On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 <ft2.w...@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 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_House_cookies -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l