New Auckland Logo has Rangitoto Rumbling
Last week the new Auckland ‘destination brand’ was launched, and with it, an awful lot of debate. Of particular note was the ‘Your Views” section of the New Zealand Herald, which ran for 24 pages of comments, the majority of them negative. Several of the region's Mayors have distanced themselves from the logo, and the design community has strongly ridiculed it.
Clearly the brand has polarised people, and that in itself can as much be a sign of greatness as one of abject failure. But complaining about the new is hardly original, and every marketer with experience of launching new brands will feel for the staff at Tourism Auckland as they come under a barrage of criticism.
So what can be learnt? What does the experience tell us?
To begin, if a logo needs a lot of explaining, this is the first sign of failure. Like a bad joke that needs explaining, a poor logo needs a lot of support. The more you have to sell your logo with “don’t you see? It’s great because…” the weaker it is. Marketers must remember that most of the time there will be very few art school graduates in their target audience. Too many times weak advertisements or creative ideas get approved because they look great in the boardroom, they play on in-jokes that are oblivious to the target audience, or their presentation to the decision-makers has been preceded by orgasmic “I see a vision” hoopla. If a logo’s presentation comes with a long back-story – be suspicious.
Next, a logo has to work in black and white, and be easily reproduced. It won't always be in colour, and printers and budgets not always able to reproduce subtle design features. Many detractors have criticised the Auckland logo for not being in the blue colour that is natural for the city, and for having design features that are expensive and complicated to reproduce. Yet the brand Auckland website does show that it can work well in a variety of colours, and not always with the colour bleed as shown in the original press release. Simplicity will win over complexity every time.
Third, a logo has to instantly connect - either rationally or emotionally, or both. If it mainly only works on a rational basis, it can still work regardless but takes longer to take root in people’s hearts. Some of the greatest brands actually look quite weak when viewed objectively, but decades of consumer experience have imbued deeper meaning in them. For an ‘instant’ brand like the new Auckland logo, this is a worry as the only feelings that can be associated with it when immediately launched are those of Auckland itself – and the types of comments being made by many, and much other research I have seen over the years, are that Auckland is quite negatively viewed by many people (Aucklanders included).
Hence the many comments along the lines of the logo looking “tired and frayed around the edges – just like Auckland”. So on a rational basis, it appears weak. One only has to compare the Auckland Brand debate to the reception given to ‘Absolutely Positively Wellington’ to see just how far behind the Auckland option is.
On an emotional level the brand appears to work better, simply by dint of its polarising effect. Just like the last polarising symbol of Auckland to be launched – the
The fifth and final issue concerns the research behind any new logo. The Brand Auckland website outlines the nature of the research involved, citing “there's been a heap of research and talk about the new Auckland brand. We've consulted with the country's leaders, spoken to the man on the street and worked with the best-of-the-best”. Sure, include the mayors, community and business leaders, but the very nature of their positions makes them unrepresentative. It’s like developing a company brand by talking to the board and ignoring the staff at the coalface, or worse still, the customers (which is largely what has happened in this case.
A more attentive examination of the research approach indicates even more questionable work has been done. It appears to have been entirely internally conducted, yet having the research conducted by those with a vested interest in the results is hardly a recipe for objectivity. Like the woman who asks her partner “do I look fat in this?”, a completely honest and objective answer can be hard to come by. Unless you’re using truly expert, independent market research conducted by seasoned professionals with no vested interest in the outcome, you may as well toss a coin.
The quantitative skills of the researchers involves also seems to be wanting. The website smugly says “With apologies to the remaining 1.3 million Aucklanders, 4 million or so New Zealanders and 6 billion other citizens of the globe, we only managed to get the views of a few thousand of you.” However according to the research outline on the website, they actually only spoke to 434. The main survey element comprised an online survey of the Kiwi Expat Association, from which they got a response rate so poor (0.5%) that no professional researcher would place any credence in it at all. Nor is concentrating on such overseas based ex-pats, many of whom would not have visited Auckland for years and thus have an inaccurate idea of what Auckland is. This is hardly sound science when it is at the expense of locals who are best positioned to state what Auckland can acceptably claim to be.
Finally, we see that some 85 in-street “Vox pops” were used. Vox pops are the bubble gum of the research toolbox - great for soundbytes, but utterly useless for collecting considered opinions from a representative audience.
Good on Tourism Auckland for their objectives. They should not ditch the new brand regardless of these criticisms, and it could well gain acceptance over time. But acceptance cannot help but take longer when starting from behind, as has been the case for brand Auckland, based as it is on such flawed consultation.
Postscript: The designer behind the Auckland brand development has advised me that he highlighted the inadequacy of the research approach to his employer during the logo development process. That I and many others have chosen to critique the brand development vindicates his concerns.