OffBrand.

“Almost a week after the atrocities in central London, and the bombers were identified as being from the Leeds area… Whereas the events in London, as tragic and as awful as they were, managed to galvanise a sense of resilience among the people of the city, the impact on Leeds was less positive. So how damaging is this to ‘Leeds – the brand’?”…

So begins an article in â??The Drumâ??, Scotlands only real design and marketing magazine, and arguably the worst publication this side of Amstrad Monthly. What follows is a number of Vox Pops from various Marketing and Branding ‘Heads’ – They come out with the usual guff that you get around these kinds of discussions, almost aware that people will think it tasteless to be discussing a city brand in the light of these events, but never the less managing to come out with statements like; “It’s absolutely essential that any branding that is now launched is not glib or superficial … It has to be managed very carefully, but strong brand positioning can combat something like this…” (what?… terrorism? …no doubt Osama is getting precious little sleep these days, worrying about an onslaught of ‘strong brand-positioning’ from the infidel).

Branding of place is a hot topic. From Wolff Olins work with Lichtenstein – (when viewed in isolation a very nice piece of graphic work, but what is going on politically behind initiatives such as these?) – to the recent rebrand of â??Glasgowâ?? – (“Scotland with Style”) – there is an increasing preoccupation, amongst cities, regions and countries, with external presentation and the selling of ‘place’. Glasgow agency â??Graven Imagesâ?? have been looking at this in their autumn mailer – Competitive Place… (How do we choose where to live, work or visit when every place wants to be our favourite destination?). It’s good that they’ve opened this debate, as with more and more consultancies (like Graven Images) being employed to market place, a city’s ability to stand out and say something meaningful will be weakened as these agencies produce more and more homogenised external representations of the modern european cosmopolitan city.

Using the conventional ideas and methodology of branding to develop ‘place’ is to miss the point. We need to look into our cities and ensure that what we’re providing (facilities, social spaces, basic infrastructure) is well designed and matches up to the challenges of the 21st century, and can also entertain diversity and cultural non-conformity. We should think about how design can be used, both strategically at a civic level and spontaneously at a grassroots level, to reshape a place for the better. This can be through architectural interventions, but also through design of services and interactions which build the social fabric of a space in a sensitive and subtle way. And we maybe need to consider not employing the basic principal of shouting louder than everyone else when it comes to communicating what this ‘place’ has to offer. John Thackara touches on this in his book, â??In the Bubbleâ?? when he observes; “At first many (cities) were convinced that snappy communications were the key to success; these places spent lavishly on logo’s slogans and corporate identities … Much of this money is badly spent. There’s a big difference between selling soap and making sense of a locality – many place marketers don’t get it … (but) … some of the people running cities now realise that communication campaigns will not work unless they are accompanied by genuine improvements to the product”

Only by looking at how design can shape the space you’re marketing can anything of real significance be communicated to the outside world, (or the cities own citizens as is more often the case). Perhaps those Leeds agencies should be asking what design can do to help Leeds from the inside out, rather than getting worked up about perceived cracks in the surface gloss.

Although this happened a while ago, and Ms Beers has long since departed the Pentagon, her thankless mission unfulfilled, I think this is a useful story in terms of some of the misunderstandings that constantly plague organsiations about brand design and communication.

(You can read a full transcript of a radio interview on the subject â??hereâ?? – it’s very funny and worth a look).

The major problem with this initiative is thinking that what America does, and the American ‘Brand’ are two seperate things and that through advertising alone you can become the thing you want people to see. To think you can communicate a message about the benevolent, caring USA, while 24hr news channels broadcast footage of American carpet bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates the most amazing nievity. America is MacDonalds and Democracy, Bruce Springsteen and Imperialism, Disney and Capitalism, Hummers and Freedom, all rolled in to one self-contradictory whole, all at once. If, (with particular reference to this article and the ‘branding’ of America’s foreign policy), there is a desire to shift people’s perception, that is going to have to start with a change in behaviour. Perhaps America could develop a new foreign policy built around the famous ‘have a nice day’ mantra. The essence of this policy would be to ‘out-nice’ other nations through a strategic combination of displays of overwhelming generosity and kindness, thus shaming countries of the world into better behaviour towards their citizens and each other. While this is only a ‘top-of-the-head’ suggestion, I am adamant that creative thought needs to be applied to what America is actually doing, long before they think about ‘selling it’, (their words, not mine), to the rest of the world.

You don’t need me to spell out the parallels here between branding a nation through communication, and the numerous occurances of organisations trying to project a new image through communication alone, rather than looking at the fundamentals of what they are doing. Rather than thinking about Re-Brand’s, I always urge people to think about a â??Re-Doâ??

Trevor Phillips, Head of the Racial Equality Commission made some shrewd remarks in his recent â??speechâ?? on race relations in Britain in 2005, and flagged up some important warning signs about â??sleepwalking into a ghetto cultureâ?. He also hinted at a solution to our problems being a better shared understanding of British-ness. There are two important questions here. 1. What would Britishness be? 2. How would we learn this Britishness? It seems that whenever there are problems regarding communication and understanding, whether it be in corporate communications or these slightly more weighty issues of natinal identity, that the default response is to say we all need to be â??on-messageâ??, â??on-brandâ?? and â??singing from the same song sheetâ??. Not only is this unrealistic, but it imposes a rather sinister subtext of the answer to our differences being an imposed mono-culture. Business and society in general would do well to learn from examples where different view points are tolerated and can even be a very creative force for good. So long as the lines of communication are open, strong and honest we should be able to tolerate (and maybe even enjoy) strongly opposing views, whether this relates to being â??onbrandâ?? in corporate life or â??onbrandâ?? as a citizen of the UK.