Boucher: “Branding” Fort Collins’ Good Side
By Andrew Boucher
1:56 p.m. MT Mar 21, 2008
Much has been written about the Fort Collins logo imbroglio of the past few weeks. I'll add to the pile.
Here's the story so far:
Various elements within city government allocated some $8 trillion in public funds to an offshore logo design sweatshop. The final product was a logo that, through its use of outdated fonts, colors and design themes, inexplicably evokes a 1977 seaside resort town or a certain feminine hygiene product, depending on your frame of reference.
OK, OK, I'm joking (slightly).
Let's try to clear up the misconceptions first. Then we'll get to the larger problem.
First, the logo didn't cost $80,000 as previously reported. The logo cost $2,500 as part of a larger $76,000 “Community Branding Project.”
The logo isn't the problem. The “Community Branding Project” is.
What is the “Community Branding Project”? According to the city, the purpose is to “attract primary jobs, attract visitors, and to work together as community partners in telling the Fort Collins story.”
Most of the money for the project (80 percent) was spent on research to find out “what's unique about our community.” The rest of the budget was spent having the consultant create “a brand platform (communication strategies and a guide for creative work) for us to use in outreach and advertising.”
In other words, it's an ad campaign. The logo is just part of the overall “branding” recommended by the consultant.
At its best, “branding” provides a new look—a new image—for a product. “Branding” is often a way to get consumers to think differently about what you're trying to sell. “Branding” is sometimes what you do when you need to clear up misperceptions about your product.
When your product itself is flawed, however, “branding” is nothing more than lipstick on a pig. “Branding” is the sort of thing that executives do so they can pat themselves on the back while ignoring the larger problems.
Unfortunately, that seems the have been the case with the Fort Collins “Community Branding Project.” You need look no further than the consultant's study itself to find the problems that their branding is designed to gloss over.
The consultant conducted a year of “surveys, interviews and data collection” to produce their “Brand Report Summary.” They sought input from stakeholders, residents, consumers, economic development groups and businesses. Understandably, the research produced a lot of input about the things we love about Fort Collins: the people, the schools, the recreation opportunities and Old Town. These were some of the attributes that the consultant used to craft their final recommendations.
However, when it came to economic development, the outlook wasn't so rosy. The researchers asked local business owners about the biggest challenges facing economic development. The answer was “no-growth policies” and “red tape.” They asked businesses that “got away” about the primary disadvantages of doing business in Fort Collins. Their answer was that “… red tape and 'add-ons' were said to 'add up' in the end. Property approvals are much easier in Windsor and Loveland.” State economic development officials noted the perception that the city was becoming “land-locked due to open space policies.” Meeting planners cited the “lack of quality hotels/transportation around town.”
Under the section entitled “Other Major Themes and Observations”—the “other” apparently referring to the fact that these were not themes and observations that were used in the final marketing campaign—the study listed such “challenges” as the “anti-growth city council members” and community groups that are “negative about economic development.” The study also noted that the “Community is tired of no-growth policies” and that the “'minority' council needs to rethink their approach—Fort Collins needs business.”
So what was included in the consultant's “Conclusions Based on Research”-the foundation for the “branding”? All positives. After all, they weren't hired to fix the underlying problems with economic development in Fort Collins. They were hired to accentuate the positives, essentially gloss over the negatives and sell what we've got.
Hence the problem.
