To brand or not to brand that is the question

City Vision Councillor on the Auckland Council, Dr Cathy Casey is concerned at the development of Waterfront Auckland’s new logo and asks why the CCOs don’t use the council’s pohutukawa to stay linked to the council and their funding source, the ratepayers of Auckland

There have been huge debates on cost and effectiveness with almost every council branding exercise. In 2007, there were ructions when Auckland City Council decided to introduce a new wavy blue triangle logo. Around the same time, the Auckland City Council did a bit of cleansing of rogue branding within their stable. The Zoo and the Art Gallery kept their distinctive logos, but out went the brands for Parking Services and the Libraries. The Council’s rationale was that the public needed to know that it was ratepayers’ money that was funding these council functions.

In 2008 when the raggy orange “A” was launched as Auckland’s “destination brand” there was more controversy. The public was polarised.

In 2009, the new Auckland Council logo design was revealed. The stylised pohutukawa design was designed by retired commercial artist Jim Dean of Manukau and won Jim a trophy and $10,000. The design won public approval because it is readily understandable and cheap. The judging panel was fulsome in its public praise for the new design. Head judge, Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey told media “The pohutukawa design submitted by Jim Dean was the clear, stand-out winner. It’s a stunning design. We love it.”

“Nine months into the first term of the Auckland Council, I am irked by the branding issue all over again. One of our CCOs has already developed its own separate logo and it is none other than Waterfront Auckland and CEO Bob Harvey who is driving it. Council has not been asked for an opinion,” Dr Casey says.

“I am also angry that the raggy “A” is the only sign of the $100 million that Auckland ratepayers have poured into the Rugby World Cup. Matters came to a head for me when I attended the opening of the Film Festival. I was disappointed at the raggy “A” is all that represents ratepayer sponsorship in the festival’s brochure. I was doubly disappointed when the Festival Chairman in his opening speech gave profuse thanks to The Edge and ATEED and never mentioned Auckland Council.

“Auckland council has an acceptable logo. If there is to be recognition for financial investment it should be used, it is ratepayers’ money that is being invested. Similarly, if the seven CCOs need to be branded, let them also use with the Council’s pohutukawa. They are after all COUNCIL controlled organisations. Financial investment by the CCOs is financial investment by the ratepayers of Auckland” Councillor Casey concluded.

Note: To be discussed at the Council’s CCO Strategy Review Subcommittee tomorrow (26 July) at 3pm. Link to agenda: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/meetings_agendas/committees/Pages/ccostrategyapptsubcommittee.aspx