To paraphrase the an old phrase, “when I hear ‘rebranding,’ I reach for my gun.”

Not literally, of course — after all, concealed-carry is still in the courts here. But when it comes to public-sector communications, too many managers equate a new logo, a zippy tagline or other cosmetic fix with the cure for public apathy or ill will.

They’re wrong… but you already know that. What you might not know (or at least, what you might not have thought about quite as obsessively as I have) is how branding in the public sector is different.

First, a pair of definitions:

Branding is based on singularity; it creates the perception that there is no product on the market quite like your product. Nouning and verbing are both good branding tests, i.e., Instead of imported beer, you can ask for Corona and instead of looking something up, you Google it).

The lesson? A brand is a singular concept you own in the mind of the prospect/customer. In this sense, many public agencies already own what Fortune 500 marketing executives dream of: They are completely associated with the service they provide.

But being joined at the hip with your product or service isn’t enough.

A great brand won’t appeal to everyone because singularity ensures that no brand can have a universal appeal.

Marketing builds the brand in the mind of the customer. There’s a symbiotic relationship here — if the brand doesn’t reflect the realities of your organization, then all the advertising, and public relations in the world won’t help achieve your objective. Conversely, a strong brand can, naturally boost any marketing effort, which in turn strengthens the brand even further.

OK, so when are you going to get to the public sector?
Good point. Public-sector agencies are in the business of stewardship and service. Any branding effort for an existing, high-profile public agency or jurisdiction has to start with a simple truth: there’s already a brand in play, albeit one that likely exists by default rather than design.

In fact, whether formally embraced by the organization or not, every public institution already has a brand, defined as follows:

Expectation of value + sum total of customer experiences and perceptions + recognized sensory imprint = brand

Branding gets thrown about as a synonym for “new logo,” but if that were the case, then branding would be the domain of graphic designers alone. A brand consists of:

Expectation of value: When I see, hear or read about the entity behind the brand, what do I expect from them?

The sum total of customer experiences and perceptions: In a well-managed brand, this will be close to or identical to the expectation of value; in a less well-managed brand, these experiences and perceptions may vary wildly from the expectation of value. Experiences always overshadow the expectation of value in determining how the public reacts to a brand.

Recognized sensory imprint: For most companies, this means a logo. But it can also include taste, scent, sound or other factors depending on the brand. Whatever it is, it serves the same purpose: A quick touchstone to elicit the expectation of value.

Touchstones aren’t always what clients think they are
While working with a utility that wanted to (sigh) “re-invent itself,” I stunned the room into silence when I pulled out a copy of their monthly bill and said: “This is your logo. Everyone knows it by sight, everyone knows exactly what it means to get one and it is the one time each month when your customers consistently think about you. In the corporate world, marketers would kill for that sort of recognition and attention — so what are you going to do to leverage it?”

More in a separate post… this is getting long.

Share This