia projects won't be affected. They will anyway be, either by the self-censorship or by the over-criticism of the editors.
Finally a personal bitter note: as a steward I feel like an "apparatchik" who is bringing down the directives from the top. It's not a role I like. I already do that somewhere else for living, but it's something I'm regularly paid for.
Bye all, G. (aka Paginazero)