Co-production and brand identity design: how to get it right 

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.