I was trying to join the dots last night between progression/tradition/landscape in a uniquely Tasmanian context……and an artist (and former teacher) who has long been an inspiration to Southsouthwest came to mind: Raymond Arnold. These images never seem to loose their potency for me. Ten years since first experiencing his work, it is still how I imagine the Tasmanian landscape. Whilst the process of etching and depiction of raw geology are almost timeless, the graphic, brutal nature of these images talk directly to the contemporary world. 

It shows how the state brands tend to be stronger, more compact symbols of unity, whilst many local governments favor more pictorial, expressive formats. Interestingly, the current Tasmanian Government brand is more like many of these council brands in that sense.

As you can see from the below snapshot, when you line up the state brands with a selection of local government brands, some interesting (albeit hazy) similarities within each state set can also be seen (Victoria’s geometric abstraction and Tasmania’s literal landscapes for example).

I think on a purely competitive level, visual strength, unity and a sense of real substance is what we need to stand proudly as Tasmanians in this line up.

Click the image to zoom in.

After a short break we’ve jumped back into the project with some fresh energy, having now completed both the stage one findings and the creative brief. Sifting through all of the discussion so far, we were quite humbled by the response and are really excited by the creative potential that exists in this swirling mix of thoughts, ideas and opinions.

As with anything on our blog, we are really keen to hear your feedback so don’t be shy. We are currently gathering our thoughts and nutting out the plan of attack for the design phase, so stay tuned as things will be heating up in the coming days and weeks.

Click here to download findings document (PDF)

Click here to download creative brief (PDF)

You will notice we have reskinned the blog to be more neutral and suitable for the showcasing of creative. The next part of the journey will consist of us publishing the findings from phase one, in the form of a discussion paper and design brief. From there, we will start pitching to you online, asking for live feedback and input as we turn ideas into images.

It promises to be a very interesting experiment and we can’t wait to get cracking early in the new year.

Have a great break and we’ll catch in a few weeks.

-Jonathan Price

Re: State Logo

For the record, the current logo that we have critiqued was not designed by Ian Kidd, as suggested by Tim Sauer. In 1996 Ian delivered a well-considered brand identity, placing Tasmania well ahead of our interstate counterparts at that time. The focus of our project is replacing the 2006 update, which we believe has taken us backwards from there.

The basic premise of our experiment is that the state brand belongs to us all and should be shaped by us all. It’s an exercise in open democracy, designed to encourage lively debate and meaningful dialogue, not to land business. We knew there would be doubters and those who quite reasonably, just want to keep things as they are and we respect and welcome those views, along with the many other lively perspectives we’ve heard on what is right, wrong, unique and misunderstood about this beautiful island.

Regards

Jonathan Price

See below to compare the original Ian Kidd identity on the left and the 2006 update on the right.

Question: What do you think are the main values that sets Tasmania apart from the rest of the world?

(Please answer below via comments. A poll will follow to gain a consensus.)

This part of the process in a more traditional approach, would be done through consultation with business leaders, community groups and government departments, something our guerilla, self-appointed blog is creatively replicating. I should point out, the catalyst for this project and our objection to the current identity firstly relates to it’s poor design. If we were to redesign to the old brief/brand values, I’m confident we could move a long way forward, but to make full use of this opportunity, we need to throw open the discussion to cover the underlying strategic intention behind the brand.

For the uninitiated, brand values are much like their human equivalents i.e. they are the code that you live by. In a literal marketing sense, they are the keywords used to describe ideas, which underpin the behavior of an organisation.  By clearly defining and expressing them through the branding process, an audience is able to develop a relationship with a brand, built on a solid foundation of trust.  A human example being, I know Steve and I like him because he is honest and trustworthy. Values give us confidence in others, because they offer predictability.

The current Tasmanian brand values according to the Government website are: Trustworthy, Resourceful, Creative, Pure, Friendly, Distinctive Quality.

What’s wrong with this you may say? The nature of values are that they are unobjectionable, positive words. You could run a list of every possible value and it wouldn’t seem bad. The problem is, we are trying to create a unique mix of these identifiers that we can be known for. We need to boil it down to a potent brew that intoxicates all that it touches.

More important still,  brand values are only valid if confirmed by actions. Can we be truly “Pure” in our values and still be allowing large-scale heavy polluting industry? Some would say we can’t. Can the current Government say the existing brand is known as uniquely “Trustworthy”? Without getting bogged down in the politics, I think it’s easy to see how values can become meaningless and once that has happened, the brand stands for nothing. A situation I’d suggest we are in today and one that does nothing to help business, government or our own sense of identity.

So what are the values we want to be known for? Can you narrow it down to three, powerful words?

* Read about what Reg Watson and Rodney Croome believe is our heart and soul.