Branding was originally an approach for creating reputations for commercial products. Over time, it has come to be applied to almost everything, from high school sports to school meal programs; from universities to research centers; from art museums to ballet companies to cultural institutions; from political campaigns to cities to states. Today, even nations have become brands.
Item: Last month, we flew to Toronto to attend the Ontario Design Thinkers Conference. — a conference in which the weakest presentation came from Jeff Swystun, the Global Director of Interbrand. Among other objectionable tactics (Swystun showed considerable work produced by other designers, none of whom were credited), his canned PowerPoint presentation displayed, at a certain point, three brand logos simultaneously: Kodak, the Bay (a leading Canadian retail brand), and the American flag. I was outraged, and all I could think was, my country is not a brand.
Item: That same week, Robert George wrote a cover story for The New Republic titled "Conscientious Objector: Why I Can't Vote for Bush." This is how he ended his indictment: "At crucial points before and after the Iraq war, Bush's middle manager's have failed him, and the 'brand' called America has suffered in the world market." According to his argument, U.S. officials should be summarily dismissed because they have let their shareholders down and the brand has suffered in the marketplace.
Item: In the most recent issue of Eye (no. 53), devoted to "Brand Madness", Nick Bell cites the example of Charlotte Beers, former CEO of Ogilvy & Mather, who was hired by the U.S. State Department to "combat rising tides of anti-Americanism." Bell quotes Naomi Klein: "Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed criticism of the appointment: 'There is nothing wrong with getting somebody who knows how to sell something... We need someone who can re-brand American foreign policy... She got me to buy Uncle Ben's Rice.'"
Item: Not long ago, in a The New York Times Magazine interview, Bruce Mau urged designers to embrace "the richness of the marketplace." By way of example, he described his own approach to this Herculean task: "We are being asked to work on a vision for the future of Guatemala. How can we design Guatemala over the next 10 years?"
What's most troubling here is the deeply inappropriate vocabulary we choose to deploy as we randomly penetrate such allegedly foreign disciplines as politics and international diplomacy. The decision to vote for George Bush based on his handling of the American brand? Defending a State Department foreign policy hire because, "SHE GOT ME TO BUY UNCLE BEN'S RICE?" A designer who believes that, based on his own knowledge of the marketplace, he can re-design the future of a country, albeit just a little one in Central America? While we're at it, let's not forget Rem Koolhaas designing a bar-coded flag for the capitalistic future of the European Union, or Landor setting out to "brand" entire countries, including Jordan and Hong Kong.
Eye addresses some of these issues in its "Brand Madness" issue, as does Design Observer's Michael Bierut in this recent post. (Also relevant are Michael's posts on the marketing of political parties in the Indian elections and the design of the new Iraqi flag.) Jessica Helfand and I also addressed some of these issues a year ago in Vancouver in a talk titled, Culture is not always popular.
Nick Bell's discussion on "The Steamroller of Branding" in Eye is a thoughtful critique which examines the process of creating identities for art museums and performing arts centers. Bell notes in particular the way branding has crept into the experience of the art — how it has actually invaded the space of the gallery and performance locale— rather than focusing solely on the commercial activities of these cultural institutions. I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment — yet I find this singular focus on the branding of art and performance institutions somewhat vexing, as it inherently leads back to an impenetrable dichotomy between art and commerce. Weren't the signatories of the First Things First Manifesto attacked for privileging high culture above commercial culture? Ultimately, this minimizes the importance of this essential critique of "brand madness" that make the newest suite of Eye essays so imperative.
The problem with "Content," as I believe both Bell and Bierut would attest, is that it risks becoming a fundamentally generic concept: in this way, it's not unlike the way "the brand" has become simply "Brand," sometimes invoked with an almost religious-like tone. (Whenever I hear these terms used in this way, I'm reminded of Goethe writing about the Sublime.) Content should not be an abstraction for designers, but rather something to be evaluated in specific and differentiated terms. It is in its specificity that designers need to begin making distinctions — distinctions which are not merely programmatic or pragmatic, but which carry with them implicit moral dimensions.
There is, for instance, a difference between helping an NGO to fundraise and helping an NGO to disseminate information about the state of the world in a crisis zone. Given the requirements of capitalism and communication in a branding-laden culture, such overtly divergent goals are, oddly, being subsumed under the same umbrella of branding. And yet they could not be more different.
The Care identity program — its logo and its branding applications — are not the same as its challenge to the United Nations to take strong action in the Sudan. Its project no.SDN099 funds reproductive and psychosocial health services for abducted children and survivors of sexual violence in South Darfur. Meanwhile, through its corporate partners, Cisco Systems is helping to feed widows in Afghanistan, and Starbucks and Care are "Winning Together" to fight global poverty, especially in major coffee-growing areas of the world. Of course, you cannot find Care in Iraq because they have withdrawn after "the apparent death of Mrs. Margaret Hassan." But right next to the "Donate Now! Sudan Crisis" button, you can "Click here to voice your sympathy for her family."
This is but one instance in which the muddled notions of branding are communicated, and even here, there are multiple types of content revealed: some tragic, some critical to the future of a geopolitical region, some involving genocide, some abjectly promotional. What is missing, however, are distinctions: distinctions between marketing efforts (CARE fundraising for hunger) and promotional initiatives (Starbucks feeding hungry laborers in Columbia); between communication (CARE reporting on a crisis zone) and advocacy (CARE trying to persuade the UN to intervene in Darfar); and between news feeds (Margaret Hassan's brutal murder) and community (at the push of a button, send her family your heartfelt condolences now). The future of peace in entire regions of the world is the topic, and yet the form for our experience is fundamentally filtered and branded — just as in Nick Bell's example of the filtered and branded experience of art in museums.
Branding, of course, has its value, its place in commerce and its confirmed role in the implementation of certain design initiatives. At its best, it leads to better commercial communication, to understanding the needs of an audience, or building long-term relationships with consumers. And yes: wouldn't the world be a better world if more countries understood (and by conjecture, respected) the perspectives of other countries? Wouldn't America be more successful in the Arab and Muslim world if it was a little less interested in cheap oil and a little more interested in their culture, their interests and needs? Wouldn't it help if the U.S. had more people in its State Department who spoke fluent Arabic? (As of last year, there were only 54, according to the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy's report Changing Minds, Winning Peace.)
Meanwhile, we set our sights on branding the war, with sound bytes and promotional bumpers like "Operation Desert Storm" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom." In England, "Britain TM" is created for the Blair administration by Demos, based loosely on the premise of "Cool Britannia." There are also studies giving legitimacy to the "Branding of Britain in relation to the Brand South Africa." In Iraq, even before it had achieved independence as a sovereign nation, branding experts had a plan for a new Iraqi flag, a design that today might be characterized as either a failure of process or of research. At the end of the day, it was neither: it was a failure of intent. The symbol for a country should not be created by branding experts.
When the vocabulary of a nation's foreign policy is the vocabulary of branding, then it is, in fact, selling Uncle Ben's Rice. This transaction, with the vocabulary of the supermarket counter, is not how I envision my country speaking to the rest of the world.
Comments [40]
11.25.04
09:30
The American flag is not a brand by itself. It's a mark that stands for what US is perceived like (internally and internationally).
As for using branding as the sole weapon in foreign policy, that's definitely wrong. But, in my opinion, what happens now is that branding is underused--a lot of good or bad initiatives could have a different impact if properly communicated.
11.26.04
05:26
11.26.04
09:14
11.26.04
09:34
As a Canadian, and an audience member during Mr. Swystun's address at the DesignThinkers Conference, I didn't take exception to his observations whatsoever (nor did I think his was the weakest presentation). Of course the US is a brand. America is one of the most carefully, consistently and zealously branded entities in history. Branding is not only a matter of perception, but also one of perspective. Perhaps only non-Americans can realize what a pervasive brand America is.
11.26.04
09:53
However, when you get into the process of branding, you can see the flaw in that application. In every branding projects, we define a target audience. All communication efforts are focus on projecting an image to this group of people. Anyone else that don't fit into this demographic and psychographic, are ignored. Nordstrom isn't going to spend much effort trying to fullfil the needs of rural consumers. In figuring the target market, we put people and money into the equation, and the marketing strategy is chosen for the sake of cost effectiveness and profitability.
Take that line of thinking into the social/political arena and we see why it is offensive. To brand our policies would mean that we must in the end ignore the needs of many. How do we in good conscience do that when we claim to be believers of freedom and equality? When our policies affect the living conditions of all world citizens, can we say that their "mind shares" don't matter, simply because they don't fit into our target market?
11.26.04
11:55
The various activities surrounding brand development range tremendously in both value and values. The designer who fights for the user and the manufacturing engineer that obsessively improves a good product are both involved in brand development. Their role is more significant (in a couple of senses) than hucksters whose interest in the lives of other people is limited to an opportunity to ply their craft. If one accepts a broader notion of brand and sees it as more complex than a methodology for manipulation then our understanding of (commercial) brands can enlighten us about international understanding.
11.26.04
12:34
I don't see anything wrong with a country trying to figure out how it wants to be perceived, and implementing the steps necessary to get there. Often times, it can be a good thing. We judge countries based on the same gut-reactions that we do corporations -- regardless of whether our judgements are made based upon real experiences or misinformed perceptions. Why not try to control these things?
In branding, language is strictly controlled because it creates experience. In Chinese, the United States of America is translated as "Beautiful Kingdom." That certainly must change China's perception of America. Another example: if we named "Operation Iraqi Freedom" something else, like "Operation Forced Democracy" or "Operation Annihilation," our perception of the same military operation would change, even if the operation itself was identical.
Right now in America, we are acting the way poorly-managed companies do. We are giving up our strong brand of true visionary leadership for the sake of a few years of overwhelming power. We keep saying that we are visionary world leaders, but our customers, for the most part, aren't buying it. Companies who don't care about branding don't really do very well -- one bad experience and the customer is turned off for life. Couldn't it be assumed that people feel the same about countries?
Part of me wants very badly to agree with Bill, but I have a hard time understanding an alternative. Is there one? The mere naming of a country gives it a brand. Add on a flag and some spokesmen, and you have a full-fledged brand. Even this website is carefully branded. It was designed to put emphasis on people's writing, and give us all an equal voice. Think if every time one of the editors posted a comment it displayed their names in 30 point bold type -- it would completely change our experience as users. We would become readers, they would become writers. A design like that would contradict their purposes for making the website in the first place, so it was designed this way. Isn't that branding? Figuring out what you want to do, then implementing the solution in such a way that accomplishes those goals? Why shouldn't countries do the same?
11.26.04
03:57
Unfortuntely, Branding is one of those open-ended chameleon like terms developed by Identity Consultants. Which evolves into layer(s) of meaning, depending who's using the terminology.
Linguistically, the word Brand is Overused and Abused. Most important, misunderstood.
Years ago, I called myself a Corporate Identity Designer/Consultant. Mention the term today. And people will say, HUH !!!! I say, I'm a Branding Consultant. Everyone understands the terminology.
I despise the terminology Branding, because I'm not a Branding Consultant. Branding deals with Analysis, Strategy, Assessment, Measurement, Valuation, and Management. My expertise is Identity Design.
Agreed, the United States is not a Brand. However, the United States is Branded.
Interesting to see with whom Bruce Mau is Partnering. Since Mau and Rem Koohaas parted company. I heard he's been courting Frank Gehry.
11.26.04
06:28
11.26.04
06:51
I agree with Andrew Montgomery when he says, "Perhaps only non-Americans can realize what a pervasive brand America is." As a Jamaican, this is most evident when I travel to Jamaica and other countries overseas. From the outside, America (the company) and its logo (the flag) are most definitely marketed like any other global brand. People overseas do see America as a "Beautiful Kingdom" but are so often disappointed when they arrive here. Many countries see the hypocrisy in the words of our "slogan" freedom, democracy, and are upset as any unsatisfied customer would be. It is no mistake that the US flag and what it represents is often burned and defamed by populations angry at the indecent imbalance of US corporations and our foreign policy, which in a sense are subsidiaries of the "brand."
Historically and, in particular, in these Patriot Act times, the American flag has been used to excuse racism, xenophobia and violence under the cloak of patriotism, as evidenced in the popularity of country musicians such as Toby Keith and the continued employment of Donald Rumsfeld.
America needs to be "re-branded" and it has to start from the (political?) top down.
11.27.04
12:20
PS: As someone mentioned above, Marty Neuemeyer's The Brand Gap is an excellent resource. He also has a new book, which might help this discussion, called The Dictionary of Brand.
11.27.04
12:10
the britain tm/cool britannia thing was a joke before it began-like the millenium dome-and if anything is still enough of a canker to be one of the factors that ultimately contributes to blair's downfall.
11.27.04
12:33
11.27.04
01:07
However, am I wrong in thinking it hasn't been done effectively since the Nazis? The signature characteristic about contemporary nation-branding seems to be that it's done so haplessly. Perhaps there is hope after all.
11.27.04
01:43
11.27.04
02:35
Extend this to changing the brand of a country. Although I share a bit of Bill's revulsion at the term as applied to countries, there is clearly much to be learned from the commercial sector. One is that wonderful packaging or great advertising will not save a lousy product. In this sense it is very important that anyone choosing to talk about "improving" the U.S. "brand" remember that (if you'll pardon the semiotics lingo) that altering the referent to change the signified will have a lasting effect on the sign. Attempting a cheap patch on the signifier will do little or nothing.
To the extent that designers see logos or packages as the brand, they are missing the point. To the extent that politicians see advertising campaigns rather than policy adjustment and human contact as the way to change the "brand," they are learning nothing from commercial brands. Repackaging only helps advance a brand when the product is good but the packaging fails to do its job.
11.27.04
07:23
i think i accept the reality that even things like policy programs, which should not be for sale, need to compete for space today in the public's attention just like products do. what bothers me is the way that political marketing is held to no higher standard than product marketing (i.e. "healthy forests" or "own your own healthcare").
my gut feeling is that, faced with a marketplace of ideas (where the former holds sway over the latter), the solution is to fight fire with fire - to develop better (advertising/political/propaganda) campaigns that are just as successful as british petroleum's or frank lundtz's without being as hollow.
11.28.04
01:18
While I agree that the term "brand" has different meanings and uses (some of which have troubling implications), it's hard not to acknowledge that the broad principles apply to any type of organization...including nations.
11.28.04
05:10
11.29.04
04:45
In some cases the branding of public entities has had a clear positive effect on the region. Las Vegas' "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" campaign clearly led to increased tourism. States have been "branding" themselves for years, just look at the commemorative quarters released recently with each states nickname and a fitting image. And some states clearly have better brands than others. I mean, "Virginia is for lovers" is definitely catchier than Wisconsin's "Stay Just a Little Bit Longer" (are they begging?).
My concern with branding taken to the ultimate level is that it results in "group-think".....we no longer are encouraged to think for ourselves - to look at both sides of an argument - to try to understand the other side. The brand exemplifies the only morally right opinion. Another down side of branding is that you run the risk of dismissing the guy who just may be a visionary simply because he may question the logic of the "brand". If all countries operated in a Western culture, "selling" America might be successful. However, other cultures are not motivated by profit to the degree that Western Civilization has been. Putting your "brand" on a country is just a little too close to exploitation of the masses for me. All too often branding is used as a panacea for the tough problems - if we can't understand it, just brand it and recreate it in the image of the desired brand....as the author suggests, we lose sight of the real issues when we worship the "brand." All large organizations: companies, nations, non-profit groups, etc. need to be concerned with public relations and all large public relations should be focused on central themes exemplified in a brand. But public relations should never impede the actual goals of an organization. The only time a brand becomes more important than a company is when the company has failed completely (just look at Enron). It is important that all organizations keep this in mind.
Unfortunately, as in the instance of CARE, the mixing of marketing and promotion will more likely result in diminished returns for CARE as world peace becomes subsumed to the brand's promotional efforts....such as partnering with Starbucks which translates to valuable advertising (and image) for Starbucks. If I truly believed that a brand could solve the problems of the world, I would be the first to print it, post it, and wear it. Alas we've lived through too many branding changes not to understand the fragile shell offered by a brand with no substance. Branding is communication but unfotunately it is one-way communication - transmitting without receiving. Ultimately, branding has its value. Can it provide world peace? I think not. Or at leastnot without a price - the price of individualism and creativity. Branding doesn't value differences - rather it works to eliminate them and values conformity over uniqueness. To my way of thinking, branding belongs in the commercial marketplace - you either buy (literally) into the brand or you move on to the next provider. But you have the freedom to either accept or reject the brand without being labeled an outsider or anarchist.
11.29.04
09:21
"America is one of the most carefully, consistently and zealously branded entities in history." (Andrew Montgomery)
"If one accepts a broader notion of brand and sees it as more complex than a methodology for manipulation then our understanding of (commercial) brands can enlighten us about international understanding." (Gunnar Swanson)
"Agreed, the United States is not a Brand. However, the United States is Branded." (Design Maven)
"America has a set of personality traits and attributes that are describable and shared among a critical mass of people. This is a brand — an aura, a spirit, a personality that is agreed upon by enough people to actually be describable." (Tom Dolan)
"Unfortunately, as in the instance of CARE, the mixing of marketing and promotion will more likely result in diminished returns for CARE as world peace becomes subsumed to the brand's promotional efforts." (Meg)
Ryan Nee rightly asked what is the alternative?
The only answer I can propose is the concept of distinctions. America will certainly brand itself in an attempt to bring the Olympics to New York City, just as America will brand its war initiatives in an attempt to control media coverage and to create ownable soundbytes. I am not in denial that America is a brand, or that the country engages in branding activities to sell its messages to its own populace, as well as to international audiences.
This said, I want to insist that the American flag, or the flag of the England or Iraq, are not brands. They may appear on t-shirts, and they may be burned, but they are symbols that represent history and carry meaning. Yes, brands can have history and can carry meaning too. But this does not mean they are the same thing. These are distinctions worth arguing, and that should be, as I noted in my post, evaluated in specific and differentiated terms.
A flag, of course, is the most emblematic example. The case I cited about Care's programs and initiatives gets at the heart of the issue precisely because it involves nations, public diplomacy, AND branding. Again, it seems to me that it is appropriate to make distinctions between brand/branding (organizational identity and reputation; marketing, fundraising and promotion; etc.) and the communication of human suffering and hunger. The broadest view of brand still benefits by adjusting itself to such content distinctions.
Lastly, I want to return to the issue of vocabulary. I cannot imagine that the citizens of Iraq want to hear that their elections will happen or not happen in January based on public statements by the U.S. Secretary of State about whether the brand (is it democrary in this case) is ready. Nor do I want to hear the President of the European Union talking about the brand as they negotiate control of nuclear development in Iran. Nor do I want to hear the ultimate leader of the Palestinians talking about the Palestine brand. They will eventually want tourism, if peace comes, and then we can talk about the marketing program for the Palestine Development Corporation. In the meantime, peace will not come because they are more effectively branded, or have a more holistic view of brand.
12.01.04
03:08
Cornell has a perception problem affecting its brand image (and its poor ranking in national college polls): "Cornell ranks last among the top 25 universities in percentage of classes with less than 20 students and ranks 823rd out of 827 total universities in terms of classes with under 50 students, according to the report."
The answer: "The first step ... is the hiring of more professors to better accommodate Cornell's growing numbers of students."
Doesn't this go to the heart of this branding discussion? Cornell has an education problem, not a brand image problem. It's classes are too big. It's students are getting a shitty education. Yes, the brand suffers. But don't the students also suffer?
Such distinctions in perspective are not hard. They are appropriate.
12.01.04
03:22
Re: Cornell, the Palestinians, etc.—of course addressing brand issues is no substitute for addressing other issues, often more fundamental to the quality of the product. I'd simply say that addressing branding or marketing issues should not be immediately perceived as an indication of neglect regarding more foundational problems, though of course it's tempting to avoid addressing the toughest bits of a problem and to work on the part that's easiest to change. Ideally, products improve and branding evolves. In the most successful efforts, they are both happening all the time.
12.01.04
09:43
12.01.04
10:59
12.01.04
11:28
12.01.04
01:47
Anyway, in semiotics a sign is an abstract unit of social meaning. It's the union of the signifier (such as a flag, a sign in the common sense, a logo, a noise. . . any perceptible thing) and a signified (the meaning it has for people or the reaction the people have.) So signs, like brands, are in the mind of people. They are a combination of beliefs and stimulus.
If I say "Tom Dolan," the noise I make is the signifier. If someone hears it and thinks "He's the guy who did the Napster logo" then that thought (along with any accompanying reactions) is the signified. The combination of my utterance and that person's reaction to it is the sign. Of course many other people would have other reactions—"He's the guy who wrote that interesting stuff on that email list" or "That's the guy who always orders a half caf latte but refuses to say 'grande'" or "That's the guy who takes my trash cans out to the curb when I forget." So there's no singular "Tom Dolan sign" just like there's no singular Kellogg's brand (or even Kellogg's Frosted Flakes brand) and there's no singular mental United States.
Someone can make a conscious effort to affect a sign by trying to alter the signifier—like calling the neighborhood "South L.A." instead of "South Central"—or by trying to alter the signified (the stuff of advertising and P.R.)
The notion that a sign (or a brand) is a neat little package you can push around at will is silly. That's why the term "branding" is, if not a crock, at least covered in suspicious-smelling implications. So yes. The flag is not the brand or the sign. It is a signifier of a vary complex sign (which, depending on whether we limit the term to commercial interests only, is or is not a brand.)
(BTW, I know nothing of Tom's actions regarding coffee or trash cans.)
12.01.04
08:41
Happen to use the b-word in a design essay online and watch the public instances of DBSE (design bloggers speaking earnestly) multiply out of control. Spongiform indeed.
Does language evolve? Well yeah, sorta; in a downward, non-logarithmic, ultra-compacted spiral.
Which brings us back to our discussion about the b-word, that much-overused neologism, where only one (Ryan Nee) out of thirty-some respondents can break the collective trance induced by its currency long enough to ask a pertinent question.
Is there hope for design? Well, sorta. But not if discussions like the one above represent the best and the brightest our profession has to offer.
Do I actually have anything worthwhile to say? Well, I did, but I lost it on the way to the semantimat. Stinking neologist!
12.02.04
12:14
"I'd simply say that addressing branding or marketing issues should not be immediately perceived as an indication of neglect regarding more foundational problems, though of course it's tempting to avoid addressing the toughest bits of a problem and to work on the part that's easiest to change. Ideally, products improve and branding evolves."
This gets at the crux of the issue I am raising, and I want to fundamentally disagree. Addressing brand or marketing issues instead of more "foundational" issues is precisely the problem. Cornell University should hire more teachers because they are an educational institution with a responsibility to provide the best education possible. When they hire more teachers to correct a brand impression, and a weak score in the U.S. News & World Report ratings, they are putting the cart before the horse. (Just as when America worries about its brand reputation before solving fundamental problems in its manner of conducting diplomacy.)
Ultimately, I am arguing for a rational approach to distinguish between what organizations and institutions actually do, and how and for whom they create brands, signs, symbols, whatever you want to call them. You can make the case for a holistic view of brand, but its still about understanding and creating perceptions, not necessarily about an honest appraisal of the actions of an institution.
It is the latter that interests me.
12.02.04
12:56
Being that business buzzwords live and die in a fairly short life span, I would presume that the word "brand" will eventually fade from favor anyway.
However, though the likes of David Stairs may sneer through their keyboards, I have seen working models of branding that are focused keenly on improving the foundational offerings and value provided by an organization. These models recognize that reality is the best way to drive perception, not the other way around.
12.02.04
09:38
Gunnar—ok, uncle. I'll take it up with you over a cocktail tonight if you're downtown.
12.02.04
11:05
12.02.04
11:44
Making "brand" interchangeable with "identity" amounts to sacrilege for me; it's like making "commodity" interchangeable with "self" and so on.
Let's resist this slippage and restore the difference between the two - one is a commercial device that sometimes slips into popular culture; the other is a profound human impulse that sometimes finds expression via commodities.
12.06.04
10:33
12.07.04
11:45
12.08.04
05:06
Clay Risen in the Boston Globe Ideas Section, March 13, 2005.
03.14.05
09:54
05.21.05
09:51
05.30.05
04:27
10.24.12
01:56