Dec 1, 2009
Dear Tim
Last Friday, after a solid week of coverage and discussion, our project attracted some scrutiny from Tim Sauer of Sandy Bay, via a letter to the editor in The Mercury. Below is the letter and then my response.
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.
I agree that the Ian Kidd logo is a much better execution than the later work. Again I find it interesting that the authenticity of your venture is pegged to where you currently live rather than your ideas. Is that a smart way to make value judgements?
Actually, the logo you are referring to is the State Government logo… the one you describe as a dead dog. This logo is not the brand mark or logo for the state at all. The brandmark for the state (to be owned by us all) was developed last year after considerable research and consultation and can be seen on the Brand Tasmania website (www.brandtasmania.com).
It is very important that any logo representing us as Tasmanians is separate to the logo that is used by the state government, particularly given the connotations and reputation risk associated with government.
Hi Lisa
Yes, we have looked into the place of origin initiative (brand Tasmania). It’s my belief that whilst that brand has been well targeted to promote a certain image of clean/green/innovative Tasmania particularly mindful of the external audience, the state government brand, as the local face of Tasmanian identity has the potential to connect on a slightly more personal level. Complimenting the important, but quite specific commercial requirements of the other brand.
JP
I think you need to clarify what the actual purpose of creating a new logo/brand actually is. If it is to be the ‘local face of Tasmanian identity’ and ‘to connect on a slightly more personal level’ then I don’t believe using the state government logo (what ever it looks like) is appropriate. People will never identify personally with a government logo and what it really stands for. As a previous post has discussed, the inclusion of the word ‘government’ under the logo, instead of ‘tasmania’ would be a step closer to differentiating the purpose. I can not see a business, or person, using a government logo on their packaging, marketing material or in other forms of communication about the place to promote Tasmania, or identify with Tasmania.
Its all very well to have academic discussions about brand, purpose, history, colours, but until the purpose, audience and message have been agreed, I wonder about the risk of developing yet another ‘logo/brand for Tasmania. We are too small a state to have multiple brands… government, local identify and commercial brands…
The brand we seek to create is a replacement for the current State Government brand. Same audience, same scope for application. It is the brand that represents back an image of Tasmania primarily to Tasmanians, hence why we see it as the brand Tasmanians should shape (as opposed to the brand which has to strategically sell Tasmania to the world). It is the government yes, but if the brand is enduring and meaningful it should out-live politics. It’s not Bartlett’s, Hodgman’s or McKim’s brand, they are running the place FOR US, we propose. As proud people, the distillation of our values and character should be upheld over time. It is often the politically-driven taglines which give them a shelf-life (ie Jeff Kennets Victoria was “on the move” so the incoming labour government changed tack, to be “the place to be”).
The message as such we are open to discuss in the first stage of this process. Up until xmas we are inviting discussion on “the brief”, allowing public input from the very first stage of the strategic development process. We will publish the findings of this phase as a document for all to see. Then we will go about tackling the brief, again with collective input.
It is basically the “delivery of service” brand for the state, whilst also playing the role of our official emblem (much as the NSW waratah emblem). Given the important role of the new brand Tasmania identity, your point about adding the word “government” to the logo is a valid point of contention we will seek further collective input on in the design phase. Whilst it would clear up any confusion around the two brands, it could also stiffen up the brand, making it’s application onto common touch points like number plates and signage seem more official/authoritative in comparison to what exists now. Do we want to go from an open-ended experiential brand intention to an authoritative, direct and transparent one? I hope we can find out through dialogue on that point.
We are well aware of the challenges around managing mulitple brands for the same place, and have met with Victorian authoriities who coordinate 3 brands for the City of Melbourne alone. It is the reality of the world we live in that as branding becomes more important, channel strategies become necessary. Ultimately we’d love to sit down with Brand Tasmania and gain some input from them down the track, I know they have done extensive research that we must tap into. To complete this process we also would need to work very closely with Government and business/community groups etc, but I think we need to prove the value of this process before pestering too many stakeholders that we want to engage meaningfully down the track.
Cheers
JP