[Foundation-l] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia

[Orionist]

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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>