Has branding lost its bite?

For all the talk of personality, there’s surprisingly little tolerance for a brand that resists a neatly legible description.

The unexpected detail is often what we remember. We lean in because it makes us reconsider an impression we thought was settled.

Yet in defining a brand, we can impose a linear logic on its character, expecting every quality to reinforce the same impression. An organisation might describe itself as authoritative and begin avoiding humour, even though it comes naturally to its people. 

A word meant to describe its character starts limiting how it can be expressed.

Brands can become more compelling when seemingly opposing qualities come together.

Mona, Tasmania’s Museum of Old and New Art, invites visitors to “talk crap about the art”. It’s an unusual welcome from a cultural institution, giving visitors permission to have a response before worrying whether it’s the right one. 

The invitation flips the idea that taking art seriously means treating the museum as beyond question.

Greenpeace holds a different tension. Known for its confrontational protests, the organisation also has its own research laboratories, providing scientific analysis for its campaigns. We tend to associate that kind of rigour with restraint. Yet the evidence gives Greenpeace the credibility to confront those responsible for environmental harm.

What looks like a contradiction from a distance becomes more understandable as you get closer. Perhaps it was the description that was too narrow.

A brand should be able to hold our curiosity. Being easy to describe is a modest ambition for something that could be worth getting to know.