Picking up on Richard's Suggestions for Merchandise, as we are about to start working with Museum Galleries Scotland to drive involvement and a new GLAM events programme, I am considering how to "brand" it.
Are there any views for or against using an image of "Wikimedia in Scotland" rather than just the WM-UK logo? My concern is that some will resist joining in a "UK" branded programme but would rush to support a country specific initiative. If it gets better results, we could follow a similar pattern for Wales and avoid appearing to push "UK" in every document (or teeshirt).
Cheers, Fae -- http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
On 13 September 2011 09:22, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Picking up on Richard's Suggestions for Merchandise, as we are about to start working with Museum Galleries Scotland to drive involvement and a new GLAM events programme, I am considering how to "brand" it.
Are there any views for or against using an image of "Wikimedia in Scotland" rather than just the WM-UK logo? My concern is that some will resist joining in a "UK" branded programme but would rush to support a country specific initiative. If it gets better results, we could follow a similar pattern for Wales and avoid appearing to push "UK" in every document (or teeshirt).
Before signing the chapters agreement with the WMF, we were careful to amend it to include permission for us to call ourselves "Wikimedia Scotland" (etc.) in order to leave our options open for this kind of thing. You could, therefore, use a Wikimedia Scotland logo (with some small print making clear that both Wikimedia Scotland and Wikimedia UK are trading names of Wiki UK Ltd. on anything more important that a t-shirt).
The downside of that is that it harms brand recognition, since neither brand is getting used as much as a single brand would be. The only question really is whether the benefit from appeasing Scottish nationalists outweighs the harm from splitting our brand. I don't know enough about Scottish nationalism to know, but I can believe that it would be.
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 12:15 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 13 September 2011 09:22, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any views for or against using an image of "Wikimedia in Scotland" rather than just the WM-UK logo? My concern is that some will resist joining in a "UK" branded programme but would rush to support a country specific initiative. If it gets better results, we could follow a similar pattern for Wales and avoid appearing to push "UK" in every document (or teeshirt).
Before signing the chapters agreement with the WMF, we were careful to amend it to include permission for us to call ourselves "Wikimedia Scotland" (etc.) in order to leave our options open for this kind of thing. You could, therefore, use a Wikimedia Scotland logo (with some small print making clear that both Wikimedia Scotland and Wikimedia UK are trading names of Wiki UK Ltd. on anything more important that a t-shirt).
The downside of that is that it harms brand recognition, since neither brand is getting used as much as a single brand would be. The only question really is whether the benefit from appeasing Scottish nationalists outweighs the harm from splitting our brand. I don't know enough about Scottish nationalism to know, but I can believe that it would be.
A simple illustration of the view from this side of the border was expressed in today's freebie paper, the Metro. Surprisingly, it's near-identical to one I personally used over ten years ago when living in Belgium:
"Scottish first, European second, and British last". That, as I'd hope people south of the border understand, is because to much of the rest of the world Britain = England.
All three of the major UK political parties are looking seriously to, at a minimum, devolve their Scottish presence and give it far more autonomy. Further to that, a recent survey found that over 30% of the population expect to see a truly independent Scotland in their lifetime.
Scottish national identity, and political awareness, has come a long, long way since I was a student chucking past-their-sell-by-date duck eggs at the Iron Lady.
Brian McNeil.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
All three of the major UK political parties are looking seriously to, at a minimum, devolve their Scottish presence and give it far more autonomy.
The impression I got, in the case of the tories, was that the Scottish tory MPs wanted to re-brand and distance themselves but their English counterparts weren't keen on them splitting away. I'm not sure that's "looking to devolve".
But I guess this point is not particularly relevant to Wikimedia UK's merchandising...
Bodnotbod
In summary, I think the most common view is that if we are pushing some events in Scotland then teeshirts with "Wikimedia in Scotland" as the theme, maybe with a generic logo, would be a good thing.
Much as Liam set up glamwiki.org as a handy re-direct, perhaps we can also set up a suitable .org domain for our collaboration space too. I'll factor this into our plans when plotting in Edinburgh. ;-)
Cheers, Fae -- http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
"Devolution" is a good idea; though with care taken to make sure links are strong and it is not seen as a "division" but as a recognition of "you're much better placed to organise this area of our outreach".
"Wikimedia in Scotland" is a great idea for focusing the brand.
There is no rule that says we have to use a single Wikimedia UK brand, and in the current climate (especially in Scotland) companies are now quite successfully leveraging a Scots targeted sub-brand. If this makes things more palatable north of the border - lets do it :)
Tom
On 14/09/2011 21:14, Bod Notbod wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
All three of the major UK political parties are looking seriously to, at a minimum, devolve their Scottish presence and give it far more autonomy.
The impression I got, in the case of the tories, was that the Scottish tory MPs wanted to re-brand and distance themselves but their English counterparts weren't keen on them splitting away. I'm not sure that's "looking to devolve".
Erm no. The (widely reported) view of one of the leading contender for Scottish Conservatives & Unionist party leadership does not equate to the view of the entire party members in Scotland, or even the view of Conservatives MSPs & MP.
KTC
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:22, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any views for or against using an image of "Wikimedia in Scotland" rather than just the WM-UK logo? My concern is that some will resist joining in a "UK" branded programme but would rush to support a country specific initiative. If it gets better results, we could follow a similar pattern for Wales and avoid appearing to push "UK" in every document (or teeshirt).
Reductio ad absurdum:
Unless it says "Wikimedia East Sussex", I'm not interested! ;-)
Reductio ad absurdum:
Unless it says "Wikimedia East Sussex", I'm not interested! ;-)
Actually the situation with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is quite different. Working in those nations with a "UK" name and an address in England tends to go down rather less well (particularly if you are dealing with institutions that are part of the national cultural fabric, as we are likely to).
My only concern about using different national branding is that it might give an impression of more actual devolution than there genuinely is.
On 13 September 2011 12:54, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum:
Unless it says "Wikimedia East Sussex", I'm not interested! ;-)
Actually the situation with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is quite different. Working in those nations with a "UK" name and an address in England tends to go down rather less well (particularly if you are dealing with institutions that are part of the national cultural fabric, as we are likely to). My only concern about using different national branding is that it might give an impression of more actual devolution than there genuinely is.
One solution to that is to actually have some devolution. If there are people interested in taking responsibility for Scottish cultural outreach, then they could just be given a budget and left to get on with it (with some oversight from the board, of course).
Actually the situation with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is quite different. Working in those nations with a "UK" name and an address in England tends to go down rather less well (particularly if you are
dealing
with institutions that are part of the national cultural fabric, as we
are
likely to). My only concern about using different national branding is that it might give an impression of more actual devolution than there genuinely is.
One solution to that is to actually have some devolution. If there are people interested in taking responsibility for Scottish cultural outreach, then they could just be given a budget and left to get on with it (with some oversight from the board, of course).
Well, indeed. Personally I would like to see that happen, but I think we are at least a year away from it at the moment.
Chris
If we have a brand that is unacceptable to Scotland (or a portion of it) then do we need to change rather than split our brand? Is it the "UK" bit? Would the flag be more acceptable or a map of our country (yes I know that gives the Irish a problem).
Is it possible to use the Wikimedia logo next to a Scottish logo and fudge the issue? Wikimedia's message is internationalist not nationalist.
a thought Roger
On 13 September 2011 13:07, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.comwrote:
Actually the situation with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is
quite
different. Working in those nations with a "UK" name and an address in England tends to go down rather less well (particularly if you are
dealing
with institutions that are part of the national cultural fabric, as we
are
likely to). My only concern about using different national branding is that it might give an impression of more actual devolution than there genuinely is.
One solution to that is to actually have some devolution. If there are people interested in taking responsibility for Scottish cultural outreach, then they could just be given a budget and left to get on with it (with some oversight from the board, of course).
Well, indeed. Personally I would like to see that happen, but I think we are at least a year away from it at the moment.
Chris
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 13 September 2011 14:00, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
If we have a brand that is unacceptable to Scotland (or a portion of it) then do we need to change rather than split our brand? Is it the "UK" bit? Would the flag be more acceptable or a map of our country (yes I know that gives the Irish a problem).
We need a name, we can't just have a picture. (Or we'll end up being "The Chapter formerly known as Wikimedia UK"!)
On 13 September 2011 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One solution to that is to actually have some devolution. If there are people interested in taking responsibility for Scottish cultural outreach, then they could just be given a budget and left to get on with it (with some oversight from the board, of course).
An approach that gives you a real headache when someone makes the same request for London (on population grounds it makes sense). There is at the present time nowhere near the the level of activity for that kind of split to make sense. Even if we did have the numbers slits work far better if they cover areas that everyone in that area can access. A group that covered everything from Gretna to Thurso makes little sense.
The decision shouldn't be made based on population, but on whether there would be a significant benefit. A Scottish group could be much more effective in Scotland than a UK group. The same isn't true of London. Londoners have a reputation for forgetting the rest of the country exists, but they don't object to it. On Sep 13, 2011 11:28 PM, "geni" geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 September 2011 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One solution to that is to actually have some devolution. If there are people interested in taking responsibility for Scottish cultural outreach, then they could just be given a budget and left to get on with it (with some oversight from the board, of course).
An approach that gives you a real headache when someone makes the same request for London (on population grounds it makes sense). There is at the present time nowhere near the the level of activity for that kind of split to make sense. Even if we did have the numbers slits work far better if they cover areas that everyone in that area can access. A group that covered everything from Gretna to Thurso makes little sense.
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org