Should Government Spend Taxpayer Dollars On "Branding"

Once upon a time branding referred to: A process by which companies sought to "stand out" from their competition by establishing positive and specific customer perceptions. That is the original meaning of the term, but it's gotten lost, as "branding" has become the "buzz"word of the new millennium.

Governments are jumping into the branding fray with renewed vigor, but the question that is often lost with government process is WHY?

In a time of fiscal struggles, why is government so concerned with it? Does it "fit" for public agencies? How does government branding actual benefit citizens?

We'll look at the arguments, but you should know that buzz words usually come with the majority of comments supporting the "buzz".

The Pro's Of Government Branding

Since I'm against government trying to act like a private company, due to its different role and mission, I'm not the person to ask, so if you want a discussion on why government should be branding, look at this discussion on govloop.

The Argument Against:

If branding was free, and did not cost resources and actualy money, it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, it does cost signficant money. Here are some reasons why government should NOT be spending money on this.

• There is generally no competition for government services. RIght there, since the definition refers to "standing out from competitors", there is no reason to brand, unless there are competitors.
• One argument put forth is that governments need to establish brands to "help" citizens identify reliable sources for information -- i.e. so that government is the "go to" guy for information. It's a reasonable argument until you realize that citizens already know where to go for government information -- to government sites. Since government installations are easily find in search engines, and identified as such by the *.gov extension, branding is unnecessary.
• There's probably no question that NASA is the best branded government agency (along with the FBI). People know both. The know what they do. They know how to find them. So, WHY? Who cares? One could argue that NASA needs branding to justify its budget, but that's not branding. That's about lobbying, and public relations which is different from branding.
  
  The ultimate question we have to ask, and should always ask in government is WHY. If government can't answer this question in a way that relates to their fulfillment of their mandates, they have no business spending more money on it.

The Exceptions: When Government Should Brand

There are a lot of exceptions -- and those exceptions make sense because there is a clear why.

• Government Sponsored Events: When government sponsors events, particularly those that compete in the market place for citizen participation, and when those events create revenue flow, branding satisfies the requirement that there be competitors from which one wants to distinguish oneself.
• Government Related Locations: Governments run various public parks, for example, which compete for citizen involvement and participation. The branding of those -- often tourist attractions, makes sens, because it helps those facilities "stand out".
• Local & State Governments That Compete WIth Each Other: It's odd to think that governments actually compete with each other,but they do. For example a ski resort in Aspen competes for tourism visitors with other locations. By branding, or standing out, governments work to bring money into communities. Likewise, branding can work for local and state governments looking to attract industry and economic development.

Available Information About Branding In The Public Sector