[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Brand Survey Analysis

[Erik Moeller]

Dear community,

on May 16, I initiated a project-wide survey for opinions related to
Wikimedia's brand strategy. Branding is not the most exciting of
subjects, so I'd like to thank all those who took the time to humor
me, and also those who expanded the survey with additional questions
and data.

While the survey can remain open indefinitely, I'd like to take a
first snapshot of community opinions on a number of issues. I have
anonymized all opinions for the purposes of this summary.

Because that's what many people will want to know first, I'll start by
saying that there is a rough consensus against any major rebranding of
our current project family, and I don't personally consider it a
viable option at this point. Posing a couple of radical questions
certainly did serve to energize people to respond to the survey, which
was not entirely unintended. ;-)

That said, there is a diversity of opinions about our current names
and what to do with them:

== Current names ==

Of all the names, "Wikimedia Commons" is widely identified (by 12
people, according to my count) as a confusing name which does not
really identify what the project stands for, is not easily
translatable, too long, and too close to "Creaitve Commons."

The confusion between MediaWiki, Wikimedia, and Wikipedia has been
affirmed by about the same number of people, though the recommended
response varies: some think we have to live with it for historical
reasons, some would like to rename "Wikimedia", some "MediaWiki".

I count 8 people who have a problem with Wikisource and/or Wikibooks
and the distinction/relation between them. Wikisource can be confused
with "open source" / "source code", whereas Wikibooks identifies a
''type'' of work rather than its contents.

Of the remaining names, Wikiversity and Wiktionary have received
criticism, but only by a small number of people, and Wikiversity in
particular has also received strong affirmation by some of its current
participants.

In principle, a lack of clarity about the relation between the
different names was pointed out. For instance, it was suggested that
"Wikijunior" could be renamed "Wikibooks Junior" in order to identify
its relationship to Wikibooks. The fact that many other projects use a
"Wiki-" prefix without being part of the WMF family was also stated as
potentially confusing (Wikitravel being one of the most prominent
examples that is often misattributed to us).

I count five people who criticized the large number of different names
and projects. There are several suggestions to merge projects to
reduce the number of names, in particular in the area of Wikibooks,
Wikisource, and Wikiversity. (However, it is clear that a project
merge goes beyond a brand change, and I consider it somewhat out of
scope for this discussion.)

== Current logos ==

The Wikisource logo was identified as the most confusing; I count 6
people who said so explicitly. The Wiktionary logo was rated mediocre
to poor by 4 people. Several people pointed out that the Wikipedia
logo could be improved in minor ways, but it is also generally seen as
widely recognizable in its current form.

Beyond those trends, there were single criticisms related to each logo
with the exception of the Wikimedia logo.

6 people suggested that all logos should follow a more consistent
visual style, particularly in terms of colors (WMF palette), and some
would even accept redesigning the Wikipedia logo to achieve that. On
the other hand, 3 people affirmed the diversity of logos, and another
3 people suggested that WMF should impose no standards and leave the
choice up to each community. In effect, there's a sharp split of
opinion between those who ask for more consistency, and those who
cherish the current diversity.

At the same time, 2 people pointed out that, if WMF does impose a
strategy, it should at least be followed and communicated clearly,
rather than intervening in a few isolated cases.

== Brand licensing ==

There was strong support (12 people) in favor of cautiously licensing
WMF brands for selected products, with reservations about licensing
that is too broad (action figures, luxury goods), because that is
perceived to dilute the brand too much. Some people also pointed out
that such licensing could be seen as an endorsement, which would be
reason to be very careful about what products & companies to work
with. 4 people opposed (in some case strongly) any kind of licensing
deals.

One respondent suggested to empower the community directly to make
creative uses of the brands (T-Shirts and other products). There was
some misunderstanding about the current licensing status of the WMF
logos (they are not freely licensed), and one respondent asked for the
logos to be made available under a free license.

When it comes to licensing the brand to mirrors and portals providing
access to our content, the response was similar; the majority (9
people) favored doing so cautiously, with attention to potential
confusion and dilution of our brand. Revocability was listed as a
criterion for future licensing agreements.

(I should note that one idea which has been suggested in this context
in the past is to design a specific logo variant for mirrors and
portals, effectively a "Powered by Wikipedia" logo for Wikipedia
mirrors, such as a single puzzle piece with a "W" on it.)

== Level of protection ==

The general consensus here is that protection should be pursued
widely, but with attention to the costs (a desire was expressed for
more reporting from the WMF on its current strategy and expenses in
this area). With regard to unofficial translations of the names into
other languages, many people would like these to be at least somewhat
protected, and 7 people suggested working with chapters to achieve
that.

== Rebranding ==

With the exception of a few minority voices, the vast majority of
people strongly opposed any major rebranding of all projects to follow
a consistent schema, or to be brought under the "Wikipedia" brand
(e.g. "Wikibooks" to "Wikipedia Textbooks" or "Wikimedia Textbooks).
The general perception was that doing so would a) be confusing, b)
make the names too long, c) be disruptive to the existing communities,
d) in the case of the "Wikipedia" rebranding, give a single project
undue primacy over others.

Opposition was slightly less strong when it comes to renaming the
Foundation. "Wikipedia Foundation" was seen as troublesome by many for
the same reasons as a Wikipedia-based rebranding of the projects. As
for other names, some people considered it to be too late for any
change, but I also count 12 people who either would support a change
now, or might support it when presented with a specific alternative
they like. It was noted that, if the name of the Foundation was
changed, the names of the chapters would also have to change.

== Other opinions ==

Improving the reputation and content of our projects, showcasing
sister projects more visibly, and strengthening the prominence of the
Wikimedia brand were given as alternatives to major rebranding
initiatives. The fact that all Wikimedia projects use the default
thetme of MediaWiki (MonoBook) was also listed as contributing to
potential confusion with other wiki communities.

== Follow-up ==

I'd like to recommend several follow-up steps. Some of these can be
only taken by the Board/Staff, while others can be initiated by any
community member:

* Now we have a reasonable sample of community opinions, it would be
useful to collect answers from the general public who peruse our
projects but do not contribute. How does perception of our diversity
of brands differ? How are issues like the
MediaWiki/Wikimedia/Wikipedia distinction seen by those who have never
learned about it?
* There should be a dedicated brainstorming about the Wikimedia
Commons name and possible alternatives.
* Based on the feedback about these two logos, it seems justifiable to
revive the Wikisource and Wiktionary logo discussions and possibly
getting more logo submissions.
* WMF should clearly communicate its expectations for current and
future logo contests. Should some/all logos use the WMF style and
colors or not?
* The idea of chapters protecting localized brand variants has been
specifically proposed here for the first time, to my knowledge, so I
do believe it needs to be discussed from different angles by WMF,
chapter representatives, and affected communities.
* The general trademark strategy of WMF should be more openly
discussed so that the community can get a better feel how specific
actions are justified. (We may need to be careful about squatting
opportunities.)
* The licensing status of WMF logos was mentioned several times. My
opinion is that this discussion needs to be approached with the
following question: How "free" can an identifying work such as a logo
realistically be without undermining its purpose (identification)?

As for brand licensing for products and services, I think community
opinion is largely in line with the strategy the Foundation has taken
of cautiously exploring the available options and approving such deals
only on a case-by-case basis.

Once again, I'd like to thank all those who responded. The survey
suffers from a strong selection bias. One of the questions was also
widely misunderstood, which is of course the fault of the questioner.
Other questions may have predisposed certain answers and reduced the
likelihood of other ideas being presented. So, the discussion is far
from over, and should be continued, with more questions, more data,
and more ideas.

-- 
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.