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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
