Jul
06

A Re:ply to the toronto.ca “re:Brand”

The City of Toronto has been quietly running a campaign to re-brand Toronto.ca. The city is asking for thoughts and suggestions from Torontonians, but from what I can see, this effort has been minimal and fruitless. This ain’t the way to run a city or a Web site – or a brand.

toronto.ca homepage 2009

Our quibbles with Toronto’s new site:

The “re:Brand” comments section of Toronto.ca is difficult to find and has recorded a total of 72 comments in the four months it has been open – each of which is limited to 300 characters. The one change that has occurred in those four months is the addition of a refreshed homepage: a fancy new shell placed over the same links that immediately divide users instead of including them.

But those are just mechanical problems. The real problems are at the brand level. So without pretending to be web designers, here are a few comments from a brand strategy perspective when branding a city – or any place with a government – on the web.

The three rules of city branding:

1. Thou Shalt Truly Engage people.

Make your city as colourful, lively, current, and even (gasp!) as much fun as possible. Draw users into your city. Show it off with engaging photos, highlight current news, and make it real with links to local people and events. While I admit they have a heck of a one-time pull, Vancouver.ca is an excellent example of a web presence that engages users with a uniquely interesting pull: the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. While the site focuses on the main event, it also serves as a hub and a showcase of current information and events.

Connect with the city of Edmonton on your terms.

2. Thou Shalt Actually Communicate.

Marshall McLuhan would consider the web a hot medium – one with the ability to engage people with various forms of information (videos, photos, text, audio) in two directions. Use the website to its full potential by engaging users in a dialogue. Connect through vehicles that users are comfortable with (email, phone, live chat, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). The City of Edmonton has created a portal where people from Edmonton, Canada, and around the world can share their stories of the city. EdmontonStories.ca is a good start, but remains relatively unidirectional. The City of Winnipeg has taken this concept a step further, and is looking to engage users in an open dialogue, both with the city representatives, and amongst each other.

"Stratford - Community excellence with worldwide impact."
stratford 2

3. DIFFER or Thou Wilt Be Completely Irrelevant!

Hold a unique position in the minds of consumers – tell me why Toronto is not Montreal or Ottawa or Calgary. Decide what makes your citybrand interesting and different from all others, and focus your brand promise around that core. Stratford is a city with one of the best differentiators in the country – a theatrical festival and culture that is known from coast to coast. And what phrase is displayed across the top of their homepage? “Stratford – Community excellence with worldwide impact!” A phrase that has absolutely nothing to do with the city’s top attraction and major differentiator. As if to apologize for the error, a much smaller logo appears way down the page in the bottom left-hand corner (left), and at least alludes to the theatre which gives the town its character.

Some examples from other Canadian cities

Best city branding:

  • London Ontario: The Forest City (Love this brand package. Green, clean logo and consistent theme carried across all messaging and communications)
  • Useful tag lines:

  • Charlottetown: birthplace of confederation (historical tie-in: we’re an old town and played an important role in Canadian history)
  • Calgary: Heart of the New West (a tagline with a cocky, rodeo calf-ropin-oils-sands-diggin’ swagger – but easy to back up as a fact)
  • Camrose Alberta: The Rose City (Simple, a bit corny, but creates a powerful image and memory hook)
  • Thunder Bay Ontario: Superior by Nature (also a groaner, but ballsy)
  • Not useful tag lines (at all):

  • Mississauga: Leading today for tomorrow (right. So tell us again: you’re different from Toronto how?)
  • North Bay: It’s all here. (The community motto is much better: Just North Enough to be Perfect)
  • Stratford: Community Excellence With Worldwide Impact! (Wait, is that the same Stratford with that Festival thing? Apologies to Dennis’s relatives who live there, but it’s really bad.)
  • expecting you

    Worst tag line:

  • Ottawa: Technically Beautiful (never adopted after the tag line was announced, torpedoed by public derision, then quietly shelved. But to this day, it’s a great example of how an idea that looked great in a brainstorming session falls flat when real people look at it.)
  • Toronto: Welcome to Toronto. We’ve been expecting you. (its actually on their website!)

    Most apologetically Canadian descriptions:

  • Vegreville Alberta: Vegreville is considered by many as one of the most beautiful towns on the Prairies, boasting an exceptional “quality of life” for both citizens and visitors.
  • Surrey BC: The twelfth-largest city in Canada and the second largest in British Columbia.
  • Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
    Sort: Newest | Oldest
    SeanValjean 5 pts

    This is great!!! I think <a href="http://www.kingrecycling.ca">junk removal toronto</a> could really benefit from all of this. 

    "~. I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives great information `'*

    Employee relations should be given more importance in an office environment as well as on any other business establishment -;~

    employee relations is very very important in the business setting.,::

    Hi, Keith back again in case anyone comes back or finds this page anew. We have a blogspace opened up taking about toronto.ca: webrebrand.blogspot.com. Be glad to continue discussion there or here.

    To be successful, a brand must be embraced by the people it represents. That is why our process is all about public engagement. A brand is not to be confused with logos and slogans. That is how some clearly think when imagining a branding process. These elements are the outward representation of a brand.

    We want the residents to tell us what is important to them; what resonates with them when they think of their city and how it is portrayed.

    In our case, we talk about our city being a growing, vibrant, dynamic City as administration. The residents and community stakeholders will hopefully get excited about this process and their community and partipate fully in the process.

    This stage of our branding is about the public engagement. A separate implementation process will follow.

    David Olinger, Manager of Marketing and Communications

    Excellent comments all around and much appreciated honesty and directness.

    To address @Lauren Hughes first ... no, we didn't mean others would edit and update our content specifically. But, that being said, we are not thinking of forever excluding people entering content such as profile information or events information & review or blog content. And we wouldn't reject, out of hand, community contributions to pages. These are all things we are exploring.

    The opening of data is aimed at developers who may be able to use it in quite a dynamic and creative way. Mashups are so effective in so many ways, it could be that developers would build all kinds of wonderful and useful applications beginning with our data. The side bar issue with that is whether the core data becomes something that generates profits for others and nothing comes back to City residents. A creative commons vs a profit commons and how that might unfold. Opportunities for partnerships abound here too.

    It's clear none of us want to see a toronto.ca that is a one dimensional/one way presentation of services that disconnects from the very users we hope to reach. And users certainly do include tourists as well as residents. It's great we are hearing from both on this page.

    Taking advantage of a good position
    I think Lauren hits a correct philosophical note when she says: "don't lead them astray". There is no doubt toronto.ca is a powerful property and we can either maximize it or float along on the fact the site has good positioning.

    Well, we don't want to coast along! We want to maximize satisfaction with the site and make it a worthy and viable resource reflecting Toronto. In that sense there is no escaping we are connected with the "big picture" Toronto.

    I posted this on our TOwebrebrand Twitter account during the Stanley Cup finals and it seems just as relevant here:

    Occurs to me toronto.ca is to Toronto as Sydney Crosby is to Pittsburgh. Our web has to score to win! That may be "corny" but true.#playoffs

    We've had some recent blog coverage on a few other blogs around Toronto. Not much discussion ensued from those posts. I'm not sure what is different here but, in truth, we need more of this kind of exchange not less. So, I encourage you and and any new readers to keep going.

    Keith, by this question:

    Will opening up our data help the community pull what we have and offer up more than the City could possibly do in the first place?

    Do you mean opening you website for others to edit and update? If so - to what extent? I'm curious if something like this is on the table

    Keith: Dennis noted that toronto.ca appears first in a google search - what a HUGE opportunity this is. To illustrate, here is where "toronto.ca | Official website for the City of Toronto" appears in google searches of "toronto" around the world:

    Canada: 1st
    US: 1st
    China: 2nd (behind U of T)
    UK: 1st
    France: 2nd (behind wikipedia)
    Germany: 2nd (behind wikipedia)
    Japan: 2nd (behind Toronto Tourism Japan)
    Australia: 1st
    Russia: 1st
    Brazil: 2nd (behind wikipedia)
    South Africa: 1st
    India: 1st

    AROUND THE WORLD, people who search "toronto" will see the toronto.ca homepage. It didn't get to #1 (or #2) without any hits! Don't lead them astray!

    I live in Toronto, and I agree with Keith: I don't go to the City website to find out what to do in the city. I go there re city servicesm and most important to me is to find the info I need as easily as possible on the city site (ie content).

    For what to do and tourism in Toronto, we go to sites like toronto.com and NOW magazine online.

    Re branding the city with a tagline: it's Toronto, the biggest city in Canada. I don't think we have a problem with people knowing that there's lots to do here. The only city tagline I could think of is maybe NYC. Beyond that, I don't need to a tagline or slogan anymore than I need one for Vancouver, LA, Paris, London...

    I don't quibble with a service-first orientation for a government Web site. The opposite danger is painfully evident when you look at the propoganda vehicle that canada.gc.ca has become under the current governmnet. Taxpayers fund these things and they are right to want their services quickly.

    But I'd humbly submit that Toronto residents aren't the only audience for Toronto.ca - and even they would be much better served by a more dynamic Web package. See Vancouver.ca for example.

    As for Brand Toronto, my latest post is about the challenges branding the small city of Grande Prairie AB. But I suspect that Toronto has an even bigger "Muskoseepi dilemma" - a tendency to "shop local" when it comes to perceptions of itself.

    I'll duck now while my TO friends sharpen their darts...

    It is an interesting challenge. Here is my over-simplified answer: Every interaction a person has with your brand either strengthens or weakens the value of the brand.

    That means each touch point is important and should be aligned. In the Brand Platform book we designed for the Fresno (California) Region, we identified three key touch points: The Showroom, The Boardroom, and The Lunch Room. Essentially, I contend that marketing messages (Showroom), policy and governance practices (Boardroom), and employee relations (Lunch Room) are all brand building opportunities.

    Determining the Region's brand platform will provide a guide for BIAs, municipalities, tourism offices, and the like.

    The last thing an agency wants to do (ok, maybe not the last thing...forgive the hyperbole), it attempt to brand in silos. Bringing key players and residents to the table is necessary.

    Feel free to take a look at the Fresno Brand Platform Workbook (it's on my site).

    (Continued)

    QUESTION 2) Should the front page of the site be a place for branding and positioning of Toronto as a whole? The answer: YES YES YES!!!!! (*I'll post a second comment on this)

    Think about your brand from the outside in - preferebly from the perspective of someone who doesn't live in TO and has only a vague notion of the city (i.e. most of the planet).

    So let's say I'm in Australia, and a friend is moving to TO, so I want to remind myself where it is, and what it's all about, I'm probably going to type "Toronto" into Google, and in all likelihood, I'll click on the first thing that comes up: "toronto.ca | Official website for the City of Toronto".

    Okay, so now you have my attention. A few notes:

    NO GENERAL POSITIONING: on Google, I'll get a truncated bit of fluff "The City of Toronto is the cultural, entertainment and financial capital of Canada..." but when I click through, there is nothing for me. No tag line, no description, no "about toronto" link, and none of the "big buckets" applies to me. Just a big cold, faceless photo of downtown from the air.

    INTERESTING THREADS: The most interesting thing on the page is the only thing that looks current: "Labour disruption information", "How the strike affects City services" and "City's offer to the unions". All important info for residents, but I won't comment on how positive this is as a perception-builder. You might as well just stick in a picture of garbage bags in a hockey rink.

    So yes, a city Web site is the MOST IMPORTANT PLACE for a city to position itself to the world. And you want the impression you leave to be positive, engaging, and memorable. That involves putting clearly memorable images, impressions, and mnemonic (memory) tools in their path - like a really strong tag line perhaps.

    However, that assumes something radical: that you have a clear idea 1) WHO YOU ARE, 2) HOW YOU DIFFER, and 3) HOW YOU PROVE YOUR VALUE. That's where re:Brand Toronto seems to be falling down - or at least we haven't seen the evidence yet.

    Keith,

    Thanks so much for all your insider insight from the City trenches. I've been a City employee (long ago), a consultant to the City of Ottawa, and helped found the Wellington West BIA (www.wellingtonwest.ca), so I've had a lot of experience dealing with - and have a lot of respect for - public servants doing what you do.

    I've also worked with the Federal Government to develop the branding end several Web properties as part of the Government On LIne (GOL) initiative of the mid 2000's, so I've been in the middle of the functionality vs. brand debate. One in particlular www.canadabusiness.gc.ca involved a lot of negotiations between the marketing people and the Web services folks.

    So to your comments / questions. I see two lines here:

    1) Should "City services be served up with restaurant reviews and where to shop?" from the main page of the Web site? The answer: NO!!! (*caveats below)

    2) Should the front page of the site be a place for branding and positioning of Toronto as a whole? The answer: YES YES YES!!!!! (*I'll post a second comment on this)

    Back to QUESTION 1:Should Private / commercial information be presented on the front page as equal to city information?

    Not directly. But because Toronto.ca is the easiest, most intuitive gateway to all things Toronto, there are people who will visit your site looking for (EXPECTING) that information, so you need to be able to point them (DIRECT) in the right direction without making yourselves responsible for the delivery of those services.

    But the nice thing is you don't have to. Commercial vs. Public is a false dichotomy in today's cities as there is an important third layer: PARTNERSHIPS.

    Tourism Toronto is an example - you sponsor them, but they operate at arms length as a partnership between the city and different players in the tourism industry. But right now, as a tourist visiting Toronto, if I visit toronto.ca, I'm going to have a devil of a time drilling down to that information. I don't see why you couldn't serve up a feed from TT under Visiting Toronto on your main page - as long as it was clear that it was from a different-but-trusted source.

    BIAs are another great example. These bodies are City-mandated to promote different areas of the city as destinations (i.e. to do the work for you), but from Toronto.ca, I was only able to find them by clicking on "doing business". That's very City-centric thinking. The AUDIENCE for a BIA is not primarily business, it's retail shoppers - and you owe it to them (that is, to yourselves) to help them out. Why not have a feed on the front page promoting a different BIA of the week?

    Basically, by taking a static, services-only approach to your home page, you are a) making life difficult FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO DO STUFF IN TORONTO ($$$), b) failing to support city-supported programs in a meaningful way, and c) neglecting a prime opportunity to create relationships with business, tourists, or residents, and d) your are missing a HUGE opportunity to tell your story in your own voice - that is, to build a brand on YOUR TERMS.

    Tourism Toronto doesn't own the responsibility to build Toronto's brand across all audiences: you do. But if you don't, they will!

    (my comments are continued in next comment post)

    We don't want anyone to get confused by "place branding" created outside of our toronto.ca context by others. Those of us working in the City of Toronto rebranding the City of Toronto website are not involved in the campaign for a "City" rebrand (though we may end up promoting what's done as you can see on the visiting Toronto page you note in the original post).

    Nope, we're rebranding toronto.ca not Toronto per se. Are they the same thing? You might be telling us here they are.

    That would be a much bigger challenge then. Our efforts on the re:Brand are to sort out expectations for our content and how people can find it. A rally great slogan is probably the last thing we would turn to at the moment. And what good is a good slogan if the rest of the site is bad? There is also the entire issue of expectation. I mean here, do toronto.ca users want their tax information, parks 'n rec and other tasty specific City services served up with restaurant reviews and where to shop?

    Many of us argue here on the team that we should focus only on what we deliver. And we're not sure how toronto.com or any number of other sites would feel if we suddenly offered accommodation reviews? What do you think? Let's continue some dialogue here if you are keen.

    What would be helpful to us is more insight into user expectations around all of this. Some questions:

    . Do you want toronto.ca to be your one stop destination for more than just City specific services?
    . Can we reflect the entire community if we stick to what we do as a municipality?
    . Will opening up our data help the community pull what we have and offer up more than the City could possibly do in the first place?
    . How much collaboration is acceptable?
    . What about copyrights associated with taxpayer data maybe being used by web developers in applications where advertising brings in dollars to the developers but not back to the citizens?

    These are just a few of the items we could chat about.

    Hey Keith, posted two VERY LONG replies in Comments field.

    Thou shall be Authentic!!!

    All to often, place branding puts creative work first and authenticity last. If place branding is going to work, there must be a focus on creating AuthentiCity.

    How does toronto.ca reflect the entire community?

    Oh, I forgot to add ... you can follow our efforts on Twitter @TOwebrebrand. We'll announce other social media spots etc from there.

    We've read your notes here and thanks for this! Yeah, we get it and we're listening.

    refresh vs. re:Brand
    I'd like to clarify that the refreshed home page we launched was only the start of a long process for us in rebranding toronto.ca. We introduced the comments page at the same time as the home page and saw it as just the start to further engagements.

    We hope to full blog/dialogue and also offer a "labs" area for users to sample ideas before we go live. Perhaps this ramp up is not coming as fast as folks eager for change would like and that's why we so appreciate comments and places to chat such as yours.

    We see our re:Brand process as ongoing. We want to keep toronto.ca fresh and evolving. We've branded this process as the "web re:Brand" for now since we are really digging deep into investigating/analyzing the site before we hit any switches. Users will definitely see some shifts and whole changes as we move along. But we don't want the interpretation of the index page refresh or our little 300 comment page as being the re:Brand outcome.

    Participate in person
    Anyone interested in improving toronto.ca can do some things for us right now. We have two items linked off of our comment page that are providing some useful data for us. And we want more!

    (1) we have an anonymous survey that covers current reactions to toronto.ca and (2) we have a "become a tester" agreement form. This form is where we get your permission to contact you and fully engage you in user testing. The more people willing to participate with us, the more validation can take place. I'm sure you agree whether we give you 300 characters or 300 pages, we can get down to lots more nitty gritty if we can talk in person. It all starts with your agreeing to chat. See toronto.ca/comment.

    A usercentric place
    I can only speak for our toronto.ca re:Brand efforts and not those of other city or government sites. We want to become a usercentric place that works. Some of the nuances we face in getting there are incredibly interesting and are like off ramps to places we have to check out before we can get back on the main highway again.

    You can help us get there by working with us. More feedback and thoughts such as your post is what we need. Keep it coming and maybe we'll surprise 'ya with something worthwhile :o)

    Here's an excerpt directly and unabashedly from wikipedia, without citation. Take it for what its worth, but it speaks to the history of the "city within a forest" and suggests that it is a modern misconception that the city was named for trees within the city limits. A "nickname" with such history can serve as a very powerful brand foundation.
    _______

    Contrary to popular belief, London did not take on the name "Forest City" due to the number of trees in the city. In its early days, London was an isolated destination and one would have to walk through a forest to get there. So it can be said that London was a "city within a forest" and as such earned the nickname "The Forest City." In modern times, however, Londoners have become protective of the trees in the city, protesting "unnecessary" removal of trees. The City Council and tourist industry have created projects to replant trees throughout the city. As well, they have begun to erect metal trees of various colours in the downtown area, causing some controversy.

    two things:

    Thunder Bay: "superior by nature" is actually a play on words as well. Superior (as in Lake Superior) by Nature (near all the wonderous natural habitat).

    London: The Forest City is a tag line that is *highly* mocked amongst its citizens, especially in light of the dwindling number of trees, and the increased number of metal tree sculptures in the downtown. Its had this tagline for over 25 years, and I think it could revisit its brand strategy.