Skip to main content

From an interchange on federal agency branding - blah, blah, blah

(From a round-robin discussion with colleagues - extracting some of my comments that may be useful.)

There is most definitely a sub-category of branding as a discipline that has to do with “what federal agencies can do” and even more specifically “how Congressional input affects federal agency branding.” 

That said, my perspective is a little more academic…I tend to think in more conceptual terms and also look at gov branding from the perspective of government as a business. (When it is of course much more complicated than that.) But at the end of the day, we’re all dealing with the same group of people we call “the public,” and if it doesn’t work for them, it just doesn’t work.

One way the differing frameworks play out is when you define what exactly is a brand. 

From an academic, conceptual point of view, that is if we’re looking at the “science” of it and not the policy, the brand is the symbol that lives in the customer’s mind when they think of you. If you have one, that is. 

Meaning: It’s not necessarily what YOU say, what the law says, what the seal says, and what the name is. It is only perception.

(And the truth is, none of us live in a perfect brand world…only a work in progress.)

In any case, some thoughts about why there’s always a fracture when it comes to agreeing on the unit of the brand. 

(For example, with the Amtrak crash last night, CNN is talking a lot about the “DOT” and some about the “NTSB” and not at all about “the government”…so which brand is the public expecting to see?)

1. Legislation creates new organizational units and dissolves others.

2. People use branding to stake a claim to turf.

3. It’s hard to get people to do the same thing consistently – they like to vary the communication to keep it interesting to themselves. (The audience prefers consistency, which can seem “boring” and “stifling.”)

4. Disagreement over communication methods, policies, etc. or ignorance about them leads to people going rogue.

5. Research is time-consuming, expensive, involves paperwork, etc. 

6. Lack of education about brand architecture – Nabisco vs. Oreos vs. Nutter Butters etc. 

7. Tendency to ask the communicators last.

8. Lack of attention to forward planning – tendency to be reactive.  

FYI (as always) not speaking for my agency or any agency here.

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 …