close fullscreen

Good place to play with tagline ideas:


 

find and share information about how companies affect lives

--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-11-11 21:32:30 +0000

learn and share how companies affect lives

--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-11-11 21:34:08 +0000

discover and discuss how companies affect lives

--Vishal Kapadia.....2013-11-12 12:44:28 +0000

Discover and share information about how companies affect lives

--Vishal Kapadia.....2013-11-12 13:21:06 +0000

An open inquiry into how companies affect people.

--Ethan McCutchen.....2014-02-25 04:22:00 +0100

I think:

- the word "information" can kill all the energy of a tagline.

- "societies" seems narrower than our topics (technically "people" is, too, but not by as big a margin. "lives" is closer but I think some found it sentimental)

--Ethan McCutchen.....2014-02-25 04:25:29 +0100

- an open exploration...

- opening up companies' impacts on people

 

--Ethan McCutchen.....2014-02-26 07:05:02 +0100

-open how companies impact people

--Ethan McCutchen.....2014-02-26 07:11:28 +0100

from review of your suggestions, a few thoughts

- action words seem good, eg "find/share/discuss"

- impact people/society is too limiting.

--Philipp.....2014-02-26 07:17:31 +0100

change companies to the good through tranaparency

--Philipp.....2014-02-26 07:18:07 +0100

Find out which company is doing a better job

--Philipp.....2014-02-26 07:21:15 +0100

A few points:

 

- "crowdsource" is jargon, and it's also very odd in it's current usage. We're using it as an imperative, as in "clean your room". That sentence instructs "you" to "clean". In our logo, we seem to instruct "you" to "crowdsource". Probably over-analyzing, but I don't think it's a word we want to lead with. It's a decent phrase to use to explain to technorati what Wikirate is trying to do, but it doesn't seem to appeal to our user base. But perhaps we should run that through persona testing :)

- Vishal argued, and I now agree, that for the early adopters we should de-emphasize "find, discover, etc", because they imply that there's a lot of data to navigate there now. This will be a larger emphasis later on, but doesn't really fit the current audience. "share" is good but facebook is starting to own that term (and in general it's used to mean social media integration). "discuss", I think, pushes us towards conversation rather than collaboration.

- I don't think we've gotten there yet, but I really think we should keep working on the word "open", because it has a powerful double (or triple) meaning for us. One is about the openness to participation (adjective), another is neutrality (adjective), but perhaps the most powerful is the verb: we're trying to make companies more transparent.

 

What if we went even simpler: "Open Companies Up"

 

The obvious read here is that we're trying to see what's going on inside companies, but the deeper read (which we can play up with more context) is that we're trying to create an upward spiral of good corporate behavior by championing transparency.

 

 

--Ethan McCutchen.....2014-03-01 23:21:12 +0100

i like "open companies up"

--philipp (Not signed in).....2014-03-02 11:46:21 +0100

just an idea (but prefer open companies up): in the current tagline "an open inquiry on how companies affect people", we could replace "people" with a dropdown box offering various things like people/environment/communities, or just our topic list, and when people select it they go straight to that topic page. "company" could be a drop-down as well...

--philipp (Not signed in).....2014-03-02 11:49:17 +0100

Nice. that's kind of a variant on the scenario you mentioned before about being able to dynamically choose a company and a topic and go to an analysis page.

 

My first response is that I would LOVE to get to where our analysis pages are compelling enough that we want to focus on scenarios that deliver folks directly to them. And both interfaces you described to serve that scenario are cool. But at present my inclination is to say that right now our Company and Topic pages are a much better sell, and if anything we should de-emphasize analyses on the home page until we've generated a lot more notes and summaries.

--Ethan McCutchen.....2014-03-02 20:02:21 +0100

very true!

--Philipp (Not signed in).....2014-03-02 20:20:40 +0100

To me 'open companies up' is somewhat similar to 'open corporates'

 

I like it better than the previous tagline. In my mind I had buzzing around for a while 'open company stories'. Here we have a dual meaning of stories about open companies; and opening stories about companies.

 

To me that's what summaries are; stories about companies.

 

You may say, 'ah but a story is not always true'... but an evidenced story; that becomes history.

 

With robust note structure and clear links to them in the summaries to a large extent, I sense that could be what we are building towards.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=story

 

I didn't previously put this on here; as decision by committee on these things.. isn't always ideal; but let's see where this goes.

 

--Vishal Kapadia.....2014-03-06 22:09:37 +0100

Also, I like the navigation idea of Philipp above; not sure if it's our optimal presentation or not; but it's a very neat idea.

--Vishal Kapadia.....2014-03-06 22:10:30 +0100

I guess this needs cleaning up:

 

how about:

 

short version:

Open companies up

 

Long version:

Open companies up: understand how companies affect lives

--Vishal (Not signed in).....2014-04-15 17:18:52 +0200