*Image: Thomas, Sexton and Zucco design above … and the council-approved logo below …
Traditionally, local governments were responsible only for the 3Rs – roads, rates and rubbish.
However, local councils today are complex businesses and it is precisely this complexity that makes it difficult to apply simple corporate marketing principles with any success.
The four Ps of marketing are product, place, price, and promotion, but when applied to local government often become politics, politics, politics, and politics.
City brands are fundamentally different to product brands, and are essentially about determining a strong single message that defines a community. However, keeping it simple in accordance with ‘best branding practice’ does not always result in success, as it is often difficult to encapsulate the essence of a city into a simple design.
In his excellent article “Putting communities at the centre of branding”, Don McEachern states that: “The brand rnust be represented in your community’s architecture, in its events and attractions, in its public art and signage, in the aesthetic overlays to development and redevelopment, in the attitudes of residents and public servants, in the community’s approach to entrepreneurs, and in its educational offerings. In other words, your community must do more than advertise its new brand; it must wear it like a second skin”.
Of course many question why have a brand at all? After all it is hard to establish what the ‘product’ provided by local councils actually is as there is no one defined product or service; further, councils have few or no competitors and their customers are largely their ratepayers who have no choice of which council, for example, they wish to collect their rubbish or provide their toilets. In this context, branding could be seen as irrelevant, ineffective and wasteful.
However if the brand is based on people’s experiences of their great City and its surrounds, the resulting brand could attract employees, business owners, and tourists who in turn contribute to economic growth. This brand concept was perfectly described in the Hobart City Council Brand Project Update on 21 August 2013:
The purpose of the new ‘City of Hobart’ brand is to create an enduring and holistic identity for the City that will continue to be built upon over time and will service the City well into the future. This single brand will help to clearly position the City of Hobart as an attractive and desirable place to live, work, visit and invest.
Some may argue that the new City of Hobart logo which was not received with consensus has not only divided the Council but also the community.
Reflecting that a divided community can by definition never be united has caused several aldermen to reflect on the process by which the new logo was adopted by Council and to respectfully suggest that a different community engagement process might have produced a different outcome. A shift in the communication focus from telling to listening and facilitating community participation, we believe can help reunite the community.
As 3 of the 5 aldermen who voted to rescind the Council-approved new H logo we present one alternative new logo to you, the community as an example. We have named it version“02” being a contemporising of the current distinctive features of the 1984 era logo by which we identify our city: the magnificent Mountain, the beautiful River Derwent, and the Tasman Bridge.
We believe that it’s timely with the council refusing as a majority to support a motion put forward by Alderman Zucco to rescind the still wet-inked approval of the new city logo, with any learnings hopefully to serve as a powerful message about how we should engage differently in the future.
We have never and will not in any debate criticise either the officers or the creative designer of the new H logo. Developing a new logo is akin to, by its nature, developing a new art form. Both are highly subjective in the interpretation of the author and the audience and for that reason personal criticism is totally inappropriate.
For us the real issue was the Council’s failure to engage with the community after the logo’s presentation in committee and subsequently its consideration by the full Council. This acknowledged failure to engage in consultation with the community we believe, has directly resulted in the lack of support shown for a new logo and a serious error of judgement by the majority of Council.
An official logo is by its nature and widespread use, a powerful marketing symbol by which our city may be judged both by its own community and by all who come to have dealings with it. Moreover, it is unfair and arrogant to label the public outcry as being intemperate or ill judged.
We should feel privileged that our Community is so engaged with local government and its decisions that they are willing to take the time to give personal feedback to their elected representatives
Who knows now whether version 02 which we offer up with the full approval of the designer would have received widespread support, the thumbs up, an ”its beaut mate” cry in a fresh communication process – we will now never know.
However had there been (subject to firm views on whether to hold off whilst local government is engaged in amalgamation discussions) the opportunity to start the process afresh, just maybe another version of the logo might have made the grade and been strongly and positively supported by the people that matter the most, our community.
Only with majority support can we be confident that we are reflecting our communities’ wishes in this matter.
• Don Knowler in Comments: This is closer to the Meander Valley Council one, which is a magnificent design. The Meander one, in fact, puts the latest Hobart design to shame. A logo must give a sense of location, highlight what makes a city unique. If Hobart was medical centre of note, then perhaps the Band-Aids in the new logo would be appropriate.
