by frog
Nick Smith reckons the Department of Conservation (DoC) is about to spend $2.3 million re-branding [RNZ mp3 podcast] itself, just months after laying off 60 workers to save money. DoC disputes that and says the figure is in the tens of thousands of dollars rather than millions. But that doesn’t really change the underlying point. DoC is a government department. Why does it need a brand? It’s not trying to sell us anything. It just looks after stuff for us. It would be like our parents deciding to lay off half their staff and then re-brand as Mum-Corp (‘more than just picking up clothes’).
It seems to me that we spend ages telling the public sector how good, virtuous and efficient the private sector is and then when the public sector does emulate the private sector we realise just how specious that stereotypical generalisation actually is.
I’m in favour of government departments having a public relations component to their work, and in DoC’s case promoting conservation messages to the public. But do we really need corporate style marketing from an organisation that isn’t competing to sell us pointless items of stuff?
Al Morrison described the exercise as “DoC is going up a gear”but then reassured listeners that “We’re pretty good at working on number 8 wire”. I wonder if the advertising agency will be as used to working with number 8 wire as the recently sacked workers?
Image credit (some DoC marketing from USA): Don Harrison
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, August 14th, 2008
Tags: al morrison, branding, Department of Conservation, Nick Smith
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I’ve just been on DOCs website. Their current brand looks pretty good to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don’t worry frog, by re-branding they mean their staff are going to have a shave from the”environmental” to the “goatie” and they are going to make their shorts 3/4 pants!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I heard Al Morrison say is that they wanted to get the message out to New Zealanders that DoC isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity. This isn’t rebranding, this is trying to wake up the average lethargic New Zealander who believes everything should be done for them and they shouldn’t get off their rear and do some things for themselves. “Why don’t they do something about the possum problem, etc?” we constantly hear. Here’s a novel idea – do something yourselves. Isn’t this the same message (that conservation isn’t a luxury) that the Greens are trying to get across?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some simple type numbers from private sector experience (all numbers approximate)
Agency fees for developing a new logo and tag line $150,000
Cost of replacing all business cards and other paper based branding $500,000
Cost of re-branding ‘stores’ $20,000 per store (read ‘location’ for store)
Cost of re-branding head office, including web pages, etc., $1,000,000
Cost of parties to launch new branding $50,000
Value of re branding – zero in terms of stakeholder value, vast in terms of CEO’s ego.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Agreed.
What on earth do government departments need brands for? They aren’t competing with anyone, and everyone knows who they are already.
They are DOC.
My perception now is that they are incompetent egomaniacs who appear to have lost the plot. Same goes for any government department who feel the need to “brand”, using our money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Woah Blue Peter. The branding of government departments and the requirement that they ‘compete’ and show a profit in the commercial sense is a product of the National Party’s so called reforms of the ’90s.
While I heartily agree that ‘branding’ is an unnecessary exercise for govt departments, it is exactly what we used to get every time we swapped between Labour and National under FPP. Neither party has seen fit to put an end to this nonsense. We also expanded the number and pay of civil servants, now called CEOs and Board Members, while also increasing the pay of others by firing and then outsourcing specialists so that we could pay them more for the same service they used to provide in-house.
It is disingenuous for either Labour or National to complain now about spiralling costs in the civil service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What makes you think I agree with everything any political party does? I vote for the least worst.
I agreed with you, Frog. You are correct on this issue, in my view.
After all, I don’t think government has any place being in “business” in the first place…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Question – what politicians have a business interest in the production of 1080?
Maybe the logo could be – Department of Native Bird Murderers !!!!!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What do you mean exactly? What does MED, MSD, DOC etc compete on?? They provide the type of government services that are *never* commercialised, so what would they compete on? I was under the impression that the government departments didn’t compete – more State Owned Enterprises that sold something, like Meridian energy…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Re-branding can be good for a number of reasons but a lot of companies spend way too much money on it. That goes double for government departments who should be spending the minimum possible to get the job done.
Put it out to high school students as a competition to design the new DOC logo. You could do it for less than $30,000, schools love that sort of thing, and you get a new generation thinking about DOC, the services they provide, etc.
You update your business cards and signage when they need replacing anyway. For a government department to look like they’re saving money is better than to look like they’re all flash (and flush) with brand new signs and logos and heaps of taxpayer money to throw away.
Well, that’s how I’d do it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What I heard Al Morrison say is that they wanted to get the message out to New Zealanders that DoC isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity.”
Oh, and why would a government department want to get that message out in an election year? I smell a rat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)