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)
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
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, Pharospharosofalexandria@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
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
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
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
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
"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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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? :-/
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
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
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
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.comwrote:
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
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.
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.
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...
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
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
I also enjoy the photo with the guy pointing at the storyboard, and under awarness it has the point "put a face".
On 10 September 2011 06:33, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I also enjoy the photo with the guy pointing at the storyboard, and under awarness it has the point "put a face".
Something like http://v.gd/XH404Q ? Works a couple of months a year ...
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org