16th July 2004, at BMW Edge, Fed Square
Character took place hosted by Stephen Banham, with Andrew Haig (oneplusoneequalsthree.com and post grad lecturer at Swinburne); Jeremy Wortsman (Is Not Magazine, publication designer and also from NY); Ian Dryden (worked on City of Melbourne signages) and Vincent Lazzara (Bluetorch, design branding company) as panelists.
Character

The debate circled around whether Melbourne can be ‘branded’.

Firstly, the current branding for Melbourne, like the example they kept on referring to was, ‘That’s Me!lbourne”. Ian and Vincent were suggesting that ‘branding’ was essentially for commercial reasons, aimed at bringing in tourist dollar and businesses to invest in the city. Andrew said that ‘That’s Me!’ branding worked for him, as it was open enough for him to suggest the reasons why he loved Melbourne. I don’t really see it from his perspective, only because ‘That’s Me! Melbourne’ is a sentence that doesn’t make sense to me. Why is Melbourne Me?

Some of the audience were concerned that the over-emphasis on commercial factors didn’t seem to echo any cultural/social factors. Some were saying that, “That’s Me!” branding didn’t resonate with how they felt about Melbourne, and in fact, didn’t capture any of the diversity of cultures and rich tapestry of the city at all.

This form of branding seems to works by over-simplifying ‘clients’ message, by reducing it to a ‘personality’ that’s supposed to have an emotional resonance with the target market. I think this reductive process is where the ‘branding’ argument for Melbourne hasn’t worked with those who know and love Melbourne. It’s become too commercial and too detached from the social and cultural aspects of the city.

So, following this argument, could branding be diverse, complex and richly layered? Could branding encompass the social/cultural concerns, or is it commercially driven to the point that it cannot embrace both?

Stuart put this question forward, and I wasn’t entirely sure what Vincent was trying to say. I followed with another question, that perhaps to be more ’social’, could the branding of Melbourne focus on stripping away advertising in the city, to give more room and space to the city?

I remember when I visited the Millenium Dome in 2000 (white elephant for UK tax-payers and incredibly commercial and London-centric) and was really disappointed with the site and entertainments offered inside until I came to the one hosted by Marks and Spencers (I think…). Their exhibition was a room filled with photographs. They had given people disposable cameras, and asked them to take photos that represented UK. Some were mugs of tea, their favourite pubs, their homes, families, royalty souveniers, cats, and from memory, I remember being overwhelmed by the diversity of images that were there… it captured UK in a way that couldn’t have been possible by any one logo or branding tool.

In this way, I think branding doesn’t necessarily have to be reductive. I don’t think it should be so abstract to cater for the ‘lowest common denominator’ and which looses resonance with people. Vincent’s presentation seemed like an effective formula for branding if it was marketing a toothpaste, but for a city, I think one cannot exclude the socio/cultural richness and diversity it holds. His formula seemed too simplistic and ruthlessly two-dimensional.

Even though the forum was accessible by the public, I assumed that most of the audience were designers (students and practitioners). What was encouraging though, was the comments and questions raised by the audience that related to design’s role in society. I think designers are continuing to question the way in which we can embrace concerns other than commercial imperatives in the way design relates to people.