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