Growing pains for Brand Hong Kong
by Smita Venkat on May 6, 2010
In March 2010, Hong Kong re-launched its brandmark. And as with most high-profile government rebrands, the new identity has been met with a unanimous, “That‘s it?!” To be fair, credit is due for strategic and steady investment in Brand Hong Kong. It is a brand based in the reality of Hong Kong and its attributes.
And yet. The reception of the refreshed brand identity has been lackluster. As brand consultants we often find ourselves saying that the brandmark isn’t all there is to a brand. But it is a key touchpoint and should take that responsibility seriously.
The problem seems to stem from the lack of a single defining idea for the brandmark. As mentioned, the brand is based in reality – but the brandmark has somehow missed on delivering this essence of Hong Kong. For example, the new identity is even more crowded* than its previous version and seems to be the product of design by committee. There are several literal symbols – the blue ribbon is the sky, the orange ribbon a local landmark ‘Lion’s Rock’, the green ribbon sustainable environment, etc. Put together, however, the brandmark does little to evoke a sense of Hong Kong.
In its efforts to stand for many things, this identity has ended up diluted and scattered. The more appropriate direction for this round of evolution would have been to pick a specific idea and express that in the brand identity. A brand that has done this well is Brand Australia, which has a simple visual identity that clearly conveys the energy of its brand. It’s not about pleasing everyone, there’s always going to be people who hate the design. Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with Brand Hong Kong’s dragon or ribbons – it’s the lack of focus that is the problem. Ultimately, this isn’t a judgment of design; it’s about a lost opportunity to take a great brand forward.
*Including the hidden letters, ‘H’ and ‘K’. Seriously.