Change Communications

A recent question posted to the Melcrum Communicators Network, raised the issue of using logos to brand internal projects. Some say too many logos can create confusion.

Below is my reply. I believe that there are cases when a new image and identity can be a very useful tool, in particular when communicating on a major, strategic corporate change programme.

I would say it greatly depends on the context. I worked on a major change project for a multi-national company where the company identity and colours were very consistently used in their internal communications.

Our project followed a previous attempt that had been a very costly failure. So we intentionally wanted to create a very different and clearly identifiable image and logo. The project was also of considerable strategic importance so we wanted it to stand apart from other projects going on at the same time.

Given that the corporate colours at the time were dark blue and grey, which we felt were quite conservative and understated, we chose bright, bold colours (orange with dark blue text as a link back to the corporate colours) and a dynamic pattern to reflect the modern, innovative nature of our project.

That said, as a consumer of internal communications myself (in a different company), I am definitely sensitive to the notion of too many competing logos and colours. If there is logo and project name overload, I feel this can really detract from the overall message.

Nicholas

EDIT 9/11/2006: Two further points surfaced in the course of the discussion and are interesting to note.

• It is important to ensure any project identity and logo does not contradict corporate branding policies. We followed the guidelines in place and ran all our proposals by the corporate communication director for his approval.
• Be very careful about who has access to the project identity and logo. On one occasion I discovered the logo had been re-used for a different purpose with the main colour altered. We put a stop to this immediately. But it does prove that once a logo is out there it can take on a life of its own. Like a sharp knife it can be a very effective tool, but out of control it can be quite dangerous.

Lee Smith, from Talking Internal Communication, made a great point about the role of strategy in our line of work. I recommend you check it out:

Chewing on Crescenzo’s nuggets

Below are my thoughts on the subject. You can also view the full discussion in the comments section at the end of Lee’s post.

Hi Lee,I really enjoyed reading this post and what you had to say about strategy compared to “practical ideas” (tactics and channels).

For me, I find it a balancing act: one can not go without the other. But I do find that, as consultants in particular, it can be easy to over-privilege the relative security provided by theories and strategies, especially when presenting ourselves to clients or colleagues.

I was given a humbling reminder of this at an internal presentation that I was recently asked to give with a colleague. The brief was to explain the value of change management and in particular my recent work on communications in large-scale IT deployments, to a hall of approx. 300 experienced IT consultants and engineers.

For a while we considered using the usual stock of graphs and matrices that describe emotional reaction to change and possible change and communication strategies to address this. However, my colleague and I both felt that this approach just didn’t sit right with us. Instead we decided to take a risk and try something different. We started our presentation with a practical exercise where we made the audience interact and experience a real change so that they could relate to how stakeholders would feel when we came and changed their “ordered universe”. We then went on to illustrate the kind of practical tools and tactics that, from our experience, could be used to communicate and facilitate this change.

We were completely stunned by the round of applause that we received at the end of our presentation (very rare in our department meetings!). After the presentation, I was even more surprised by the reaction of my colleagues: for many it was the first time that they had understood the value of what we did in concrete, practical terms.

For me, it was a reminder that even though theory and strategies underpinned our work, it is the tools, channels, tactics and ultimately the results that we are judged by. What we had put in place, and what had appealed to our audience could not be implemented without any understanding of the theories and strategy behind it. The two go hand-in-hand.

Just a couple of thoughts on the subject, I look forward to further discussions.

Nicholas