I haven't written a blog post since April, 2015. With so many things to talk about these days I am shocked that it took one funny looking scribble to bring me back, yet here we are.
Of course, I am speaking of the City of Frederick's recent branding initiative which resulted, among other things, in a new logo that was widely perceived as both ugly and not representative of the city. You can get a summary of the backlash and view the logo and it's intended meaning here.
Mayor Michael O'Conner held a press conference, which was open to the public, where any and all who wished could ask him questions about the branding initiative of which the logo was a part. I thought the Mayor did a remarkable job of both taking responsibility and apologizing. He was sincere and also resolute to move forward. There is A LOT of information (correct and incorrect) whirling around and this is my humble attempt to bring a little clarity to a VERY muddy situation.
Why did we need to change anything?
The RFQ process/Why not use a local firm?
Will the city recoup any of the $45,000 spent?
But the City already has a logo!
Why not have a local contest?
Why didn't we (the public) know about this?
But it's just so ugly!
So now what happens?
(I had hoped to make it so you could click on a topic and be taken directly to that section, but I didn't have time to write this AND learn HTML at lunch today.)
Why did we need to change anything?
According to numerous sources (including the mayor himself this morning), it was determined there was a need for the City and it's various departments to present itself in a consistent manner. Having a consistent message (brand) and visual style is important for many reasons. Just like a sharp suit, it makes it appear that you have your act together. This is a key message to relay to residents, prospective businesses, and other cities or government entities with which the City may work. The present state was that each department designed it's own business cards, some highjacking the City Seal as a logo and some not. There was no consistency in letterhead or other means of external communications. This project was to define the City's unique story and create an effective and coordinated means of telling that story both visually and through narrative.
The RFQ process/Why not use a local firm?
The RFQ is not the sexiest read, but it is pretty straightforward. It clearly defines how the proposals will be scored and cites a preference for local firms. Twenty-two (22) deliverables are cited, 11 for the City overall and 11 for City Departments. They were:
1. One-day Branding workshop with City staff
2. Two-day Branding workshop with City staff and external stakeholders
3. Research Competitive and Current State
4. Positioning statement
5. Internal Brand statement
6. Logo Development w/ three (3) rounds of revisions
7. Tagline
8. Formalized Brand Guidelines
9. Key Marketing Messages
10. Expanded Brand Style Guidelines
11. Rollout Plan
Please note that the Logo and Tagline ("Join the story", which they intend to keep) are relatively small parts of what wound up being a $45,000 expense. You can read the full RFQ here. The list of companies who responded to the RFQ is here.
Will the city recoup any of the $45,000 spent.
No. And I happen to agree with that. The firm used (Northstar) fulfilled their contract. And please remember that included three logo revisions. So all the upset about the appearance of the logo and the lack of transparency in the process overall is the City's fault. Northstar did the job we agreed to pay them to do. Full stop.
But the City already has a logo!
No it doesn't. It has a seal which was perceived by most as the city logo, but it's not. Also, I don't think it makes a good logo at that. It is what the Mayor said would be used as a logo moving forward but I, and others, think it needs some work. It looks very outdated and is too detailed to size well (for example, shrinking to put on a business card). I believe nearly everyone agrees that the "Clustered Spires" represent the City and should therefore be part of the logo. However, there is no current plan or timeline for "logo clean-up" and I don't blame them. Too soon. Maybe next year.
Why not have a local contest?
While I love this in theory, it is the wrong approach for this project. This project produced more than just a logo. There is a report (you can read here) that very clearly, and in detail, describes what Northstar learned about Frederick and how. I was fully prepared to determine that Northstar had simply done a bad job. This is not at all the case. They successfully uncovered and documented some of the best attributes of the City of Frederick. If you read no other part of the report, read the "Narrative." I dare you not to get swept away in the wonderfulness that is this town. The report makes clear that Northstar did a great deal of work that goes beyond the logo. That being said, the report also states on numerous occasions that one of the City's assets was its "High levels of citizen engagement and pride." It's nice that they think that's great. It's a shame that they barely took advantage of it. But back to the question... This project was too big for a "contest" (insert your best election joke here) However, I believe there may be room for one in the future. More on that later.
Why didn't we (the public) know about this?
That I can't answer. Though acknowledging that the public could have had more touch points on this particular project, the Mayor did get just the slightest bit defensive about the City's communications with it's stakeholders in general. He noted the many public meetings that are regularly held and the feedback currently being solicited for the City's Strategic Plan 3030. There is definitely room for improvement in the communications department and hopefully that work will be done. Meanwhile if you are looking for transparency about the Branding Initiative, every inch of the process and the deliverables are (finally) here.
But it's just so ugly!
Yes, I agree. But I have to say that when you immerse yourself in Northstar's Final Brand Presentation (basically the Readers' Digest version of the Final Report) and you see the logo in context with all the other elements of the report including samples of signs, etc the logo does not look that bad. It's still bad mind you, but not as horrid as it is on it's own. Though pointless, I (and I suspect the Mayor) do wonder what public reaction would have been if we had been fed the narrative in tantalizing bits over a period of time... building both buy-in and suspense?
So now what happens?
First of all we throw away the awful logo which Mayor O'Conner emphatically stated during the Press Conference (no one had the audacity to cheer at that moment, but there were BIG smiles all around). The City has already posted the following Press Release. Step one as defined today was to roll back the use of the hated logo. This will not happen overnight as some materials had already been updated with the logo. The City also intends to move forward with the City Seal as it's logo. I think that's a fine interim idea but as stated earlier the seal does not a good logo make. It is too detailed and outdated. I would like the City to proceed by laser focusing on the brand message... ya know all the other pieces of the project we paid for. I want that messaging shoved down our throats until each and everyone of us has "drank the Kool-Aid." I want every City business, resident, and employee to be able to communicate that message to others and to be excited about doing so. Then, and only then, when we are all back on the same page. I would like to see the logo re-done. The logo should be little more than a refresh of the current seal (which can remain as a seal) that is simpler and easier to apply to a number of things (like cars, or pens, or signs). I hope at this point it is needless to say that some public input would be required in this endeavor. I'm not saying the winning logo should be chosen by public vote (one thing I learned this week was that there are a whole bunch of people out there who don't know a thing about marketing!), but a public vote could definitely be part of the process. There are many, many ways to implement the public's voice. And now, we all know, that doing so is paramount.
Just one more thing...
A lot of you are hating me right now because I did not include depictions of either the since discarded logo or the City Seal. Another thing I learned through this is that visuals speak to our emotions far more directly words (I refer to any refugee picture ever). There has been more than enough emotion around this issue as is. By not including the visuals here, I hoped you would be able to focus on the facts of the matter, as good or as bad they may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment