Do museums need a brand?
Aren’t brands necessary only if you want to sell something or use your reputation to cement your superiority? Cultural institutions shouldn’t have to prove their worth to anyone, should they?
Wally Olins stated brazenly in his book, On Brand, that charities, universities, museums need to “cast aside forever the bedraggled incompetence that they use as a symbol of their worthiness”. He goes on to assert that “in a world that is bewildering in terms of competitive clamour, in which rational choice has become almost impossible, brands represent clarity, reassurance, consistency, status, membership—everything that enables human beings to define themselves. Brands represent identity.” Whilst I agree on principle that incompetence should be banished, well, everywhere, I question the claim that incompetence is directly responsible for weak identities. I also specifically question the notion that museums need brands.
So let’s agree on vocabulary. An identity is not a brand. A successful identity can become a brand when the visual and verbal associations it conjures are transformed into a personal experience for the user. If I choose to go to Starbuck’s it’s because I might like the way the space of the café feels, how I am treated there, what I perceive to be the company’s efforts in minimizing its social and environmental impact and because I find their coffee to taste better than Tim Horton’s. My loyalty is triggered by my perception of the entire experience and how it might relate to my own identity, not simply an attraction to the graphic language they use and the superiority of their product.
But what of a museum? Isn’t the role of mediator between art and the public one that has equal value across the board? If the MoMA was host to an exhibition you wanted to see would you waffle, would you battle an insistent inner voice telling you that if it was at the New Museum you would go but the MoMA just isn’t the place for you?
Paula Scher & Julia Hoffmann—MoMA
Paula Scher & Julia Hoffmann—MoMA
There are notable examples, like the Walker Art Centre or the Dana Science Centre, where the identity and exhibition spaces serve to create an all-encompassing experience and the graphic language becomes a pervasive element, not only in the promotional materials but in the space itself. Do all of these elements constitute a brand?
Andrew Blauvelt—Walker Art Center
Pentagram—Dana Science Centre
There’s no doubt that strong identities, such as the ones shown above, heighten the enjoyment one might experience visiting museums and encountering the riches they house. The graphic language frames and can potentially enhance the beauty and meaning of the art. Yet aren’t museums repositories of content to a great extent, as books are? Is book design not simply a framework to facilitate access to the content? Books don’t have brands, do they?
A strong visual language is important to ensure consistency and clarity of voice but a brand suggests a slew of other components such as internal culture, values, customer service, perceived worth, all of which don’t seem to fit with a mandate of preserving and championing artistic expression independently of monetary gain (in the case of publicly-owned museums).
Am I missing the point? Do you think that differentiation is as crucial for cultural institutions as it is for companies that sell toothpaste? Does art need to be packaged to be attractive?
- – - – - – -
Related: see Under Consideration’s review of the new Philadelphia History Museum identity.
Phew, alot of question marks in that post.
I think museums or institutions in general have a unique proposition where their identity is very much defined by their collection and not easily influenced by their visual identity (their product versus their packaging). Also rarely they are not in direct competition with each other (like on the same shelf, or having the same work at the same time) so branding isn’t a strong differentiating factor in this regards. Nor do they exist in franchises, where one would expect similar experiences from one to another (you’ll only find them in that one place).
Branding for cultural institutions have a different role than most of the examples you listed and I believe most art goers recognize this. Having a visual language for a museum in my opinion doesn’t detract from the experience or bring up the thoughts like a “unique selling proposition”. It really just benefits the clarity and consistency of voice.
Not all branding projects follow the brief of buy buy buy.
Thanks Edmond. I believe we’re in agreement about the visual language providing consistency and not detracting but adding to the experience. My question has more to do with whether that visual language becomes pervasive enough to be labelled a brand. I’m curious about what you mean by “Branding for cultural institutions has a different role than most of the examples you listed”. What would that role be?
Maybe different role is the wrong word… more like different objectives. The one you mentioned was a good one “preserving and championing artistic expression independently of monetary gain”
Having a brand is like having a megaphone. The megaphone doesn’t dictate what you say or how loud you say it, but it’s nice to have when everyone else has one. Let’s just hope these museums stay on message and the volume at a respectable level.
You could consider the visual identities of many museums as presentations or acquisitions: displaying museum-quality design in a real context.
At least, that is also a function of such identities or brands.
In the same way, museums commission buildings that represent museum-quality architecture.
Of course, things like this depends on the type of museum (e.g. contemporary or ancient art), local traditions, etcetera.
One of my favourite posts so far
There are so many interesting questions, I’m torn as to which to respond to or where to start!
You mentioned that “a successful identity can become a brand when the visual and verbal associations it conjures are transformed into a personal experience for the user.” I’m wondering if recognized and well-known museums or galleries don’t do just that. While it’s true that they should simply act as vessels, can they survive without an image in a society where there is such emphasis on appearances? Which also makes me question Ed’s comment on whether they’re in direct competition with one another. While galleries don’t display the same work, they’re under the pressure of curating shows that will entice a visitor to come to their venue as opposed to another. But do they mostly attract visitors through their shows or the image they’ve built for themselves and what that image promises to bring? Please keep in mind that I’m in no way discarding the value of the art itself, but is this not similar to the work of a famous artist? Once an artist reaches a certain status, people will tend to shy away from analyzing or criticizing their work and will instead admire any piece that has the artist’s signature on it. I question whether it’s a similar case with galleries and museums. If a gallery or a museum is just a mediator, than can any space become a vessel? Will the displayed artwork have the same value? If an unknown artist was given the opportunity to display their work anywhere, are they more likely to support a local gallery/space or are they more likely to choose Walker Art Centre for instance? As viewers, are we more likely to see the same exhibition at MOMA than we would at lesser known museum?
Thanks for your comment Namdnal. You could say that in certain instances, I agree. The Bilbao and New York Guggenheim come to mind immediately but obviously there’s many more. It’s true as well that some museums such as the Tate(s) are closer to commercial brands than anything else, with their multiple locations and specializations, their shops and publications.
This is a great point Setareh and there’s no doubt, as you mentioned, that like any other successful brand, there’s an implied promise of a superior experience when the identity, spaces and visual language of a museum are of a certain standard.
[...] aside forever the bedraggled incompetence that they use as a symbol of their worthiness”. One Design Influence blog post also questions the assumption that museums, and, by extension, other public institutions, need [...]
Leave a comment
Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked*
Please be constructive.