Editorial Opinion By Brad Rourke: I Feel Branded
Jan 26, 2011 13:17 - 10 Comments
Now that a decision has been made on whether Our Fair City will move forward with a branding effort (it will) and what that brand and tagline will be (“Get Into It“), it is time to look forward and try to create a positive and compelling image for Rockville.
However, before doing so, I feel it is important to shine a light on an aspect of how the branding effort unfolded that is unfortunate.
Click for full size
Those who read my earlier discussion of the branding effort, and how underwhelmed I was with the offerings, may think I am simply miffed because I don’t like the result. It is true that I hate the wimpy and stilted “get into it” tagline and find the logo’s “R” too clip-arty and the squiggle under it too generic — and find the combination of all of these elements to be a potential embarrassment when we begin to implement it.
(To prove how little influence I have, in my earlier article I wrote, “If any decision makers are reading this, I beg of you, please do not go with [this] tagline.”)
However, now that I have made my unequivocal statement I’ll set it aside.
Instead, what I feel it is worthwhile to focus on at this juncture is the process, because I hope we can take steps not to repeat it.
An Opportunity Squandered
The development of a new brand for a community — indeed, for any institution or organization — is an opportunity to boost morale, re-establish loyalty, and enthuse people with hope for the future. It’s also an opportunity to build resentment, foster derision, and drive people away. The way this process unfolded tended to make the latter true.
I was proud and pleased to be a part of the small committee that made initial recommendations for a consultant on this project to the Mayor and Council. ROI knows what it is doing when it comes to developing branding messages. But I don’t think they have exhibited great knowledge of what it takes to engage a community, at least not in our case.
The process used is well-described in the agenda notice for the most recent Mayor and Council meeting. There were really two points where the effort reached out to the public — at a “Day One Meeting” with a handful of community leaders, and then during a “public outreach” phase after the three options were presented to the Mayor and Council.
While on paper this might look workable, in practice it seemed to become engagement in name only.
In the first place, it was clear from the presentation of the three options that the overriding factor in brand development was the demographic research that the consulting company had done. Such research is important — hugely — but it is not the only thing that matters. There was no sense that anything that was heard in the Day One meeting (or a subsequent meeting with REDI) was a strong part of the thinking going into the options presented. In presenting initial concepts to the Mayor and Council, the consultant simply pointed out that there was little consensus among people and that they had seemingly false impressions of where they live.
So far, I guess, OK. I would have liked to see a more authentic sense of inclusion, but I supposed the consulting company is comprised of experts and certainly we must rely on that expertise.
Where the process really fell down was in this most recent “public input” phase. One thing I have learned in my professional life is that, if you test something with the public, you had better be willing to listen to feedback and make changes or corrections. As I write this, I am on the plane returning from a public test of a discussion guide that is planned for wide release. We thought it was complete. Yet, based on what we heard in tests, we are going to alter it to improve it. This is standard practice. I have gone back to the drawing board many times, as a result of public input.
In the case of our Rockville brand, the public input phase — which should have included multiple public meetings where people could actually discuss the “brand” but which instead consisted almost entirely of an online survey and invitations for people to give written comments — resulted in an overwhelming “meh.” The winning option won out by only one vote in the online survey, ahead of None Of The Above.
Don’t Ask Me If You Don’t Care
And yet, when it came time to present the results of public input to the Mayor and Council, the same three options were presented, with no changes whatsoever. When Councilmember Bridget Donnell Newton pressed the consultant on this, he replied that the public input phase was for input, not for responding to that input. (What?)
So, in essence, the public input was ignored and the consultant simply restated the original three options.
In fact, the consultant mentioned that one thing that was suggested, turning “The” into “A” in the first option, might be workable, but that instead of even making that change he would go with the original.
In response to this, the Mayor and Council, after very brief discussion, chose the least favored option to move forward with, on a vote of 3-2.
In other words, in the very apt words of a Rockville Central commenter: “Let’s see if I have this right. After the citizen survey, the council 1) carefully evaluated the results of the survey, then 2) one councilmember moved we adopt the THIRD (last) choice, so 3) you have an up/down vote on adopting the third choice. As a citizen, next time don’t ask me if you don’t care.”
The result of this, is to create mistrust. The next time citizens are asked for their “input,” it would be reasonable for them to worry that it was just window dressing and would be perfunctorily invited and ultimately strongly ignored.
I am not arguing that the “will of the people” must be followed — just that it must be considered and not summarily rejected.
A Change For The Better
I hate to leave this on a negative note, so let me suggest a change for the way we handle such efforts in the future.
The next time a consultant is engaged on an issue where public input is seen as useful, I suggest we build these things into the process and the contract:
- Research phase:
- The public input should involve at least three public meetings to which all are welcome and invited
- The input should include at least two focus groups of 8-12 residents that are recruited randomly
- The consultant should explain in initial concept presentation how this input relates to the product presented
- Development and testing phase:
- Again, public input should include at least two public meetings (not just a survey)
- The consultant should be directed to take public input into account and edit or alter the initial work, explaining the linkage between input and changes, or justifying why no changes are needed
This will add time and some cost to efforts such as the one we just completed. But it will save money in the longer run — and potentially save the public trust that is all too easily squandered when people are asked for their opinion and then ignored.
(Want an example? Take a look at the development process for the Rockville Pike Plan, that Cindy Cotte Griffiths has been following. This is a process that has had robust public involvement and has resulted in a plan that has energy behind.)
Couldn’t have written it better myself (Well, maybe I could have.)!
I completely agree. If the choice selected was one vote more than ‘none of the above’ why it is being implemented?
It is my opinion that the elephant in the room in this situation is the fact the three men voted in opposition to the two women. For another recent example, look at the vote on the Pumphrey Funeral Home parking lot issue just a month ago. The staff recommended against approving a text amendment that would allow Pumphrey’s to construct a parking lot on an adjoining lot because the proposal was an expansion of a nonconforming use. The proposed text amendment was at odds with the intent of the ordinance, which was to have nonconforming uses eventually cease and be replaced with uses allowed in the zone. The Planning Commission voted against approval, as did the Historic District Commission. Many, many citizens spoke out in opposition to passing it. Yet Gajewski, Pierzchala and Britton voted for the amendment, Marcuccio and Newton against.
There has been vote after vote divided 3 to 2, with the three men on the council in the majority. After a while one has to ask (well, I ask) if this is pure coincidence, or is something else in play.
I think back on the 2007 election, when Mr. Gajewski was first elected to the Council. The first thing he did as a new councilman was to line up three votes to overturn the decision made by the previous council to keep twice a week trash collection. Given this is an election year, and if enough people are embarrassed by being told to “get into it”, you might want to look for three new councilmembers that can end your embarrassment and that value your opinion. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Wow, that’s stunning. That’s like Sarah Palin claiming to be a feminist, while simultaneously whining about being persecuted by femi-nazis.
The fact is that Phyllis Marcuccio and Bridget Newton essentially ran together as a coalition, and Mr. Jordan was Ms. Marcuccio’s campaign manager as well as being a close ally of Ms. Newton. Both ladies have very deliberate agendas and constituencies that are reflected in the ways that they vote. In fact, I can’t recall an issue or motion where they have not both voted similarly, and on a occasions I’ve heard Ms. Marcuccio exclaim “well, I hate to agree with Mr. Gajewski, but…” And it’s the allies of the Marcuccio/Newton coalition who continually emphasize the 3-2 split and loudly threaten the dissenters.
Our previous mayor was female, but she was defeated by the Marcuccio/Newton coalition. Cheryl Kagan lost against Jennie Forehand. Women as politicians are no longer an anomaly, and they should not be treated like delicate violets. As a woman, I find it appalling when sex and gender are hauled into a political issue in order to reinforce something that has no connection to it.
Mr. Jordan has hit a new low in his mudslinging. Now Councilmembers Britton, Pierzchala and I are implied to be sexist when we voted to award an asphalt contract to a company that fixes Rockville’s potholes (Mayor Marcuccio and Councilmember Newton voted against, without offering any reason) or when we voted to renew the City Manager’s contract (Mayor Marcuccio and Councilmember Newton voted against, with the Mayor giving no reason at all, and Councilmember Newton stating that she disagreed with the length of the term of the contract).
As I reread my comment above, I see that I wasn’t clear in what I was implying. I certainly did not mean the voting is sexist nor is any councilmember sexist, and I apologize for not being clear. Using the terms “men” and “women” was a shortcut to writing the names of the councilmembers, and obviously not a very good one.
What I was trying to point out was that most of the votes ending in a three to two split had Councilmembers Gajewski, Pierzchala and Britton in the majority, with Mayor Marcuccio and Councilmember Newton in the minority.
Again, I apologize for the poor wording, and to repeat, I did not mean to imply there is any sexism on the part of any councilmembers.
Ah yes, the 2007 trash debate! I remember it well. I remember a guy named Piotr Gajewski, who I had never met and whose name I had trouble pronouncing, introducing himself before the start of Citizen’s Forum and asking if he could sit beside me. I said sure, if he didn’t mind being targeted by the Real Rockville crowd for sitting next to Rocktrash. He plopped down next to me, and during Citizen’s he proceeded to announce his support for once weekly trash service, saying something to the effect that this isn’t rocket science, it’s just trash, why can’t the Council make a simple decision. I also remember him promising several times throughout the campaign to revisit the trash issue and start once weekly trash service. And true to his word, that was the first thing he did after the election. I like politicians who say what they mean and do what they promise.
As it turned out, the supporters of once weekly service were right about the benefits of once weekly service, none of the dire predictions of the dissenters came true, and each household has saved almost $350 (and still counting) while receiving first rate service. I can get into this kind of representation.
One more piece of history. The vote to start once weekly service was 4-1, with Council woman Anne Robbins casting the 4th vote. Her vote was a class act, which I will always remember as a lesson in politics. The lone vote against the proposal was then Council woman Marcuccio. No need to amplify.
Wow, way for the city leaders to COMPLETELY ignore what little community input there was.
“Get into it”??? It’s about as hip as “Right on”, “Dig it”, “Groovy”, and “Tubular”. Even “Rightous” would be a little more modern.
Ignoring community input using $75,000 of community money is not something I can get into.
*Sigh*
Its great knowing that parking at our new city garages is not free-of-charge after 8pm, but we have $75K to spend on some squiggily lines and colors.
Municipal Debt: Get into it !
Maybe it’s not so bad, after all. We could all go into denial by going around singing one of both of these songs: Nicole Scherzinger’s “Get Into It” and/or Phantom Planet’s “Get Into It.” and forget about the cost of the consultation; the upcoming election; if there’s any voting alliance(s), on the City Council; if there’s any sexism; the process, which could have included, as Brad suggested, a research phase, with public hearings and focus groups, and the consultant explaining how the input relates to the product presented; a development phase, with at least two public hearings (not just a survey), and the consultant taking this input into account and explaining why changes are being made or why no changes are being made. All of this sounds really complicated and like hard work, rather than just singing a song or two.
Maybe it’s more, in the spirit of civic responsibility, just to sing one or both of the two “Get Into It” songs (There might even be more than these two.) and whistle into the wind. Isn’t that another song, “The Answer My Friend, Is Blowin’ In the Wind,” which we could all sing to help us be oblivious to a community-involved process, such as the one Brad suggested. For deciding outcomes of important issues, we could all just become songsters. I love music. We could elect the best singers and songwriters, in the City, next election. The political process, if done with the electorate involved, is hard work; that’s no fun. Singing and songwriting is. I guess I’m going to vote for having fun, next election.