Co-production is now widely adopted in the third sector as both a value and a practice. And rightly so. It reflects a commitment to power-sharing, lived experience and partnership, particularly in the design and delivery of public services.

In recent years, it has also been increasingly applied to brand work in this sector. Organisations talk about ‘co-producing their brand’ or ‘co-producing their visual identity’ as a way of signalling inclusion, accountability and care.

This is understandable. But it’s also worth pausing to ask a question that goes deeper: What does co-production mean in the context of brand identity and where does it genuinely add value?

Where co-production comes from

Co-production originates in public service delivery. At its best, it describes a shift away from services being designed for people, towards services being designed with them – recognising lived experience as a form of expertise.

Brand identity however, is a different kind of endeavour. The process of designing it involves far more than the traditional understanding of a service. It brings into existence a strategic and symbolic system – one that needs to hold meaning, emotion and clarity across many different contexts and for a number of different audiences, over a sustained period of time.

That doesn’t mean it should bypass participation. But it does mean that the form which that participation takes, really matters.

Brand identity is not neutral territory

Visual identity and verbal expression carry emotional and cognitive weight. They are often encountered in moments of pressure, stress, uncertainty or heightened emotion – sometimes by people who may not be making a free choice to engage, but find themselves compelled to.

They might be a service user seeking urgent support, a parent navigating an unfamiliar system or someone encountering an arts organisation for the first time, and trying to work out whether a space, programme or offer is right for them.

In all these scenarios – colour, language, layout and tone can be elements that reassure or overwhelm, clarify or confuse, build trust or quietly erode it. Design choices have consequences and those consequences do not always make themselves apparent in a workshop or focus group setting.

Brand identity doesn’t just make an organisation look or sound a certain way. It plays a role in how people make sense of the information they’re presented with. The visual and verbal choices that are made in designing a brand identity can either help or hinder understanding.

Design is the intermediary between information and understanding.

— Richard Grefé, Design Thinker in Residence at Williams College

Preference is not the same as experience

In collaborative sessions, people are often asked what they like. Colours they’re drawn to. Symbols that resonate. Words they prefer.

These preferences are valid – but they do not translate into the user experience of interacting with the brand, nor do they communicate lived experience in context.

A colour that feels energising in a workshop may feel overwhelming when encountered online by someone who is anxious or overloaded. A symbol that signals empowerment to staff may confuse a first-time visitor. Language that feels warm internally may seem vague or patronising externally.

Designing for lived experience means asking different questions:

• How easy is this to understand at a glance?
• How would it feel if you were stressed, rushed or uncertain?
• Does it reduce cognitive load – or add to it?
• Does it signal safety, clarity and trust when it matters most?

Answering these questions requires collaboration, but also calls for interpretation, synthesis and restraint.

Co-creation and co-production are not the same thing

In brand work, co-creation often happens long before anything is designed. It’s found in interviews, research, workshops and shared reflection – moments where meaning is explored collectively, even if final decisions are not undertaken in this way.

This is co-creation as shared sense-making. People contribute insight, language, experience and perspective. But responsibility for shaping those inputs into something clear, usable and durable will sit elsewhere – where the ability to step back and take a broader view come into play.

Co-production, by contrast, implies shared ownership of what’s ultimately produced. In some areas of brand work, this can be powerful. In others, it can contribute to undermining clarity.

The issue isn’t participation. It’s calibrating the level of involvement across all the different elements of the process.

Nesta frames human-centred design as a way of bringing people with lived experience into collaboration so that solutions reflect real needs.

If you’re not part of the problem, you can’t be part of the solution.

— Bill Torbert

The question then, isn’t whether people should be involved – but how, when and in what way.

Different elements of a brand call for different approaches

Not all elements of brand identity benefit from the same approach.

• Strategic foundations – purpose, values, positioning and principles – are well suited to co-creation. They benefit from shared exploration, lived experience and collective meaning-making, paired with careful synthesis.
• Verbal expression – tone of voice, language choices and narrative – often work best through guided partnership. Lived language matters deeply here, alongside editing for clarity, dignity and accessibility.
• Visual identity systems – logos, colour palettes, typography and layout – require strong creative stewardship. These are symbolic systems that need coherence, consistency and restraint, and the fact that they don’t exist in a vacuum has to always be kept top of mind. Choices are made in the context of a wider peer and competitor landscape, where distinctiveness, familiarity and credibility all matter. Without that external perspective, well-intentioned collaboration can unintentionally lead to sameness or confusion.
• Content and application – stories, imagery, campaigns and materials – are often the right place for co-production, once clear brand parameters are in place.

The above doesn’t constitute a hierarchy of elements but illustrates how important it is to be intentional and choose the right kind of involvement at the right moment in the process.

Designing for multiple audiences, not consensus

Most third-sector organisations serve multiple audiences who encounter the brand in very different emotional and practical contexts.

It should be possible to accommodate these differences without losing consistency. Clear brand guidance can allow for variation in visual ‘volume’. Some materials can be quieter, calmer and more stripped-back for emotionally overloaded audiences, while others may be more confident and assertive in tone when they’re attracting commissioner, funder or partner engagement.

What matters is that all expressions feel coherent, intentional and grounded in real user needs, rather than becoming a collage of stakeholder preferences.

Designing with different audiences in mind isn’t a compromise. It’s a discipline. And when done well, it builds both trust and credibility across the board.

A ‘both-and’ approach

None of this is an argument against co-production. It’s an argument for using it thoughtfully.

True participation isn’t about everyone designing everything. It’s about people being taken seriously, listened to carefully and reflected honestly in the outcomes.

Co-creation and co-production are not opposing forces. When used well – and at the right moments – they strengthen each other. Paired with clear creative responsibility, they help ensure that brand identities are not only inclusive in process, but effective in practice.

Nothing creative ever happens in a vacuum. Culture, personal context and the times we live in play their part. And, for those of us working in the creative industries, who need the muse to show up on a regular basis, we often find that it’s the books we’ve been reading that become our quiet collaborators.

We might not have picked them up with the aim of creative inspiration, and their influence in our work may not be immediately apparent, but some books cut through, shape our thinking and help us communicate our ideas in a more powerful way.

And so my round-up of 2025 shines the spotlight on the books that meant the most to The Co-Foundry and its collaborators this year. From the unexpected, to the motivational, there’s something to delight, surprise and learn from in our shared bookshelf – and plenty of gift inspiration too!

How to build a bright future

Rachel Hartwell, Senior designer:

What We’ll Build by Oliver Jeffers

As a parent of a small child, I can barely get through a normal adult book, so my pick is not a highbrow, academic text. It’s something way better. A recommendation for a children’s book that packs more emotional punch and political clarity into 32 pages than most grown-up books manage in 400.
And that’s the beauty of children’s books. With only a handful of words and a few dozen pages, they’re forced to distill a big idea into something simple, honest and human.

On the surface, What We’ll Build by Oliver Jeffers, is a gentle, hopeful story about a father and daughter imagining the future they’ll create together. But at its heart, it’s a book about how we choose to build our world, what we protect, what we fear and who we let in. The line that feels the most poignant right now is:

We’ll build a fortress to keep our enemies out, and higher walls for when they shout. But you don’t always lose, and you don’t always win. So we’ll build a door to let them in.

In that tiny moment, Jeffers quietly reminds us that the future doesn’t have to be shaped by fear or barricades. It can be built with empathy, curiosity and the odd, slightly awkward apology. Trump and Farage could do with a bedtime reading of this one – maybe it would make them realise that the world doesn’t fall apart when you let people in. It actually gets better.

The power of story

Becca Freestone, Tone of voice + copywriting:

One Aladdin, Two Lamps by Jeanette Winterson

Jeanette Winterson spoke about her new book, One Aladdin, Two Lamps at an event for Toppings Bath last month and she completely blew my socks off.

One Aladdin Two Lamps blends memoir, essay and fiction to explore the transformative power of story. Adopted by evangelical parents, Winterson grew up working-class, in 1950s Lancashire, with a future that appeared set: factory work or marriage. Through books, she came to understand her life as a kind of fiction, a story she had the power to reshape.

The book invites us to understand that the imagination offers far more than just escapism. Our circumstances and our destinies – both personal and political – may seem fixed and beyond our control, but our imaginations allow us to explore alternatives, sparking the change we may want to make. A beautifully hopeful and liberating read.

On big ideas

Sonja Nisson, Content marketing consultant:

Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman

There’s not enough idealism in the world right now (it’s definitely lacking in our dominant politics) so this book is a tonic. I first read Utopia for Realists back in 2017, but re-reading it this year amid so much division and inequality, it felt even more urgent.

Bregman reminds us that progress always begins with imagination. Utopian thought isn’t a blueprint; it’s a direction of travel, a set of guideposts that throw open “the windows of the mind” and help us see what might be possible.

As comms lead for Humanity Project, working to build a people-led “assembly culture” here in the UK (a new kind of politics rooted in listening, connection and shared power), this book resonates deeply. It’s a call for embracing grand narratives again: for radical ideas that will make life better where we live.
I’m an eternal optimist. This book keeps hope and optimism alive.

How to get more out of life

Jonty Warner, IP Lawyer:

Meditations for Mortals, by Oliver Burkeman

Having enjoyed his huge bestseller Four Thousand Weeks, I read Oliver Burkeman’s Meditations for Mortals earlier this year. Another fascinating blend of philosophy, psychology and self-help, Burkeman makes a case for living a life of ‘imperfectionism’, sharing his ideas on how we might free ourselves from the demands, expectations and restrictions society places on us. This book is a compelling reminder to try and work out what our true values are and orientate our lives accordingly. I strongly recommend both reading the book and signing up to Oliver’s newsletter (see The Imperfectionist | Oliver Burkeman).

Values maketh the brand

Sue Bush, Brand Design Consultant:

Integrity Etc. Turning uninspiring company values into future-shaping strategy by Dave Greasley & Rob Alderson

I’ve been facilitating a brand values process for a large national non-profit whose current values lack visibility and traction. The organisation is complex, with over 8,000 staff. With such an important brief on my desk, I was delighted to come across a newly published book on the topic. And even more glad to see that it corroborated my main bugbear: far too many organisations get their values articulation wrong, plumping for values that are bland, forgettable and can all too easily be consigned to sitting on a shelf.

One stat sums it up in a nutshell: researchers have consistently found that around 50% of employees can’t recall their company values. Given how much time and energy organisations put into developing them, it’s a travesty that so many end up gathering dust.

Beautifully written, this book makes a compelling case for why organisational values have become so devalued (mainly due to a lack of imagination and genuine commitment) and how we can identify and define values that are authentic, distinctive and actionable – rooted in evidence and aligned with an organisation’s mission and culture.

The best book on brand values I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a few), Integrity etc demonstrates how to create, deliver and – crucially – live your values. If you’re about to embark on a values exercise, this is the one to read. And the bonus? If you appreciate the aroma and feel of a book like I do, you’ll love the tactile debossed cover with French flaps and uncoated stock!

Towards better conflict resolution

Fi Craig, Culture coach:

Smart Conflict: How to have hard conversations at work by Alice Driscoll and Louise van Haarst

Conflict comes up in so many of the coaching conversations I have – whether with individuals or, more often, with teams. It shows up as something people try to avoid, don’t feel equipped to handle, take too personally, or slip into without even realising. And when it does, it can feel unexpectedly heavy and all-consuming.

I crossed paths with Louise Van Haarst while at Henley Business School and knew that whatever she wrote would be valuable and underpinned by deep academic research. What I wasn’t quite expecting was that this book would be such an accessible read.

It’s packed with really good examples and deceptively simple coaching prompts, alongside well-researched theory including how experiences of conflict handling in our early years impact us to the present day and how task conflict (where we disagree about the right decision or route forward) differs from relationship conflict (where the beef is really between us).

The authors have built a framework for dealing with conflict that is thorough and flexible, and deep dives into five areas, broadly speaking – self-reflection, emotional regulation, readiness, managing your responses and repair (how to rebuild a relationship if that’s needed).

I particularly appreciated the way this book presents dealing with conflict in such a positive light – focusing on how all of this stuff CAN be learned and put into action. No more avoiding or bumbling our way through will ever be necessary again!

Rethinking shame

Eva Seymour, Content writer/ghostwriter:

A Philosophy of Shame by Frédéric Gros

It seems that shame is nothing to be ashamed of… I picked up this book thinking it would be a primer for understanding where this most personal of emotions comes from and how better to deal with it but found something completely different – shame turned on its head as a precursor to the kind of action that brings about real-world change.

A wake-up call that invites us to see things differently, A Philosophy of Shame challenges the “dominant, individualistic perspectives on shame, connecting it to broader social and political issues like racism, sexism and environmental exploitation”.

Gros identifies shame as something that relies on our imaginations. Imagination is what gives us the ability to feel ashamed in the first place and also how we envisage the ways in which things could be different.

Not at all what I expected, I came away from reading this short book intrigued by some of the concepts it explores and determined to wring out the destructive sadness that’s inherent in feelings of shame and put the anger that’s also at its heart to better use.

And now for something completely different

Frazer King, Motion designer:

Wild Swimming Walks Bristol & Bath by Georgie Duckworth

Don’t be put off by the title! I know wild swimming is a love-hate leisure pursuit (and something I actively avoided for many years). However, all the walks in this book can be done without getting cold and wet. They’re all circular walks with clear instructions, recommended pub/cafe stops and some history and trivia thrown in. It really captures some of the best corners of countryside around Bath and Bristol – local treasures that it’s a privilege to discover. Who’s been to Langport and swum in the River Parret?

Don’t settle for the same old Sunday walk again – get out and discover some of the most beautiful countryside in the UK – maybe this book might even entice you to try a little dip…

If there’s a common thread running through our bookshelf, it’s a word that comes up time and again through these very different choices – ‘imagination’ and through that the art of change and what’s possible on an individual, organisational, national and global level.

And that is surely the most hopeful message we can take into the coming year.

Are creatives right to fear the ‘committee’? And how might we manage the process of evaluation so that the best route the most powerful creative solution is the one that gets taken?

Answering this question is something that should matter to everyone, not just the designer. It’s important because in getting a rebrand or refresh to land and resonate with the people you’re trying to reach, you’re increasing the positive impact you make.

And that’s what we’re all here for. That’s what we – brand consultants, designers, organisational teams and trustees – collaborate to achieve. Effective collaboration comes from good, open and well-managed communication.

Trustees matter

Let’s rewind a little; let’s say your organisation is at an inflection point. You’ve brought in a consultant or agency and have invested time and energy, as well as diverting budgets, into considering where you go with your brand.

It goes without saying that you care about how this is going to work out for your organisation. Of course, trustees too, care deeply about the success of your organisation. They put in their own time to attend meetings and read papers, fitting their obligations in around their own busy lives.

Charities, for their part, often feel they need to involve trustees in every decision and at every stage of, say, the rebrand process. When it comes to assessing strategic solutions, trustees need to have input in the discovery process and a full understanding of the brand’s proposed new strategy. (Without that they can’t hold the wider senior leadership to account.) But what is their role in assessing the creative solutions that follow the strategy phase?

Making creative decisions

The following questions should be at the core of every creative decision that’s taken:

• What evidence do we have to help us make the right decisions?
• How will this change increase our impact on the world?
• Will this solution move the dial?

While trustees play a crucial role in governance and strategy, their personal preferences should never be allowed to override audience needs or brand strategy (that only leads to inefficiencies, misalignment and that dreaded ‘design by committee’).

This post explores the common pitfalls of trustees being too closely involved in the design process and outlines where the opportunities for their most productive contribution lie.

The pitfalls of design by committee

When multiple trustees weigh in on a design, the result is often a compromise rather than a clear, compelling solution.

Design by committee tends to prioritise consensus over effectiveness, leading to ‘safe’, watered-down visuals that fail to make an impact. This happens because each person brings their own preferences which, if they conflict with one another, result in endless revisions and an unfocused final product. The best design decisions come from a small group of informed stakeholders who understand the brand’s strategic objectives and can make confident, audience-led choices.

Trustees are not the target audience

One of the biggest challenges is helping trustees separate their personal taste from what’s right for the organisation’s audience. A trustee may dislike a bold colour choice or modern typography but if research demonstrates that it resonates with the intended audience, their opinion should not outweigh audience insights. Keeping the following fact top of mind is key: the brand exists for the organisation’s beneficiaries, supporters and stakeholders. Shifting the conversation from “Do we like it?” to “Does it serve our mission?” helps keep feedback constructive and focused.

Conflicting opinions

A common issue in trustee-led feedback is contradiction. One trustee may feel the design is too modern, while another believes it’s not bold enough. Without a clear framework for feedback, designers are left trying to satisfy multiple, often opposing viewpoints, which results in confusion and frustration. Setting clear criteria such as brand alignment, audience appeal and strategic fit can help trustees provide more relevant feedback.

Risk aversion

Trustees often approach brand and design decisions with caution, fearing that anything too bold or different from the status quo could alienate existing stakeholders. While it’s important to protect an organisation’s reputation, excessive risk aversion can lead to stagnation. Some of the most successful charity rebrands have been those that embraced fresh, innovative approaches. Trustees should be encouraged to consider the long-term benefits of standing out in a crowded sector rather than defaulting to ‘safe’ but forgettable choices.

Being a trustee does not automatically make someone a brand or design expert

Trustees bring valuable expertise in governance, finance, and strategy, but they are rarely design professionals. Expecting them to make creative decisions without the necessary background can lead to misguided feedback. It’s important to respect their role while also trusting the expertise of brand and design specialists. When trustees do contribute to the process, their input should focus on alignment with the organisation’s mission rather than aesthetic details.

When and how to involve trustees

Defining clear roles

Setting expectations early can prevent difficulties later on. Trustees should understand that while they provide strategic oversight, they do not need to be involved in every design decision. A clear project structure – outlining who makes the final call and how trustees contribute – helps keep the process efficient and focused.

Setting boundaries

A useful framework is to separate governance from design execution. Trustees should have input on high-level brand strategy and key messaging, ensuring alignment with the organisation’s mission. However, they do not need to weigh in on font choices, image selection, or colour palettes unless these elements have direct legal, ethical, or reputational implications.

Leading with the strategy

Always present the strategy ahead of the creative solution. People often respond better to design when they understand its strategic role. Providing context such as audience research and brand positioning helps develop an understanding of design beyond pure aesthetics. Presenting design as a tool for engagement, advocacy and fundraising shifts the focus away from discussions based on subjective opinion, to ones that consider measurable impact.

Grounding design choices in research

Design is effectively a series of choices. Trustees are more likely to support design decisions when they see evidence of audience preferences. Sharing data from surveys or audience testing can help them understand why certain choices are made. This again, helps shift the conversation away from opinion i.e. “Do I like this?” to “Is this effective for the people we serve?”

Creating a structured approval process

To prevent endless revisions, set clear milestones for feedback and approvals. For example, trustees could review the initial brand strategy but not get involved in every iteration of the visual identity. Assigning a final decision-maker – such as the CEO or communications lead – ensures that projects move forward without unnecessary delays.

It isn’t always easy for non-designers to pinpoint exactly what isn’t working for them in a design. However, the more specific and objective the feedback, the more useful it will be. Instead of saying, “I don’t like the colours,” try identifying the issue more precisely – eg “The contrast between these two colours feels too harsh”. Focusing on tangible aspects rather than gut reactions helps designers understand the concerns and make meaningful adjustments. Resist the urge to provide solutions, give the designer space to find the right fix based on their expertise.

Including the team

Staff members who work closely with beneficiaries and supporters often have the best understanding of audience needs. Empowering them to drive the brand and design process ensures that decisions are informed by frontline experience rather than boardroom preferences. Trustees should have faith in the team being able to make decisions based on their expertise. Top-level buy-in is important but without team empowerment the new branding and messaging will go off-track fast.

Designers – when to listen, when to defend

Although designers need to be well acquainted with how and when to tactfully push back, they also need to know how to actively listen, maintain an open mind and respect diversity of thought. And above all, they need to learn not to take feedback personally.

As Rick Rubin says in his seminal book The Creative Act: A Way of Being:

When on the receiving end of feedback, our task is to set aside ego and work to fully understand the critique offered. When one participant suggests a specific detail that could be improved, we might mistakenly think that the entire work is being called into question. Our ego can perceive assistance as interference.

When we say that designers need to listen, then it follows that designers have to take part and be present in all conversations that impact design. Side conversations between trustees not only waste valuable time but also run the risk of taking things in new and irrelevant directions. The creative director or senior designer needs to be included at all times.

Strike the right balance

Trustee involvement in branding can be a positive force when approached in the right way. When trustees have marketing or brand expertise, or understand the power of good design and support the internal team in delivering it, they can help champion strategic, audience-led decision-making at the board level.

That said, their participation should be carefully managed to avoid inefficiencies and ‘design by committee.’ By setting clear boundaries, using audience insights and structuring the approval process effectively, charities can create strong, impactful brands without getting distracted, subjecting projects to unnecessary delays or design compromises.

Ultimately, charities should empower their marketing and communications teams to lead design discussions. These teams have the closest connection to the organisation’s audience and should be trusted to drive creative decisions. Trustees can contribute best by focusing on governance and strategy – ensuring that branding efforts align with the charity’s mission – while leaving the design execution to the specialists.

Brand strategy done right will have a positive impact on every aspect of an organisation. And yet so often, brand strategists are kept at arm’s length. In my experience, the most forward-thinking organisations understand and celebrate the power of brand, recognising that it’s far more than what people see on the outside. Brand holds everything together on the inside too.

It shapes the choices you make about who you serve, what you offer and how you operate. As such, brand should go arm in arm with the overall strategic plan of an organisation as well as informing the creative expression and comms of a brand identity.

Brand as organisational North Star

The clients who get the most value out of working with The Co-Foundry give myself and my team access to the board, trustees and senior leadership teams. Our involvement with them doesn’t just start and end with their marketing function.

Although it’s an intangible asset, brand is fundamental to an organisation’s resilience and long-term success, informing and affecting culture, roles, responsibilities, aspirations and vision.

Not just a veneer

Too many organisations still think of brand strategy as a surface-level exercise – with rebrands intended as a means of refreshing visual identity or improving external communications. But once the process begins, brand research and the strategic recommendations flowing from it can often reveal deeper misalignments in the business itself.

Rebrands stall mid-process when they expose gaps in business strategy. These can be around unclear positioning, conflicting organisational priorities or an audience that hasn’t been fully understood. At this point, the organisation faces a choice to either push forward with branding that won’t align with reality or take several steps back to reassess their strategic foundations and untangle the disconnects. Many end up in a frustrating holding pattern, unsure how to proceed.

These disconnects happen because brand strategy should never be regarded as a mere response to business strategy. Neither standalone function nor superficial external layer – brand is integral to organisations as a whole. Put simply, everything works much better if brand has a seat at the table when organisational strategy is being shaped.

Why brand strategy should inform business strategy (and vice versa)

Brand goes far deeper than how an organisation looks and sounds. It’s how it behaves, what it stands for and how it’s perceived by stakeholders. So, when brand strategy is developed in isolation from business strategy, key decisions risk being misaligned.

The following lists just some of the critical areas where brand and business strategy need to work together:

1. Brand architecture impacts organisational structure and communication channels
   Whether an organisation operates with distinct departments or branded sub-services, brand affects roles, responsibilities and even operational efficiency. A clear brand architecture ensures internal alignment while helping customers and stakeholders understand and navigate offerings seamlessly.
2. Vision, mission and purpose should be more than words
   An organisation’s mission and vision should be lived across all functions – not just as statements on a website but as guiding principles shaping strategy, operations and culture. If business decisions don’t align with the brand’s purpose, it leads to dissonance, fragmentation and confusion.
3. Values drive company culture and organisational unity
   Defining core values isn’t just a branding exercise, it’s the foundation of company culture. Values shouldn’t just live in a brand book – they should influence everything from hiring and leadership to service delivery and internal communications. When they’re clearly articulated and embedded into decision-making, they create organisational unity and help align teams around a shared purpose.
4. Audience and stakeholder insights add value beyond marketing
   Brand strategists bring external perspectives, helping organisations understand their audience’s needs, perceptions and expectations. This intelligence then informs the full spectrum of organisational decisions, from service design, to partnerships – a far wider remit than just influencing marketing campaigns.

Making brand integral

Rather than treating brand strategy as a final or standalone step or, even worse, an afterthought – organisations should integrate brand into their core strategic planning. This ensures that:

• Organisational goals and brand positioning reinforce one another
• Organisational changes are tested against the brand’s purpose and audience expectations
• Brand remains a consistent, guiding force rather than a reactive patchwork of responses
• Company culture is shaped by intentional values not just inherited behaviours

A well-defined brand creates clarity and a strong sense of purpose that can then be consistently put to work across the organisation and communicated to target audiences.

Nike’s Just Do It slogan is one of the most iconic brand messages in history. It has cultivated mental associations that reflect Nike’s purpose – empowering individuals to overcome obstacles, push their limits, and take action. The consistency of its application (35 years plus and counting) meant it gained momentum and eventually became inseparable from Nike’s identity – attesting to the power of brand.

Not sure when to bring a brand specialist in?

You don’t have to get all your ducks in a row before you introduce a brand specialist to your organisation. If you’re looking to make some big changes or you think you have a perception problem or cultural issue but can’t quite identify its causes – a brand strategist could be just the person to help you find the answers.

Coming in early, they can conduct research, facilitate conversations and stress test your hypotheses. They may not have all the answers but their involvement means that your organisation will benefit from cognitive diversity – balancing, for example, a more traditional, finance-driven board perspective with the brand voice that resonates with customers and end-users.

In a world where CEO and CMO tenures are growing ever shorter, placing brand front and centre, and forging a strong brand identity that everyone can understand and get behind, is becoming ever more integral to organisational success.

In this post, I’ll explore why a more imaginative approach to renaming might be a smarter move than sticking with a Ronseal-style, ‘it does what it says on the tin’ name. Playing it safe has its appeal, but does it limit your organisation’s potential? I’ll break down the rewards of a bolder choice and share examples of charities that have successfully rebranded with impact.

Words matter

A name isn’t just a label – it shapes perception, sparks emotion, and tells a story. The right name can create a stronger connection with supporters, cut through the noise, and position an organisation for the future.

Despite perceptions, the third sector is anything but conservative (small ‘c’). Charities and not-for-profits have repeatedly shown their willingness to evolve – and bold, imaginative renaming has become a powerful tool for redefining identity, mission, and public perception.

Creative names help brands to build a more compelling narrative, foster deeper connections with their audience, and stand out in a crowded marketplace.

Done well, a name change isn’t just about keeping up – it’s about standing out.

The advantages

Emotional resonance: A creative name can evoke emotions, making the organisation more relatable and memorable.

Distinctiveness: In a sector where many organisations have similar-sounding names, a unique name helps a charity stand out. It can also make it easier to secure a trademark, ensuring your name is protected.

Broader appeal: An imaginative name can transcend specific services, allowing for future growth and diversification.

Enhanced engagement: A compelling name can ignite curiosity and encourage potential supporters and beneficiaries to learn more about the organisation.

Several UK charities have successfully undertaken bold renaming initiatives to better reflect their mission and values.

1. Mind (formerly National Association for Mental Health)

Established in 1946 as the National Association for Mental Health, the organisation rebranded to ‘Mind’ in 1972. This concise and impactful name shift signified a commitment to addressing all aspects of mental health. The name ‘Mind’ embodies the charity’s focus on mental well-being and resonates deeply with those seeking support, making it approachable and memorable.

2. Scope (formerly The Spastics Society)

Founded in 1952 as The Spastics Society, the charity rebranded to ‘Scope’ in 1994. The original name, based on then-common medical terminology, had become outdated and offensive. The new name, ‘Scope’, reflects the charity’s broader vision for disability equality and inclusion, moving beyond a narrow focus to encompass a wider range of services and advocacy efforts.

3. Refuge (formerly Chiswick Women’s Aid)

In 1971, Chiswick Women’s Aid was established as a safe haven for women and children escaping domestic violence. As the organisation expanded its services nationally, it rebranded to ‘Refuge’ in 1993. This powerful name conveys safety and protection, aligning with the charity’s mission to support those in crisis and advocate for policy changes to end domestic abuse.

4. Shelter (formerly The Shelter National Campaign for the Homeless)

Launched in 1966 as The Shelter National Campaign for the Homeless, the organisation soon shortened its name to ‘Shelter’. This succinct name encapsulates the charity’s core mission to combat homelessness and bad housing. ‘Shelter’ conveys a fundamental human need, making it a strong and evocative brand that appeals to a wide audience.

5. Marie Curie (formerly Marie Curie Memorial Foundation)

Founded in 1948 as the Marie Curie Memorial Foundation, the charity initially focused on supporting cancer patients. Over time, it expanded its services to provide end-of-life care for people with all terminal illnesses. It was renamed as ‘Marie Curie Cancer Care’ in 1995 and in 2014, the organisation rebranded to ‘Marie Curie’ to reflect this broader scope. The name honours the renowned scientist Marie Curie, symbolising the charity’s commitment to care and research. This evolution showcases how you can pay homage to a legacy while embracing a wider mission.

Shaping a legacy

Name changes shouldn’t be taken lightly – they are rare and require a strong justification. But let’s assume the case for change is clear. Research has demonstrated the need, stakeholders are aligned, and everyone understands the costs involved. Now comes the big question: what kind of name will serve your organisation best?

Embracing a bold and imaginative name is more than a cosmetic change – it’s a strategic decision that can redefine a charity’s identity and impact. A new name can break down barriers, foster inclusivity, and create a lasting connection. But no single word or phrase can capture everything an organisation stands for. Instead, the essence should be there – a spark of meaning that resonates with the mission. Over time, that meaning will grow and deepen through every touchpoint, from campaigns to conversations. For organisations considering this path, the key is to choose a name that authentically reflects their purpose, values, and the communities they serve, while leaving space for the brand to evolve.

A brand agency or individual expert can help you make sense of everything that goes into making your organisation what it is and determine a strategic course to support your brand.

But, and this is where it can get confusing…why is it that no matter who you go to, be it consultant or agency, each and every one puts forward a different approach? And it always comes complete with its own terminology and (buzz)words or, worse still, uses the same words in different ways.

Start with positioning

Getting clear on your positioning is fundamental to the success of any branding work that you undertake. If you’re thinking of turning to books for advice on positioning you may well find that a lot of it won’t feel relevant – that’s because this is a subject that’s often written about from an advertising and FMCG angle.

So, to redress the balance, this post outlines my approach – a very specific take on what clients coming to me can expect to receive from my brand strategy process.

It’s a process that, as you go through it, informs not only the creative expression and marketing activity of your brand, but also its operations and human resources. In fact, I believe that brand strategy should be as intertwined with the overall strategic plan of a business as it is with the creative expression of the brand identity, with each informing the other.

While most people think of positioning as a marketing concept, a shift in positioning feels more like a shift in business strategy. Every department inside the company is likely to be impacted over time.

April Dunford, Startup Executive

Focused direction for your organisation

My focus here is squarely on service-based organisations (primarily third sector, and the tech and creative sectors). These organisations look to build the awareness and reputation of their brands. They rarely have massive advertising or marketing budgets and, as such, look for brand-building advice that will serve them in the long-term. Any decisions they make need to be strongly evidence-based with actions being easily implementable.

The approach I detail will help you develop a strategy that is far more than just words on a deck. You’ll have direction, advice and recommendations that you can take forward and use across your teams as well as in your creative.

What is positioning and why is it useful to service-based organisations?

Brand positioning is essentially a compelling promise that organisations need to convey to win their audiences’ minds and hearts. You’ll sometimes hear ‘positioning’ described as a singular tagline like Apple’s ‘Think Different’. Just two words, but behind them is a well-researched and thoroughly documented strategy – you can’t just land on words without putting in the research and collaborative thinking.

In this post, when I refer to brand positioning, I’m referring to a brand positioning strategy, one that considers, ‘where you play’, ‘what your audience cares about’ and ‘what you care about’.

Foundational to this are what I call, positioning pillars – a single point or more commonly two to three points you want your audience to know and remember about you. These position points can be soft/emotional (heart) and hard/factual (head) but when combined they resonate and provoke action (hands), prompting people to reach for the phone, click a fundraising link, submit a job application or more likely, just take notice, building brand awareness so that when the time comes for a decision to be made, your brand is the one that’s front of mind for your audience.

There is genuine commercial danger in getting positioning wrong. Any consultants or agencies that you work with have to recognise that there’s an ethical dimension to any advice they give. In setting out my position on positioning and illustrating what I believe to be the best approach and in doing so am also demonstrating that there’s a right way and a lite way.

There are numerous elements involved in arriving at your brand positioning – planting that flag on a hill. I like to think of them as jigsaw pieces and, just like with a jigsaw puzzle, if you miss a piece, you end up with an incomplete picture – frustrating and underwhelming in equal measure.

Getting the full brand positioning picture

Of course it might be tempting to take some shortcuts but, particularly for service-based third sector and purpose-led organisations, I believe you need to be using all the pieces in the positioning jigsaw puzzle, interrogating each and every one of the areas and elements listed below.

No one answer, however rigorous the response might be, will get you to where you need to be – there are no shortcuts if you want to have the full brand positioning picture!

The brand positioning puzzle pieces’

Can the founder or chief exec define your brand’s positioning?

The short answer is ‘no’.

Why? A senior leader defining your brand positioning throws up the issue of selective attention. All humans benefit, as well as suffer, from this. Selective attention may give the organisational leader the benefit of laser-sharp focus but it also comes with blind spots – they may not be able to see the wood for the trees. The other danger is that without team engagement, you get no team buy-in.

Of course, taking the senior leader’s viewpoint (their insights and hypotheses) into consideration is vital, in fact the whole brand positioning process may derail without it:

Positioning is a business strategy exercise – the person who owns the business strategy needs to fully support the positioning, or it’s unlikely to be adopted.

April Dunford, Startup Executive
However, it’s something that should be the first step, not your only step.

Can you define your brand’s positioning from audience research?

The short answer is ‘no’.

Why? The problem of only using audience research to define your brand positioning is that brands don’t exist in a vacuum. True understanding of positioning comes from knowing the market, alternative providers, i.e. the competition, and the business objectives of your organisation.

You have to listen to your stakeholders, both internal and external, and wherever possible introduce research into the process as early as possible, but their insights should sit in the round with all the other pieces of the puzzle. And it’s also essential to remember that not everything they tell you will be relevant.

Can you define your brand’s positioning from data?

The short answer is ‘no’.

Why? Data alone won’t engage your audience. Brand positioning only becomes effective when audience heads and hearts are engaged. Take data into consideration but recognise that it can only ever be one piece of the puzzle.

Can you define your brand’s positioning from a team workshop?

The short answer is ‘no’.

Why? The problem of defining your brand positioning from a team workshop/series of workshops (even if you bring in an outside consultant) is that it will only give you the insiders’ perspective. Informative and essential, you’ll undoubtedly uncover some gems but you need to be doing more than just looking inward.

Can you define your brand’s positioning by bringing in creative talent?

Surely, a creative is all you need – a brand writer or intuitive designer to look at what you’re currently saying and how you’re presenting yourself, do a little desk research and then come up with the brand positioning answer?

The short answer is ‘no’.

Why? A creative, working in isolation can only offer a very one-sided view. They’ll come up with something based on what they know. In the absence of their having an understanding of your world, its challenges and how you’re perceived, their biases, assumptions and preferences will inform their choices. You may get something clever and snappy but it won’t be a true reflection of your organisation.

Creative talent is important and will bring your positioning to life, but this part of the puzzle only comes into play once your brand strategy has been defined.

Can you define your brand’s positioning from a brainstorm?

The short answer is ‘no’.

Why? The problem with defining brand positioning from a brainstorming session is that the loudest, most confident people in the room end up asserting themselves which leads to an outcome that reflects only their views – a group-think mentality sets in.

You can incorporate brainstorms by all means, but these do need to be managed carefully. You need to make sure that the environment is a safe one, that everyone gets heard and that those who maybe aren’t able to respond as fast in this sort of session can input ideas at their own pace.

Can you define your brand’s positioning from a moodboard?

The short answer is ‘no’.

Why? As it only presents what you and your team likes and dislikes, a moodboard is never going to be an adequate tool for a fully defined positioning. Moodboards can’t tell you what your audience cares about or what else is happening in your market or in the wider world.

A moodboard represents a jumping ahead in the process. You can incorporate moodboards and co-creation but they’re never a good place to start.

Can you position your brand by looking and sounding different?

The short answer is ‘no’ – the longer answer is, ‘in part, yes’.

Why? Merely looking and sounding different is an ‘easy’ fix that, without the other pieces of the puzzle in play, can only ever offer a superficial positioning answer, creating a position that will be difficult to ‘defend’.

Researching your market category, considering whether you want to go for parity or difference (sometimes parity is stronger than difference) means that this piece is then able to add weight to the overall picture you’re putting together.

Can you express your positioning in a tagline – a single positioning line?

The short answer is ‘yes’. But the long answer is heavily caveated.

Why? The problem with defining your brand positioning with a tagline is that it won’t be useful to those working in the organisation: operations, human resources, front desk… It may be tempting to jump to a concise, clear brand message but your team/s need to understand the thinking behind the words. This is where a strategy document comes into its own as it includes not only brand statements like mission, vision and values but also provides your team with evidence, guidance and direction.

So what should a brand positioning process look like?

A brand positioning exercise is something that’s grounded in current reality but ambitious enough to explore and define future aspirations.

A well-rounded approach gives the people in your service-centred business, (people who work hard to serve their clients and customers) the space to be heard and to think, and adequate time to be creative.

In the words of Alina Wheeler – from her seminal book, Designing Brand Identity, “The best positioning builds on a deep understanding of customer needs and aspirations, the competition, the strengths and weaknesses of a brand, changes in demographics, technology, and trends.”

A process of scoping, gathering and defining will ensure that all bases are covered and no stone is left unturned. Effective brands are effective precisely because they listen to different perspectives and are able to look outwards as well as inwards and all around.

Putting your positioning into play

Once you’ve defined your points of difference and your brand promise, the work of establishing a belief about your brand in people’s minds begins – it’s time to bring it to life. Start to create your visual and verbal brand identity and your marketing strategy. And build your operations and talent around it.

Don’t take shortcuts, use every piece of the puzzle to present a whole-picture position for your brand, ensuring it is:

Relevant to your audience – focusing on something they care about

Specific – highlighting what you bring to the table and not falling back on lazy superlatives or vague generalisations

Impactful – solving the need or desire of your target audience

Credible – making a promise and proving you can keep it

Distinct and defendable – putting you in control of your niche with clear water between you and your competition

Spirited – sparking chemistry and connection

There are organizations that love the fun part of coming up with a beautiful, bold promise, but shy away from the dirty, difficult task of working out how exactly that’s going to be delivered, to whom, and how. There are also organizations that create intricate brand onions, wheels, bridges, or platforms, but are utterly bereft of a creative expression that people can actually care about and believe in.

Nick Liddell, Brand Strategist

Stay true to your brand positioning

Getting clear on your positioning is a superpower but only if, once you’ve settled on it, you stick to it. Don’t chop and change. Your audience won’t remember your brand if you say it or they see it only once. Consistency of approach is key as it builds memory and mental availability when the time comes for action.

And if you need further proof of how clear, easily-defendable positioning has the potential to break through in a noisy world where we’re all constantly being overwhelmed with choice – check out this post which runs through the very real business rewards of doubling down on your positioning.

And, in the words of and following the example of the great Dolly Parton…

Find out who you are and do it on purpose.

Recent years have seen increasing numbers of clients bringing their design execution in-house. This can mean anything, from large organisations building their own internal agencies of highly skilled team members, well versed in using industry standard software and overseen by a brand manager, to lone marketing managers using subscription software like Canva to produce their brand’s day-to-day marketing and comms. And it’s a trend that’s not going away any time soon.

A growing trend

Typically, the trend to build in-house resources goes in waves, driven by the state of the economy. When budgets are tight – resources, quite unsurprisingly, are brought in-house. As the economy bounces back, external agencies come back into play. But nowadays, with drag-and-drop online software and AI tools, that move in-house looks set to stick.

You could call it the democratisation of design. So much more can now be achieved with far less; for example, you don’t necessarily need knowledge around, say, typography or layout principles, something that used to be the sole preserve of designers, in order to create serviceable social media content templates.

Democracy is good, right?

As much as it creates opportunities, this sort of democracy also brings with it a number of challenges for both client and external agency. Needless to say, the quality of experiences and outputs will vary depending on an organisation’s attitude, structure, expertise and culture. To generalise…

Opportunities [on the client-side]:

Flexibility and immediate access to resources.

Insider-advantage – knowledge of the sector and competition as well as the internal machinations of the organisation.

Lower costs

Challenges

Overwhelm – too much work for too little resource. In-house teams are likely to be pulled in a number of different directions, carrying responsibility for skill sets other than design (such as marketing and copywriting).

Less authority – sadly, it’s a fact that an external specialist often garners more respect with senior leadership than a more junior internal team member.

Limited perspective – in-house teams, by their very nature and insider status, struggle with being able to effectively step back and see the wood for the trees.

Less expertise – external agencies tend to laser focus on their specialisms which means they have the advantage of staying up to speed with the latest innovations and trends in their particular area.

What an outsider brings to the table

The challenges listed above (by no means an exhaustive list) should confirm that in developing an in-house resource you should never close the door on bringing in outsiders, i.e. external agencies and specialists. An external perspective can complement and enhance in-house capabilities, meaning you’ll benefit from:

Experience of selling change in – specialists, in particular senior specialists, are experienced in providing evidence for change, articulating and defending a rationale, and responding to objections.

An objective viewpoint – an internal brand or marketing manager may have a hypothesis or gut feeling but will not have the time, nor access to the methods and tools, to test that theory in a truly objective manner.

A wider lens perspective – external advisers will have encountered similar patterns and trends from working on comparable client challenges. They can apply these experiences alongside their facility for having that ‘big picture’ whole-of-market view.

In short, they leverage their specialist expertise for strategic impact.

When is the best time to seek specialist help?

The obvious time to bring in specialists is to bridge skills gaps or to inject a creative spark into brand campaigns, rebrands and refreshes. But time is of the essence. If there’s change afoot – if you’re looking to evolve your positioning or fully reposition your brand – don’t get too far into the process before calling those specialists in.

I’d argue that the best time to bring external help in is when you have an unscientific hunch that things aren’t working. The outsider can propose the best method to objectively test your hypothesis – introducing rigorous research methods, moving away from those knee-jerk, solely emotional responses and casting a wider lens over the entire project. It’s one action that will, in the long run, save you time, money and unproductive brand soul-searching.

The importance of building ongoing relationships

For your brand to thrive and prosper, your facility for accessing external specialists shouldn’t be limited to crisis or special case scenarios. Building ongoing relationships means that both sides will be able to get the most out of their connection and the client will benefit from being able to address issues before they become problems.

That external perspective can be invaluable, for instance, when you find your brand going a little off-piste. This can sometimes be down to the people on your team changing. Having an external brand champion to call on means you’ll be able to right things by running a refresher on the whys and wherefores of your brand strategy, ensuring that the concept and thinking behind the brand doesn’t ‘leave the room’ when your staff move on.

You might also consider using an agency or individual to provide ongoing creative direction or mentoring. This approach will help you develop your skills, adding to your in-house capabilities, and ensuring you’re on the case, retaining and building that all-important brand salience (i.e. knowing when to pull in the reins when there’s an appetite to gallop off in a new direction!).

Embracing an open and collaborative mindset

From an agency perspective, the tide of in-housing creative and design resources isn’t going out again any time soon. In fact, according to the 2024 DBA report What Clients Think, 22% of clients without an in-house creative resource stated that their company was currently considering developing this capacity.

Nervous agencies can, and should, embrace this change because, on the other side of the coin, a whopping 80% of clients with in-house creative resources would like to see a greater level of collaboration with external agencies.

This should be music to agency ears. Designers, even when they have completed and signed off a project, care and carry on caring how the brand identity they’ve created, will fare ‘in the wild’. They’re seldom happy to just walk away from the project launch fanfare with some smart visuals and a case study for their own website. Call it control freakery, but what they fear most when they complete a rebrand or brand refresh and pass the brand assets over to the client’s in-house team to manage, is that their concept, the Big Idea will be diluted or damaged through poor execution.

And this, of course, is a valid concern but, it doesn’t have to be this way. In-house and external resources need to find ways to play to their strengths, create symbiotic loops between them, learn from each other and grow as a result.

The in-house team can share their industry insights and join the creative journey through points of co-creation. External specialists can share their knowledge of trends and skills as well as helping to build the in-house team’s capability and confidence for selling design and strategy into senior leadership and stakeholders.

The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don’t play together, the club won’t be worth a dime.

Babe Ruth

Conclusion

Further evidence, should it be needed that, despite the rise of the in-house resource, design agencies are still very much valued comes from What Clients Think. Their findings reveal that 95% of clients with an in-house creative resource still see the value in using external agencies for particular challenges, typically for bigger, more strategic projects or where a fresh perspective is particularly called for.

It seems that we’ve reached a point where it’s not an either/or situation where in-housing and outsourcing come and go in cycles. The most impactful branding will be born from embracing the synergy between in-house and external specialists and ensuring we all become excellent collaborators.

Sitting on the ‘other side’ of the table proved to be both interesting and a little daunting. It was definitely a good thing to do because I now have some idea of how it feels to be my client! One of the most important things I did during this process was define my market – who I was a good fit for. In The Co-Foundry’s case, it’s mission-led organisations – founder-led, privately-owned tech and creative businesses, and third sector organisations.

And the first lesson I learnt? As I wrote back in the summer of 2021, defining the ‘who’ makes you much better able to articulate your ‘why’ because both you and your ideal clients care about the same things.

An entrepreneurial heritage

Looking back, I can also see that the connection with founders goes deeper than the discovery stage of my own rebrand. Although I’d never really connected the dots before, I come from an entrepreneurial family, from a grandfather who was a tomato-grower on Guernsey to a father who started his own business in his 40s, not to mention the years I spent running my design agency. I guess you could say that I get it – that need to establish and run a business to your own special recipe.

I can’t deny that working directly with founders offers some significant and immediate advantages – you get to sit shoulder to shoulder with the decision-makers, you can be pretty sure that your creative won’t be subject to the dreaded design by committee revisions and, because you already know they’re not averse to risk, a bold design approach, when appropriate, is more likely to be embraced.

But more than that, their having ‘skin in the game’ and being so focused on the longer-term means there’s something very special about working with founders. Perhaps it’s similar to the difference an architect or designer encounters when they work with someone who’s after creating their dream home rather than just an investment vehicle.

They love what they do

I love what I do. For me, it’s not just work but a driving passion and so it’s no wonder that I relate to others who love and care for their businesses too. These are people who want to get it right, who recognise they can’t do it all themselves and so build a team and a culture, and through that a future that demonstrates these wider ambitions.

The mission-led businesses I work with embody their founders’ singular vision. They’ve developed something that meets a need or solves a problem in a way that delights their customers. It’s something they keep top of mind but may have trouble articulating and reflecting in their branding. But of course, that’s where a good brand consultant comes in…

They’re creative (even if they don’t always know it)

Design is easily identified as being part of the creative economy but, to my mind, entrepreneurship and being a founder is (no matter what field you’re in) a profoundly creative act.

As Bernie Goldhirsh, founder of Inc magazine said, creating a business from nothing is ‘a kind of artistry…based on an ability to see what everyone else is missing.’ He also believed that entrepreneurial management required far more creativity from a founder than the grounding in rational skills that traditional management courses teach.

There’s a buzz

I found that reading Bo Burlingham’s book, Small Giants: Companies that Choose to be Great instead of Big really chimed with my thinking. In the same way that I see the founder-led companies I’m lucky enough to work with, Burlingham identified the ‘small giants’ in his book, as working to more than just financial objectives, ‘They were also interested in being great at what they did, creating a great place to work, providing great service to customers, having great relationships with their suppliers, making great contributions to the communities they lived and worked in, and finding great ways to lead their lives.’

All of this drive, enthusiasm and purpose means founder-led companies have a buzz about them, something that the book refers to as a state of being ‘totally in sync with [your] market, with the world around [you] and with each other.’ Getting your branding and values aligned is vital in maintaining this consistent emotional connection with your customers, team and community. It’s why our Values in Action workshops are so popular with the founders and third sector organisations we work with. The workshops ensure that branding is more than skin-deep – it becomes a code of conduct that’s embedded and lived by.

They understand that things take time

It seems that founders have quite a few things in common with branding consultants: They understand the importance of having a perspective or point of view on their market and a value proposition they believe in.

As Danny Meyer of now, not so ‘small giant’, Union Square Hospitality Group, points out, ‘At first, [your value proposition] is a monologue. Gradually it becomes a dialogue and then a real conversation. Like breaking in a baseball glove. You can’t will a baseball glove to be broken in; you have to use it. Well, you have to use a new business, too. You have to break it in. If you move on to the next thing too quickly, it will never develop its soul.’

They may be driven to succeed, but founders understand that brands take time to bed in – that brand-building is a long-term strategy – because they’re in it for the long term too. This makes working with them hugely rewarding, not least when you see how a rebrand revitalises a business or helps take it in a new direction.

How The Co-Foundry helps founder-led businesses

Our collaborative approach to working with our clients is in our name. As The Co-Foundry we work closely alongside our clients because we believe that branding is never something that is imposed or done ‘to you’. Our process is comprehensive and thorough and, as we’re reliably informed, time and again, great fun – with the workshop stages offering a chance for teams to bond and remind themselves of why they do what they do.

Over to the founders…

The clients we’ve worked with put it much better than I ever could (or should!):

Our new branding and messaging communicated that providing an ongoing, long-term relationship was central to how we work and this made what we offer different to what he’d get from another recruitment company. And that is exactly what we’d wanted to portray. I feel confident we’ll get a tenfold return on our investment over three years and, in addition it’ll stop us losing business.

Alan Furley, ISL Talent

We have true standout now. Before, we looked and sounded like any other web dev company – we needed to be bold, express our opinion and demonstrate our personality. we’ve got that now and it’s really getting us traction.

Simon Best, CEO, BaseKit

Together we were able to bring some much-needed clarity to our positioning and identity. I’m thrilled with the results and can’t wait to continue growing the business from the solid base they have helped us build.

Harry Cobbold, Unfold (digital agency)

You can’t be for everybody

As the saying goes, you can’t be all things to all people. Finding ‘my people’ – the clients I most enjoyed working with, that I could bring the most value to, has been the most liberating of the changes I made when I went from design agency to brand consultant.

Niching down and targeting founders (as well as mission-led third sector organisations) has not only increased my job satisfaction, it’s also helped me refine my processes and make more of my voice in the industry. And for those who might think that working with the same type of people is repetitive…?

Every client is different and so requires a carefully tailored approach. What your clients do all get to benefit from, when you niche down, is someone who truly understands their concerns and issues, and the values that are important to them. The patterns I see emerging add greater depth and meaning to the work we’re able to do with our clients, and so make for better branding all round.

Turbulent times

The last seven years since the 2016 Brexit vote, have seen me, along with so many others, resort to feelings of what has been dubbed, ‘learned helplessness’: That despite our best efforts, we’re too small and insignificant to make a difference and that any change has to come from ‘the powers that be’.

It’s difficult to see how a single vote once every four or five years can address the myriad of real and pressing concerns that require long-term solutions. It’s also ironic how, despite localism being firmly on the agenda for over a decade, local government now seems less relevant than ever.

And, as a business owner, living in this era of climate emergency and feeling it incumbent on me to make changes and operate as sustainably as possible, I’ve been questioning the very concept of growth for growth’s sake for quite some time.

Time to tell a new story

A sense of disquiet, disenfranchisement and disappointment is growing. We’re realising that taking to the streets to protest doesn’t seem to make much difference and voting with our wallets changes little.

My daughter and her friend protesting against Brexit ©New York Times

And that is ‘Citizens’’ jumping off point: The source code that our society has been built on for more than one hundred years – the Consumer Story – is broken.

‘Citizens: Why the Key to Fixing Everything is All of Us’ by Jon Alexander with Ariane Conrad sets out an alternative narrative – the Citizen Story.

It’s also a rallying call urging us not to permit turbulent times and uncertainty to drag us back in time and allow the Subject Story to gain ascendance. (Although it’s also acknowledged that that idea of accepting a “Strong Man” leader has unfortunately seen some resurgence in recent years, eg Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi etc.)

Why the Consumer Story isn’t working

The stories imprinted on the collective consciousness of societies are important because they influence how we understand ourselves on a very fundamental level. They ‘shape our beliefs, our morality, guiding our behaviour and even constraining the possibilities we can imagine’.

In the Consumer Story, those in positions of power, whether they’re corporates or governments, regard individuals purely as passive consumers. They do the important work of sorting challenges for us while we ‘go shopping’. This consumer logic extends into every aspect of society. Self-interested, self-reliant and atomised, we’ve been led to believe that the solution lies with merely choosing the ‘right’ ethical brand:

The story that promised our liberation has become our prison – we are depleted, the world is depleted

That so-called power to choose with our wallets ignores the fact that real power lies in being able to shape the choices on offer.

The Citizen Story is already happening

The book delves deep into a diverse range of Citizen Story-led projects from around the world that are already making a difference. The transformative potential of seeing ourselves, alongside businesses and third sector organisations, as participatory entities is powerful. Whether it’s contributing to product development, or recasting donors or members as active participants in delivering an organisation’s purpose, it forces us away from the passive and towards a can-do, active citizen mindset, with the resulting benefits and shared value accruing across all stakeholder groups.

I’m pretty sure it’ll prompt you to join the dots and get better at recognising not just the Citizen Story examples you come across in your own life but also make you realise you’re doing better than you think. For example, I can now trace how The Co-Foundry’s collaborative ‘brand design strategy developed with you and not done to you’ mission has seen me evolving towards developing ever-more inclusive design practices.

My big takeaway

As a brand design consultant, what struck me most about the Citizen Story was how its adoption demands far more from the sometimes over-used and often wrongly-used word, ‘purpose’.

The world of brand strategy itself throws up many debates around brand purpose – never more so than when for-profit organisations indulge in a spot of purpose-washing. This book calls for purpose to become a true organising principle, embedded in the meaningful context of businesses, organisations and governments building platforms from which to deliver the resulting shared value:

‘…it’s about creating structured opportunities for people not just to buy products and services from the business, but to buy into what the business is trying to do in the world. It’s only when this happens on a widespread basis that the story that businesses are telling will truly change.’

In the Citizen Story, purpose is fuelled by involving audiences who, through their involvement, become participatory stakeholders. This very idea of greater stakeholder involvement is something that I’m keen to keep building into my processes.

How we get there

Big on detail, ‘Citizens’ sets out seven steps that will help in building those effective platforms from which to deliver this new way of doing business. It also expands this idea out of the corporate and organisational sphere to ensure that the Citizen Story changes government itself – where people aren’t just subjects or consumers but capable, resourceful and responsible individuals who organise to come together and have opportunities to shape our communities and how we live.

There are reasons to be hopeful already because so many Citizen projects – across the third sector, business and government – are changing things and proving their worth. The capability is undeniably there but what’s needed now is a push towards creating the conditions and adopting the stories that’ll bring about a more systemic change.

Changing the status quo

‘Citizens’ offers a clear path out of that awful, soul-sapping ‘this is just the way things are’ feeling of impotence. Having read and returned to it more than once, I feel I’m better equipped to underpin my business processes with Citizen Story thinking.

Read it, share it and talk about it! We need to put a stop to reacting to today’s challenges with 20th century, buy–your-way-out-of-trouble Consumer Story answers (eg Eat Out to Help Out) and make the Citizen Story the dominant code of the 21st Century.

While gathering material to write up some recently completed client projects as case studies, I was struck by two things, broadly based around creativity and productivity:

Firstly, by the many, varied, sometimes counter-intuitive and often unexpected influences that sparked the eventual brand identities.

And secondly, by how much we’ve actually achieved – something that can all too easily be overlooked when you’re caught up in the everyday and deeply immersed in doing the work.

Can we and should we do more?

Those themes of creativity and productivity feed into the big story which seems to never be more than a scroll away – AI and its consequences in general, and Chat GPT, in particular. It’s something I’ve been wanting to write about for ages, hoping I could alight on a definite perspective but I’m finding that I keep coming up with (or generating) more and more questions on this massive topic.

The evangelists would have us believe that anything that removes friction and saves us time has to be positive. But in my area of brand consulting (strategy and identity) – it’s taking time, asking lots of questions, acquiring a thorough understanding of what we’re trying to achieve and engaging collaboratively in a co-creation process – that yields the results our clients are looking for; namely, brand identities that can play a key role in driving their businesses forward.

It’s an approach that also plays into why me and my collaborators – the content strategists, copywriters, designers, animators, developers and photographers – who make up The Co-Foundry, do what we do. Pursuing the careers we love, in a way that everyone enjoys and gets satisfaction from, sustains us and I believe, contributes to the success of what we produce for, and with, our clients.

In short, how we create something matters and affects the outcome.

Technology has long been promoted for its time-saving aspects, as if saving time is a universal good and the only marker of progress. But faster and with zero friction isn’t always better. And then there’s also the question – what are we saving all this time for? (More on that later.)

Beautifully human

The strategic intention, range of information, diversity of perspectives and lived experience that us humans bring to the creative process are instrumental to successful branding. These elements are not easily reduced to an algorithm and even if they were, AI would still treat these ‘data points’ in a value-neutral way – something which explains why ChatGPT text can end up sounding flat or slightly off.

Our human brains may not be able to come up with ideas instantly on command but, as the illustrator Rob Biddulph says, ‘Pressing a button to generate something is not a creative process’. Not knowing how you’re going to do something and working things out as you go along is an essential stage in the creative process. Even Kevin Kelly, founder of Wired magazine (in a recent conversation with Tyler Cowan) says that when he sits down to write something, the very act of writing reveals what he thinks about it.

The answer lies in the struggle

Getting stuck and struggling is also part of the process – one that may not get the airtime it deserves. Being stumped may be uncomfortable because it represents a point of friction but it’s also essential because it forces us to slow down and/or step away which is very often when the seeds of a solution present themselves.

AI, by contrast, isn’t built to take time out, go for a walk or get annoyed with itself and interrogate what it’s doing so it can gain a better understanding of what it’s looking to achieve.

When we’re stuck, it might feel good to know there’s something to hand that could make the problem we’re trying to solve, melt away. But the struggle for an answer, the process – considering possibilities rather than just scanning probabilities is what being human is all about.

Creativity is an act of noticing

Quoting the words of the great Rick Rubin, creativity is ultimately an act of noticing and choosing what we pay attention to. In his recently published book, The Creative Act, A Way of Being, Rubin makes a timely case in this age of accelerating technological capabilities for broadening our practice of awareness:

there’s an endless amount of data available to us and we have a limited bandwidth to conserve, [so] we might consider carefully curating the quality of what we allow in.

It’s these very choices and intentionality that distinguishes human output from AI whose efficiency doesn’t give nuance a look-in. Human creativity – be it in brand design, art or writing takes a point of view – an element that injects soul into the finished work giving it meaning and elevating it beyond the merely decorative.

So how should we live with AI?

There are a multitude of voices and a somewhat controversial letter (‘Pause Giant AI Experiments’ from the Future of Life Institute) calling time on untrammelled AI development and urging us to consider the sort of world we want to be shaping. Do we want to be enslaved by machines that we initially created?

US tech expert and law professor, Tim Wu warns of the risks already posed by AI, cautioning against building a future where ‘a tyranny of tiny tasks, individually simple but collectively oppressive’ sees us using the time we’ve ‘freed up’ to do more of the same, ultimately unsatisfying work. A future where convenience technologies (offering predictable results from minimal human effort) do the work for us rather than work with us. Wu calls for the intentional development of ‘demanding technologies’ ­that ask something of us – technologies that take time and skill to master and can both challenge and occupy us.

Will AI eat itself?

It seems there is no neat answer, just more questions: What will happen to AI if we increasingly keep turning to it for answers? How will that, in time, affect the quality of the inputs it’s receiving and learning from? Having initially learnt from human-originated databases, how soon will it get to a situation where it’s cannibalising itself, combing and then mashing up its own source material? How can its outputs keep pace with any sort of quality control if all they’re learning from and recycling is their own material?

This quote, from Milan Kundera’s novel, The Book on Laughter and Forgetting (from 1979 but wonderfully prescient) sums up the dilemma we may encounter, and it wouldn’t be good news for the creative industries, ‘One morning (and it will be soon), when everyone wakes up as a writer, the age of universal deafness and incomprehension will ensue.’