I hold
strong impressions from the walls of the underground in London (and other
cities), a fundamental platform for one to keep up-to-date with the city’s
cultural offer. Now, imagine what would happen if all those cultural
organizations, competing among themselves and with other entities for people’s
attention, did not consider carefully their visual identity so that they would
stand out immediately and make a connection both with interested and especially
distracted individuals.
We tend
to associate the word ‘brand’ to a logo, but it’s much more than that. A brand
is who a cultural institution is. Or rather, a set of impressions in people’s
heads as to who that institution is: its contents, vision, aspirations,
principles, ideals and the causes it defends. A good brand knows the importance
of managing those impressions, works on that on a permanent basis and leaves
nothing to chance. It also understands the importance of asserting and
reinforcing those impressions at every point of contact with the people.
The logo
is the visual representation of the brand, its face. When well managed, it
immediately identifies the institution, it transmits and reinforces the
characteristics of its personality. This is why it is an important element in
making a brand stronger and this is also why its application should not be
neglected or considered secondary or even optional. Can you imagine a person
without a face? How would one relate to that person?
Thus,
either one is in the tube or in a bus, a poster promoting an exhibition or performance at,
let’s say the Victoria and Albert Museum or the Natural History Museum or the
Southbank Centre, is instantly recognized. It’s through the logo and the
graphic design in general that cultural institutions mark their presence and
mark their territory in the streets, a highly competitive platform, since the attention span
is truly limited and quite often the distance from where publicity is viewed
really long. This same logo and graphic design is then applied on all
promotional material (leaflets, postcards, exterior banners, invitations,
tickets, stationary) and platforms (website, social media). It’s by paying
attention at all the details on every touch point that good cultural brands
build relationships and optimize their communication with people.
From London
to Penafiel, in northern Portugal, the town’s Municipal Museum has been doing a
very good job in the field of communications and marketing. Having seriously
invested in the creation of a distinctive brand and respective visual identity
from the outset, the Museu Municipal de Penafiel has certainly defined its
personality and territory. From the museum facade to all promotional materials,
the ticket and even the email signature, one cannot miss who the invitation is
from... And although the municipality, in an effort to cut costs, decided to
put an end to the collaboration with the graphic designer, the museum realized
how important it is to continue defending and promoting its brand, so they are
doing their best to be faithful to the initial spirit and idea.
Another
interesting example in Portugal is that of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
A huge institution, and a huge brand, composed by a number of different
sub-brands (its museums, its music programme and various other programmes and
initiatives). The Foundation recently changed its logo. I truly liked the new
one from the first moment. Liking it came easy... It somehow kept a visual
connection to the 50-year-old (?) previous logo, but it has got a fresh and
contemporary flair. I also considered very brave the option to drop “Calouste”
or even “Fundação” from the name, as one has to admit that everyone just says
“Gulbenkian” (alhough the option is not applied to every version of the logo
and programme, and it’s not clear what the criteria is...).
What I
find rather problematic about the new logo is its application and the way I
believe it makes the Foundation’s communication with the outside world less
efficient. I understand that the idea is that the logo should somehow “float”
when applied in promotional materials. So it doesn’t appear on the top or at
the bottom, but somewhere in the middle. When one sees posters in the street,
ir rarely stands out, it's little expressive, one has to look for it to understand who the invitation
is from. Depending on the background (some Gulbenkian initiatives usually use
photos, others illustration), the logo might be more or less discreet, when it
actually doesn’t disappear all together
(the National Opera of Greece has taken a similar option regarding the position
of its logo, but its format is different, so its application becomes more
efficient – see the last slide in the presentation above). There were times I
wondered whether the background was chosen so that the logo might look better.
An additional problem, I find, is that it also obliges to
repeat in writing, on the same
material, “Calouste Gulbenkian Foundatio”, while the name also and inevitably
appears when the website is mentioned as well. The name Gulbenkian may, thus, appear
three times on the same poster (when, usually, the logo and website URL are enough).
What
prompted this whole essay on logos and visual identity, though, was this
ticket. Those more informed will know that this is a temporary exhibition at a
major portuguese national museum. Which is nowhere to be found....
This is a
permanent issue in the general communication of the Museu Nacional de Arte
Antiga, particularly in what involves partnerships in the presentation of
temporary exhinitions, but also due to the subordination of all national museums to
their tutelage, which imposes (I still can’t figure out why...) that their logo
must appear small, in the footer, where one usually expects and finds the logos
of supporting institutions. Thus, considering this latest exhibition - the
ticket being an extreme example of complete elimination of the museum’s
identity -, one sees posters in the street or picks up the leaflet and hardly
identifies the promoter and host. When at the museum, one can pick up some more
leaflets, of a different design, and has to make a real effort to understand
that they are presenting smaller temporary exhibitions at the museum (one of
them actually makes us think that the exhibition is in Madrid...). If people
have to look so hard, they won’t look at all, the message doesn’t pass. And if
the museum doesn’t affirm its position as promoter, organizer, host, it will be
considered by many as simply a venue for exhibitions.
It’s
enough for each one of us to consider his relationship to his favourite
brands – commercial, cultural, etc. – to realise that what has been discussed
here is no detail. Clear and efficient communication is fundamental for
cultural organizations in cretaing and asserting their personality and in
building a lasting relationship with people. Plus, the fact that people have
got a lot where to choose from makes it even more urgent to consider these
issues as professionally and thoroughly as possible.
More on
this blog:
No comments:
Post a Comment