Skip to main content

Using Brand Architecture to Rethink Government

Everybody knows what branding is - the creation of a consistent image to the outside world, that will hopefully "stick" in the customer's mind and add a premium to what is otherwise a generic product.

(Behind the image there should be substance of course.) 

There is less familiarity with brand architecture. But it's pretty simple. Basically it's the naming and logo system you adopt to explain your business to the outside world.

Again, not to dwell, but there are three basic kinds of brand architectures. These can be used in the strict way or in a hybrid model, but generally you have:
  • Corporate - one name covers everything (
  • Endorsed - one name endorses a variety of individual names (Coca-Cola C2)
  • Sub-brands - baby brand has different name and logo (Caribou Iced Coffee, owner Coca-Cola)
The beauty of brand architecture is that it allows the same organization to offer completely different products and services to the public in an orderly way.

What I mean by this is that strategic brand architecture maximizes synergies where they exist, and enables different lines of business to ignore each other where they don't. It's not just about marketing, but about the core of the business itself.

As a former brand consultant working in government for nearly ten years, it's surprising to me that we don't use the principles of brand architecture more.

You don't need to pay a consultant lots of money to do brand architecture, necessarily. If you can apply common sense and be objective about it then the cost is - free.

All you have to do, really, is think about what your customer already expects from you, then ask if you are organized to meet those expectations efficiently.

For example, to the public, I think it is fair to say that the federal government is seen as a single entity that operates in a consistent way. They may have awareness that certain agencies exist (for example the VA or Social Security) but most of the time, to them we're "the government." 

So from a brand architecture perspective, there ought to be a brand or seal applied to all federal agencies and activities that is consistent - almost like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval - to indicate a certain oneness of operation.

Based on that mark, there are certain expectations that the public has - for example that we operate according to core values of integrity, efficiency, and diversity. We should examine all federal agency operations to ensure they meet a consistent brand promise. When something is "backed by the U.S. government" people ought to know what that means, regardless of whether it comes from Agency A or B or C. At the very least, every federal website ought to have a U.S. Government seal somewhere on the site to indicate that it's for real. Publications too.

Sub-brands can work across government too. Two great examples of sub-brands that probably have more recognition than their parent agencies, especially outside Washington, DC:
  • is the government's official portal for information. It is operated by GSA.
  • USAJOBS is the official portal for searching for government jobs. It is operated by OPM.
Brands mean something. Brands are powerful. We put our money in banks or credit unions that are backed by federal guarantees. That's the only reason not to put the money under the mattress - that little mark telling us that our funds are safe. 

We ought to invest in brand architecture across the government. It's not, repeat not, about marketing only. It's about creating a system of symbols across siloes that shows we operate as a single functional unit and that we've thought through the various promises we are making to our constituents.

We should institute brand governance in the federal government. Orderly, rational, logical. Applicable to all agencies. Coordinated. Singing from the same song sheet.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …