Dunwoody Branded Signage - "When You're In a Hurry, Slow Down"

That was a piece of advice I got when working in a research lab in grad school.  The point being, if you don't have time to do something right the first time, you really don't have time to do it over if you screw up.

IMHO, the City did the right thing in suspending the signage plan in light of the public response.

When the branding initiative combined with the CVB and Chamber of Commerce was announced, I had some serious reservations about it for different reasons.  I made them known to TPTB (*The Powers That Be).  Then, because I like my job and want to keep it, I put my personal feelings aside and attended to the task at hand:  making the new branding standards function in the Chamber website and other online outreach.

I learned to be very objective, very detached, very quickly.

So with that background in mind, I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate here and go on record saying that I don't think the branding as it has been applied thus far, or the signage proposed, was as bad as some claim.  It's not perfect, it needs work, there were some clear missteps along the way, but in the grand scheme, it's not the Hindenberg.

I don't know any creative professional who has not experienced this scenario at least once:  you consult with your client or director, you come up with rough concepts, you flesh them out using every emotional technique in the book, your concept comes to life and the client loves it.  It does everything it's supposed to do, it applies to every contingency and situation.  The colleagues love it.  There's buy-in from everyone on the client's roster.  Then it goes for initial review to the general public, you're so happy with the accomplishment and proud to show it to the world.  And then...

...it totally bombs.

Initial public review is a big, fat thumbs-down.  It's enough to make your question your profession and your life.  It's frustrating.  And no entity or enterprise or corporation is so high-and-mighty that it can't happen to them.  Even Coca-Cola got a galaxy-sized dose of humility with its meticulously-crafted, perfectly researched "New Coke" formula and campaign.

But it happens.  It's part of the creative industry.  I wanted to give the reps from both these organizations a big hug and expound on how much I understand.  I can think of some examples where I've been in the same situation with a client's website.  One took 8 different tries to get the appearance and delivery satisfactory to both the client and their audience. When it happens to me (oh, how it has happened.......:::sigh:::) I vent for a little while, then take a seat, a deep breath, maybe even a glass of wine, and evaluate the feedback.  When I clear my head I usually realize that the modifications necessary are a) not a personal criticism and b) not going to take much effort to incorporate.  Just settle down, review, rethink the box that you're thinking in, and you'll get on the right track.

First, establishing a visual representative identity ("branding") is necessary to building civic pride and community, especially when you have unexpected diversity.  If it wasn't important, the DHA wouldn't have invested in the first attempt in 2006.

Both Sky (which created the overall branding plan) and KMA (which designed the monument signage) did exactly as they were directed by City Hall and in practical terms, did everything right.  Sky put on an elaborate data-gathering plan to solicit input from citizens and the general public to frame their scope.  DunwoodyTalk linked to the survey results in his commentary on this issue.  Take some time to read some of the results written comments.  Not only is there a wide range of opinion, many of them are directly contradictory; some of the recommendations are even legally, financially, or physically impossible.  ("Close the college" is my favorite example.)  Rather than indulge in the luxury of focusing on one segment of this population to the exclusion of all others, Sky (under direction of City Hall) formulated a graphic that attempted to represent all of them, even as they contradicted each other.  You wonder why comprehensive branding plans are so expensive?  This is the reason why.  This is hard work that requires a lot of skill and expertise, as well as a thorough understanding of human psychology.

When your presentation attempts to encompass and represent as many viewpoints as possible, while marginalizing and excluding as few as possible, you get a presentation that becomes "generic" if you're going to keep it simple.

So the City has some options available at this juncture.

They can scratch the effort and start over.  Just absorb the loss and move on.  If you're the Gap, or Tropicana (which I mentioned on this subject in a previous post) you can move some finances around and go that route.  When you're a startup government entity spending tax money, it's a harder choice.  Besides, the survey results aren't going to change much, even if you issue new surveys.  That means the scope you're trying to encompass in your image isn't going to vary either.

They can modify what they have before using it on infrastructure investments.  Tweak a font, tweak a color combo, blend it with other graphics.  Basically, modify the official style guide based on current feedback.

They can hunker down and wait out the storm, then go ahead with their plans as written without modifying the style guide or other proposed implementations.  Doable and the cheapest option - but refer to the previous post and how long Dunwoody memories are.

"OK, wise-guy, what would YOU do?"  Stay tuned for Part 2 after I get some quality time with the kids.  Happy lunch break, everybody!

Dunwoody: City of Long Memories

When the City branding initiative was debuted to a less-than-enthusiastic response I remember hearing some insider comments along the lines of "Don't worry about it.  The furor will die down and everyone will forget and just accept it."

Not in Dunwoody.

No matter how large or how small the issue, it is unwise to assume that the populace will "just forget and accept" when their desires have been crossed and their needs ignored and their questions dismissed.

The further implementation of the branding initiative is only one example.  That situation is more complex than it appears on the surface and it's one I've had some experience in working for the Chamber.  That is enough to fill its own post on another day.

But in spite of the majority of public sentiment, City Hall is still pushing ahead with an implementation that is increasing the negative response.  Why?  What is to be gained by pushing a program that not only was not forgotten and accepted but is getting further criticism?  And who stands to gain?

ChattComm is another example.  Blogger Bob wrote a stellar piece on his own space this weekend that built on Greg C's comments via John's blog.  Why isn't the digital transfer of calls from ChattComm to DeKalb Fire (aka CAD to CAD) working yet?  This isn't a new question:  it came up when the ChattComm conversion was still being debated by Council almost a year ago.  But at the time, the question was dismissed, both by Chief Grogan and (then) Mayor Wright.

Looks like that one didn't get forgotten either.  Again, what is to be gained by pushing a program that faced quite a bit of resistance in 2011 and then not following through on the technical details?  And who stands to gain from it?

Let's not forget the multi-faceted arguments over green space.  First there was the proposed "greenways" that looked great on paper, but not from the back porches of the people whose property would have been confiscated to build them.  Then there was the rush to buy up the PVC farm and hospital properties.  At the time, City Hall and Council were justifying the purchases to increase park space, even though there has been some serious backpedalling by City Hall since then.  But the quote is clear in this Crier article from March 2011:  (emphases added)

“The addition of 16 acres of park land is a watershed moment for Dunwoody and a generational game changer for the Georgetown/North Shallowford community,” said Wright in the release. “The city council and I are thrilled to jump start the revitalization of the Georgetown/ North Shallowford area of Dunwoody and are relieved that this purchase will head off the inevitable development of the land for more apartments as well as help us move forward in our effort to eliminate our monumental deficit of green space.”

Which sounds great, until the development of said parkland was contingent on a bonds proposal that tried to include the kitchen sink (including purchasing apartment complexes).  Bonds are a hard enough initiative to get through a vote in a recession.  It might have passed if the language was more direct about what the money would be spent for and didn't try to encompass another property purchase.

Here's what the citizenry is going to remember from these fiascos:
1)  City Hall wants to take private residential property for public recreation.
2)  City Hall intends to ask for more money via taxes, bonds, etc, but is not going to be clear on how the money gets spent.
3)  City Hall intends to hold the citizenry responsible for voting against unclear bond referendums when the outcome isn't to their liking.  ("Well, it's your own fault, you voted against parks.  I guess you just don't like parks or children or families.  Shame on you!")

Someone is really out of their mind if they think this is going to be forgotten too.

The key to trust and credibility is consistency.  Dunwoody residents have very long memories.  If your modus operandi involves hoping people forget a gaffe or an idea that they're opposed to, you're in for a bad day at the office.

But for some reason, someone at City Hall has ignored this concept.  Who?  And what do they stand to gain from it?  And is City Council going to let them get away with it?

Pushy Real Estate Buyer or Con Artist? You make the call.

A short time ago I blogged about an unsolicited letter in a format that was disturbingly unprofessional and unnerving to my family and neighbors.

Well it turns out that "Bajja" is unhappy with my assessment of his business approach.

I received a phonecall this evening from this person who disapproved the comments, but was unable to post such on the blog directly from his phone.  He believes that in spite of the method of contacting me and the lack of professional information, I should have called him on the phone.

This situation is officially weird and I am creeped out.  I do not know this person, still don't know their last name or their business name, and as I said in the previous post, the offer is respectfully declined.

Bajja, if you are reading this, your contact is unwelcome.  Dunwoody Police have been notified.  Any further contact from you by any method or medium will be considered harrassment and legally addressed as such.  Stay away from this property and the people in it.