To add a historical perspective on government branding we spoke to Katherine Hepworth, a Swinburne PHD student who is completing a thesis on the topic.

Governments and branding may at first seem odd bedfellows, since governments are not-for-profit representational and administrative organisations, and branding seemingly has its origins in the commercial world. However, as branding expert Wally Olins identifies, governments were some of the first organisations to use an early form of branding several centuries ago.

Long ago, coats of arms were central to government brands. In Australia these coats of arms were typically made by engravers working in small printers in each capital city. The City of Melbourne emblem is one of the earliest coats of arms made in this way, having first been used in 1842 (top left). The ‘brand’ surrounding the coat of arms was the collective idea of one community united in a physical space – the council or State area. To foster this sense of community, or brand, the government sponsored official ceremonies and sporting events. Coats of arms are still used by many governments today, but their use has been overshadowed in many instances by newer developments in branding technology.

In the early 20th century, another developmental stage of branding began. Some companies in Europe and the United States started to consider all of the visual aspects of their company as one coordinated message. This was early corporate identity, the immediate precursor to branding as we know it today. By the 1970s, corporate identities were standard in companies throughout the world, and governments began to catch on to the management advantages of such coordinated visual communication. In the early 1980s some of the first Australian government corporate identities started to emerge, first at a local level with councils (bottom right and bottom left) and slowly moving upward to state and national governments.

In the last 10 years, some Australian governments, such as the Tasmanian State government, have slowly shifted from using government corporate identities to government brands. Corporate identities and brands look similar to one another, but the brand considers more about the government and the people it represents, and so is far more ambitious. While corporate identities are primarly for creating a systematic, cohesive communication, brands attempt to shift perception with a cohesive communication strategy. We have a perception of what the government is and does, and sometimes this is not in accordance with what is actually the case. By participating in discussions such as this one on the Rebrand Tasmania blog, you can help ensure that the perception of Tasmania that its brand portrays is honest and genuine.

Katherine Hepworth, PhD Candidate

National Institute of Design Research

Swinburne University of Technology