Ask Not What Government Can Do
In the United States, Republicans argue that ‘spending’ must be cut, remaining vague on where the cuts ought to be. Meanwhile, Democrats rarely offer a strong defense of government’s strengths. In fact, the topic of the size of government is a red herring altogether. It’s very hard to imagine the government of a country of 300 million people being anything less than ‘large’. And there’d be nothing wrong with that if the government was well-run.
But as long as the debate remains on the topic of size, it won’t go into the topic of smarts. This is a sensitive topic yet again, and while I am in no way an efficiency expert, or a public policy wonk, I do know my way around corporate communication. In this heavily mediated world, government as a class of organization in the US fails terribly.
- Stephen Colbert poking fun at various agencies of the Federal Government. The cacophony is obvious.
While corporations spend billions of dollars on branding and communication, government seems somehow shackled to spend as little as possible, which leaves it effectively out of the arena of ideas, images, sounds.
An American is faced with cacophony of symbols, convoluted acronyms, obscure and clichéd seals when interacting with its government. The experience is pretty much guaranteed to be lackluster.
One of the main problem with America’s perception of government is the lack of cohesive communication by government agencies. So many structures work at improving people’s lives, but there is no clear message detailing this success.Faced with the realization of how much our income goes to government entities, citizens seem unable to justify the personal expense. In contrast, when an iPhone user pays a fat AT&T bill, he clearly knows what he’s paying for, and a quick look at the logo on the back of the device will remind him.
Associating a symbol to an experience is at the very core of the branding process.
Growing up Canadian
This observation is partly inspired by childhood in Canada, where both the federal and provincial governments understood the importance of cohesive visual identity programs. The 1965 institution of the Maple Leaf flag, a very modernist design in its own rights, corresponded with the establishment of identity guidelines, which continues to be a strong system that breathes authority, consistency and efficiency – all things desirable from a well-functioning government. In 1969, a Task Force on Government Information reported that “the government is failing to make its presence known and that important federal programs are being carried out without the public being aware of their sponsorship.” By 1970, the Federal ldentity Program was created.
The ‘Canada’ wordmark, set in Baskerville with a small flag above the third ‘a’, the flag, and the rigid typographic system utilizing Helvetica is both simple and elegant.
In Canada, I’m greeted with the calm, efficient face of the Canadian government, in the form of standard gray signs adorned with the red flag. Any visit to a government agency from unemployment office to passport agency, the same sign presented itself.
This clarity of communication means the tax-payer is perfectly aware of the impact of their dollars delivered to the government.
At every interaction, the government clearly brands its services with a wordmark; in the case of Québec, it’s the Fleurdelysé flag and Friz Quadrata customized wordmark, or, in the case of Ontario, it’s the trillium logo, a simplified drawing of the provincial flower.
A consistent system across the country allows each new government service to be clearly branded. This national reach offers significant cost-savings, as new departments are not require to rethink livery design, stationery design, or seal design, with the introduction of any new service. The initial cost of developing the system is easily returned by the cost savings over time.
So could all that’s standing between a better understanding and appreciation of government be some good communication? Well, maybe. If citizens have a clearer idea of the impact of their tax dollars, both the government and its constituents win.
- An ambulance in Montréal, a service clearly paid for by the Québec government
- The Jacques-Cartier Bridge, maintained by the Canadian Government
Los Angeles Metro
While visiting Los Angeles for the first time in 2009, I was surprised to find the local transit agency, Metro – the third largest in the country –branded with a clear identity including a beautiful livery system with color-codes for each service (Local, Rapid, Express).
I was struck by a government agency utilizing design to sell public transportation to arguably one of the most car-happy cities in the U.S. I contacted Metro’s Creative Director, Michael Lejeune. 
He explained the setup of the identity program: Lejeune was recruited by a new CEO to be the new Communications Director. He would only accept the position on the condition that his title be executive position (Chief Communications Officer), with sufficient budget to compete with car companies, that spend millions of dollar selling an alluring lifestyle.
Once Lejeune and another designer were brought on board, they set out to create an own-able mark (the previous Metro symbol was so generic that it could not be trademarked) and an aesthetic that would position Metro as a viable alternative. A comprehensive ad campaign poking fun at car culture, and consistent communication through typical channels resulted in opinion polls exhibiting a 40% increase in user perception of efficiency, frequency and quality of service, even though at that time, there were no significant changes made to these areas. The improved perception of Metro locally eventually contributed to changing perceptions of mass transit in the city. Effects include the passage of L.A. County’s half-cent sales tax increase, known as ‘Measure R’, which is bringing over $40 billions in new transit funding, and the approval of the Westside Subway Extension, which had traditionally been opposed by the wealthy cities on its path, Beverly Hills chief among them. Of course hundreds of dedicated public servant worked towards its success, but it is interesting to consider the impact coherent communication contributed.
Obviously, one could argue that organizations can only look as good as their operations allow, and that clearly the U.S. government is often dysfunctional. But as we keep considering the challenges that face this nation, and that ultimately everybody stands to benefit from a well-run government, it’s time for the government to communicate in a manner that helps its citizen better understand the benefits afforded.
“Maybe we can show government how to operate better as a result of better architecture.”
Frank Lloyd Wright
It’s not the “size” of government that critics have an issue with, it’s reach. Government can be expected to grow at the rate comparable to the population, but our government not only “grows” but it balloons at a rate many multiples greater than the population.
It’s not a matter of “smart government” versus “large government.” It’s the nature of the state to expand its own power at the expense of defenseless citizens. The state, after all, is the primary source of income for people. We all want higher incomes so it is perfectly reasonable for the people within government to agitate for ever increasing funding, regardless of need or performance. Because citizens are rationally ignorant (to use Anthony Downs’ term) we have no way of investigating the many millions of tiny increases every year and government grows beyond our control.
It is not a branding issue, or even an organizational issue. If the state is to exist, it must be severely constrained, if reasonable constraints cannot be erected then the state shouldn’t be erected in the first place!
I’m an art director working in one of NYCs most successful ad agencies, so I wholeheartedly agree with your approach to communications and branding. The nature of commercial interaction is the voluntary exchange of goods and services that make both parties better off. However, because the nature of government is to tax you against your will I find it rather insulting for them to turn around “sell” you an image and communications platform. It’s like “hey, look at how great our new transit system branding is!” to which I might respond, “wow, that’s wonderful that you did that with my money but I had no choice in the matter and I don’t ride the buses.”
My position is really not as rough as it sounds at first. We’re all taught that our government is “us” and that it “helps” us. Once you realize that neither of those things are true, it really shifts your perspective.
I appreciate that someone is thinking about these things and writing strong, well reasoned articles on the subject of communications and government.
Cheers.
no, then gradually let some of the vcesiers back because special funding comes from some magic governement (state or federal). Do you realize how really user unfriendly public transportation in St. Louis is? Every aspect is bad. First we have busses that don’t announce stops unless a person requests. Next we have the limited fares (other cities, you can buy an all day any direction pass) that have to be stamped’ or a fine is assessed. (Duh if one is in possesion of a ticket, one has already paid the fair.) Then we have the issue of stolen state property really don’t know why everyone just rolls over on this! There are 2 stations on the campus of UMSL. Part of the original agreement was for students to get free access to bus/link service in exchange for the buses coming on and through campus as well as the link stops. Tax breaks are given, property is not maintained (heavy busses do cause road damage) by Metro/bistate or whatever ya’ll calling yourselves today, but rather they are maintained by the university , again at the taxpayer’s expense. We have long known Bi-State/Metrolink to be corrupt taking kickbacks n what not from lord knows where! (How much are you paying’ google to farm out the service????) Let’s think back to the 80s when so called top secret documents were destroyed office papers were picked up for destruction. While being loaded, an offical had to watch the truck/driver and then follow that truck back to the shredding site. That offical had to stay and watch while papers were shredded (we are talking giant industrial shredders, nothing that would fit in an office). Just what sort of documents would need to be shredded personnell records might make sense, but considering these so called proprietary documents were placed in special containers (giant blue trashcan like bins with no lid). There would also not be nearly 1 ton (literally) of papers every month (sometimes 2ce a month). Also doesn’t make sense, escpecially when considering other documents handled at the facility were from sensitive places such as the federal or local governments, local universities, and banks. (And yes some of those did have special handling requirements on how the documents were mill baled or shredded and how shredded materials could be recycled or to whom it could be reclcyled to. For example, federal governement documents could be mill baled but not mixed with any other industrial paperwork. (Mill baling is sorting paper by type and then sending the bales of paper to the appropriate mill facility to wash it down and make new paper products.) Once baled, it had to be stored in a double sealed truck trailer. There’s more to it, but I think you get the point why would Bi-state/Metro need such high security on thier shredded documents!?!? Seems like several years ago, there was some sort of scandal regarding the higher ups at this organization and how they were being personally funded I can’t remember all the details, so won’t get into that. I guess the point I want to make is where is the accountability to your employers both the user and the taxpayer? How do we justify farming out vcesiers to google who doesn’t contribute back to our community. The whole cycle of things users and taxpayers support the system. In turn, the system puts money into the community St. Louis metro area by employing people who also pay taxes. We need to get it right you should really hear what people say about our transportation they are laughing at us!! People from as close as Chicago or KC and as far as France.
I talked to the head of corp. ID for Canada a way back (he was a NSCAD grad) and said there’s 10,000 print vendors that the fed’s stuff gets output from, so it’s Baskerville and Akzidenz – k.i.s.s. Kinda nice we let in all those euros in the 60s to run things here. (Well, some of the bigger cities. That’d be 3 of them).