Australian Government back flips to a single branding strategy By Grant Common published September 2003 Grant has 30 years direct experience in public relations and communication in Australia and New Zealand - as well as directing and managing programs in the UK and USA. He has consulted to Governments, publicly listed companies, industry bodies, marketing organisations, multinationals and not-for-profit organisations. He is Managing Director of Sydney-based Network Communications and principal of Comsult Communication Design, a consultancy specialising in the emerging management discipline that focuses on how organisations internally plan, structure and organise their communication. As a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (having completed the Company Directors Diploma examination) he is also one of the few PR practitioners to have the perspective of the company director. In the last issue of PR Influences we wrote about the confusion between 'image' and 'reputation'. We had no idea that the Australian Government was about to give us the classic example of the conundrum that exists when we confuse these two separate entities! The Australian Federal Government is reportedly about to embark on what could well be the largest single re-branding exercise in this country. Apparently they are to be replaced with a standard logo that will highlight the name of the department or agency alongside the Australian coat of arms with the words 'Australian Government'. Which will be the most dominant is not clear. Under pressure will be the individual culture of 100 Government departments and agencies and years of hard work and marketing dollars in establishing unique relationships with ordinary Australians. The 'image' of the individual brands will now reside entirely within the 'reputation' of the parent company - a company that More than 100 Australian federal government departments and agencies have been instructed to discard their existing logos on letterhead, publications, signage and business cards. traditionally half the population would rather not deal with - the Federal Government. From what has been reported, it appears that while we as consumers may well know the brand of a particular department or agency and what that entity offers, we are far too stupid to know whether it is a service provided by Federal, State or Local Government. And what's more, we don't appear to care! So, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (according to some reports under firm instructions from the PM) wants to redress that. By making this change everyone will not only know who is providing the service - but presumably they will feel happier about it. But it isn't as simple as this. The real world is shades of grey. Step back for a moment and look at the situation as if it were a commercial situation: Assume the Federal Government is the 'corporation' The 'corporation' manages or controls 100 brands, Some brands are world class and others are third-world class For some brands it is important that they reflect the 'corporation' philosophy of the day For many their very success in delivering a service - and implementing Government policy - is looking less like Government and overcoming the traditional fears and suspicions of Australians. Each has a delicate task of balancing image with reputation Many of these brands have worked hard to create and instil a unique culture with their various stakeholders - all to the advantage of the Government. Granted it's not easy to make the decentralisation model work - and some sectors of Government might have gone too far. But plenty of major commercial organisations successfully manage a multi-brand situation - both at a corporate and consumer level. In the new Australian Government model, it seems all focus will be with the 'corporation'- the Federal Government. Yet as a corporation, a Federal Government that is subject to a takeover (election) every three years. This move appears, on the surface, to be a throwback to the days of single State economics of the Eastern Block. Most importantly, simply changing the image (identity) of 100 departments and agencies so radically is unlikely to achieve what is being sought. It might tell us who we are dealing with. But it is unlikely to make us care or appreciate it more. In fact there is a real danger of the opposite occurring. Fundamentally it shows a complete lack of understanding that image (how an entity presents itself) is quite different from reputation (how an entity is regarded). More importantly image is a component of reputation - change the image and it must have an impact on reputation. Were there a Board of Directors responsible for the Government sector - one of the biggest businesses in the country - would it make a decision to rebrand everything 'Australian Government'? First, is the new brand a better brand? Second what are the risks? It's hard to see anything but downside from introducing the Australian Government brand. And there are considerable organisational risks in this move. The move has the potential to cause disquiet and disruption - one might even argue demoralisation - within the very units that are charged with delivering Government services. It also has the potential to impact on consumer confidence in some of these departments and agencies. It will also be costly. Of course, there's also the cost of changing all identity - from building signs to literature. One presumes even some current advertising may need to be dumped. As well many of those who have invested heavily in their own brands will be forced to re-engineer their organisations. Consultants will be needed! All this because someone (we wonder who?) decided that Australians should have a clearer idea of who provides their services. If ever there was a case for politicians sticking to politics surely this is it. Grant Common Here’s a related article that may be of further interest: ‘Image and Reputation - two misunderstood siblings that need better management’

PR Influences Australian Public Relations Newsletter. Article: Australian Government back flips to a single branding strategy. Information Content: Opinion & Comment