Posted on November 21, 2003

print  e-mail

It Takes a Village to Raise a Brand

In my previous column, I talked about the importance of conducting research at the beginning of the design process, outlined what goes into a design brief, and talked about getting everyone onto the same branding page. By now, I'm sure you're wondering who is responsible for pulling this all together. Early on in the branding process, an individual (or two) may stand out as having the necessary authority, instincts, and drive to develop the brand. This person (or group of people) must come from within your organization. It could be your executive director or another high-level staff person and/or board member. But regardless of who it is, this person (or group of people) should possess the following: visual/verbal acuity a facility for abstract thinking an organized but flexible management style the ability to work effectively as part of a group the respect of his/her peers Once this individual (or group) is chosen, s/he should be designated the brand steward(s). The brand steward's job is to take the raw information gathered in the initial research phase (see my column, "Anatomy of a Design Brief," for a more complete description of that process) and, from it, assemble the formal design brief. While all design briefs are different, the good ones manage to provide context for the brand, clarify the need for a new or revamped brand, set forth goals for the branding process, and rally the troops around the effort. This last point cannot be overstated: Building consensus is essential to the success of the branding process. Everyone with a stake in the brand — your board members, staff, funders, constituents, consultants, opinion-shapers — should feel that their views and concerns are captured in the design brief. The reason is simple: It facilitates "buy in" and enhances the credibility of the process, resulting in a richer, more potent brand. Thus, the first responsibility of good brand stewardship is to make sure that the final design brief is inclusive and gets the ball rolling in the right direction. The Long and Short of It As I've mentioned, every design brief is uniquely structured, and their lengths can vary wildly. The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) prepared several briefs for their recent expansion, and although the strategy they finally settled on was bold and courageous (and their briefs were far from brief), the process they engaged in is a good model for any nonprofit considering a major brand overhaul. Ed Pusz, director of design at MoMA and one of its brand stewards, recalls the museum's efforts to create a design brief informed by consensus. "We held a series of debates about the future of the museum. The brief we used for architects was based largely on these discussions. And we've written several briefs since then for other parts of the strategy. The brief is an invaluable tool for the design process. It's so easy for people to get caught up in what they like and don't like. But when you have a brief, you can always refer back to the ideas that were agreed to in it." One thing the brief should not do is dictate the design of the organization's visual identity. Instead, it should relate informative facts and substantiated opinions about the organization's current identity and/or ideas about the overall identity. MoMA's brief included a six-page executive summary that outlined the museum's history, its place within the global arts community, its mission and commitment to that mission, the goals for its expansion, and, in brutally honest fashion, the challenges it faced going forward. The goal was and should be to get everything out on the table and agreed to in writing. Because design ultimately involves making a lot of subjective decisions (regarding color, typography, form, etc.), this helps to protect against irrationality creeping into and possibly ruining the process. If you're able to point back to something that was stated in the brief, you have a better chance of short-circuiting the person who says, "We can't use red. I really hate red." As Pusz notes, "It only takes one person to derail the branding process. The brief keeps the train on the tracks." (For examples of MoMA's current branding strategy, take a look at the first column in this series, "What's That Branding Buzz I Hear?") Of course, not every nonprofit organization will want or have the resources to create a detailed design brief with a six-page executive summary. In many cases, a free-ranging conversation involving the various stakeholders and using information gleaned from the initial research phase may be enough. But however you decide to approach it, a decision should be made early on about how much consensus is required to keep the process moving forward. Which audiences need to buy into the brand? The staff? The board? Your funders? The answer to that question should drive the effort to secure the proper amount of consensus. The Ultimate Design Challenge: Designing for Designers Bart Crosby, AIGA (American Institute for Graphic Arts) fellow and revered brand designer (www.crosbyassociates.com), developed the AIGA brand a few years ago — a mammoth and daunting challenge, since the AIGA, with 46 chapters and 15,000 members, is the established national organization for graphic designers. Crosby was chosen to lead the branding process because of his even-handed dedication to the organization's principles and his excellent reputation as a brand designer. His first step was to conduct research and develop a design brief that laid out the situation. Then the brief was circulated to the organization's entire membership, including several well-known designers who had been selected to consult with him as he developed the brand. click image to enlarge Crosby's brief started with an explanation of branding that included an extensive section called "Is Our Logo Our Brand?" His conclusion: Yes and no. The AIGA logo was an important component of the organization's brand because, as Crosby put it, it was the "identifier." In the case of AIGA, it's a way to identify a product — and they have many — as theirs. For instance, every AIGA publication is designed separately, reflecting the full spectrum of its design roster and talent. The AIGA logo is applied to each one, and as such becomes the common element that ties them all together — i.e., the brand identifier. click image to enlarge The fact that Crosby, in his brief, spent a significant amount of time educating designers on the subject of branding is also something to consider when preparing yours. If nothing else, it's a reminder that designers are not universally well versed in this area and is something to consider when you get to the point of interviewing designers, many of whom will say they are involved in branding but do little more than design logos. click to download Crosby also included a section in the brief called "How Do We Do It?" that spoke to all AIGA members as potential branding partners — not just as designers, but as writers, creators of products and services, editors, proofreaders — and held them "personally responsible for ensuring that the attributes of the organization are embodied in every effort." Then he pointed out that this could not be achieved through the production of a guide or manual. It required deeper understanding of the brand. The 800-Pound Albatross As you consider how to organize your brief, there is one more aspect of branding that is crucial to consider at this juncture: naming. Does your organization have the correct name? Can your name be converted into an acronym that makes sense and is useful? Do you have a tag line? And if so, does it work? For the vast number of established organizations, naming is a done deal. Some of you, I'm sure, are absolutely horrified at the very idea of reconsidering your name. That's understandable. But you aren't doing yourself any favors by ignoring it if it's a problem. An out-of-date, inappropriate, or just plain clunky name is like an 800-pound albatross around your organization's neck. Because they usually start out small and with limited resources, nonprofits often name themselves in haste, without any professional help. Again, understandable: You're eager to get cracking on your cause, not work on a marketing scheme. But your organization may have to live with the effects of a bad naming decision for the rest of its life (or until you and your colleagues bite the bullet and decide to change your name). Don't make that mistake. Instead, I suggest that you conduct a modest amount of research if there is any question at all about the meaning and/or value of your organization's name. To start, make a short list of individuals you trust who also represent your various audiences and ask them, individually and privately, the following: What does the organization's name mean to you? Parse the words if that helps. Is the name confusing or detrimental to your mission? If you use an acronym in your collateral materials, is its meaning clear and unambiguous, or does it confuse or otherwise harm the brand? Do you know what your tag line is? Does it clarify your mission and serve to motivate your constituents or is it's meaning fuzzy or off base? In the first installment of this series, I told the story of an organization called Make a Better Place, which originally was called To Make the World a Better Place. After several years of answering the phone that way (a form of torture), the founders decided to shorten the organization's name, and the payoff was almost immediate. People could remember the new name, the directors weren't tongue-tied every time they had to talk about the organization, and they also got an acronym - MABP ("mab-p") - out of it that they could actually use internally and in conversation. (Just try to work "TMWBP" into a conversation!) Naming is complicated and should be approached perspicaciously. I can't tell you how many organizations — large, established organizations at that — have talked to me this past year about their names. In one case, the organization's acronym meant exactly what the organization was working against, while in another instance the organization had been named in 1960 for an area of town that no longer exists. A third's name is very close to that of another organization based in the same city. All were relatively successful regardless, but they also knew that their names were holding them back. Unfortunately, two of them did not relish the idea of rebranding their organizations with a new name, and to this day neither has taken any action to change. The third, a far younger organization, is in the process of making the change. Okay, But When Do We Get to See Something? When the brand steward(s) is confident s/he has created the best design brief s/he can, it's time to circulate it to designers and others who may be called upon to help your organization in the design development phase. The reception the brief receives will determine whether the creative process is infused with enthusiasm and confidence in the eventual outcome, or. . . well, let's not even go there. "Good communication is intentional," notes Aaron Hurst, founder and president of the Taproot Foundation (www.taprootfoundation.org), a nonprofit organization with offices in San Francisco and New York that pairs qualified nonprofits with volunteer designers. "In a successful design project you need to develop a thoughtful brief that articulates a focused and commonly held set of goals for the project which can be used by the design team to keep its efforts headed in the right direction. Without such a brief, there is a risk that the effort will fail." And since success is your ultimate goal, remember that, no matter how impatient others get, it's good for you to take the time you need in this phase to get it right. In my next column, I'll discuss who should be on the creative team that develops the brand and how to start the design process rolling. I can hardly wait!

Writer, strategist, and art director DK Holland has been developing award-winning programs that include branding, licensing, promotion, and product development for companies such as Mattel and Citicorp for thirty years. She was, until 2001, a partner in the Pushpin Group, an internationally acclaimed design and illustration firm based in New York City. Currently the principal of DK Holland, llc, a communications consultancy that works exclusively with nonprofits, her clients include the Literacy Assistance Center, New Internationals, the Sustainability Education Center, World Reach, the Buckminster Fuller Institute, and Sisters of Charity New York. DK serves on the board of directors of the Alliance for Nonprofit Governance, which she is in the process of re-branding; is an editor of Communications Arts magazine and the author/art director of a dozen books on graphic design; and teaches in the graduate school for nonprofit management at New School University. She lives in Fort Greene, Brooklyn.