B OA R
D D O C U M E N T A03-19
TO: Board of
Directors
FROM: Branding
Taskforce
DATE: October 15,
2002
RE: Branding
Update
Recommendations: These
recommendations are a direct result of prior Board action requesting the SLA Branding Task Force “to develop an implementation plan that could result in the official adoption
of a new name for the association.”
1.
We, the
members of the Branding Task Force, recommend that the Board submit to the
membership at the Annual Business Meeting in New York in June 2003 that a
quorum of members present approve a full SLA membership vote, by mail ballot,
which will result in a change to the bylaws and the choice of a new name for
the Association.
Underpinning our recommendation is the
belief that the name “Special Libraries Association, Inc.” cannot be ‘fixed’
without excessive and pointless effort.
It does not meet our basic standard of representing our members’ best
interests for our internal and external communications, image and identity.
2.
We, the members
of the Branding Task Force, recommend that decisions regarding logos and
taglines be addressed specifically after the decision is taken on the actual
name. These are costly decisions and it
will be more cost-effective to build a securer foundation for these creative
efforts. These are also not
specifically part of our bylaws. Sample
logos and taglines may comprise part of the process to educate members on their
choices and the foundations for those choices.
3.
We, the
members of the Branding Task Force, recommend that the names to be voted on
shall be:
SLA (simple acronym)
Information
Professionals International
(IPI)
4.
We, the
Branding Task Force, recommend that the Board choose to update and implement a
professional communication strategy to inform the membership about the reasons
for this change. This must begin almost
immediately with the first major event being the SLA Winter Leadership Meeting
communication to the leadership. It is
critical that we continue the strategy of education and consultation that has
been the hallmark of this process for two years.
5.
Although the
current Branding Task Force remains ready to do this, we recognize that a new
team may be assembled at the Board's discretion. We do however strongly recommend a significant degree of
membership overlap in the event that a new team is assembled for the 2003
implementation phase. It is essential
that the knowledge and insights gained in 2001/2002 inform the next steps of
the branding process.
Background information: Appended to
this recommendation are documents relating to:
Respectfully,
Stephen Abram, Chair
Carol Ginsburg, Past Chair
Ava Goldman
Cindy Romaine
Neil Infield
Holly Bussey
Lynn Smith (member and staff liaison)
David Stern (Board Liaison)
Bill Fisher (ex officio)
Because
this task force has spanned two years, acknowledgement should also be made to
former members:
Marian Bremer (resigned, former member)
Roberta Piccoli (resigned, former member)
Barbara Spiegelman (resigned, former member)
Dottie Moon (former Board liaison)
Appendix 1: History of the Branding Task Force Activities and
Consultations
January 2000: Branding Task Force appointed by President
Susan DiMattia. The initial
responsibility was to retain a consulting firm to objectively assess our brand
identity.
September 2000: Branding Task Force recommends to AOOC that
Source, Inc. be retained as the consulting firm for the branding project.
October 2000: The Board requests additional input into the
contract negotiations process.
November 2000: AOOC, Branding Task Force Chair, and key
staff meet with Source, Inc. to refine the contract and project expectations
and to reduce the contractual fees.
January-May 2001: Source, Inc. completed Phase 1 of the
branding project. This was described as
the “marination stage.” Source took
several weeks absorbing all of the information gathered from their interactions
and preliminary research to ask the appropriate questions in order to conduct
the survey (collection of opinions).
Source developed an opportunity
matrix that contained all of the ideas, data, and sources of ideas/data that
could provide opportunities. This
matrix was presented to the full taskforce as a check point and test of reality. A conference call was held with Source to
discuss our reactions. From this matrix
and our reactions, Source developed a short list with which to move forward in
the interviews of the various stakeholders.
A research analyst also reviewed the matrix to remove bias. This stage provided hypotheses that are
testable.
February 2001: The branding initiatives were posted to the
website. Task Force member Barbara
Spiegelman authored Would You Buy SLA? for Information Outlook
which highlights the branding initiatives in the context of SLA.
April 2001: The Task Force created an information kit
for the Board and leaders which details the purpose of the branding project and
its various components, timelines, and communications plan.
June 2001: The Public Relations Committee delivered a panel presentation on
titled "Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall." The topic was image. The
President’s Series presentation on branding followed the PR presentation. President Donna Scheeder led a panel that
included Carol Ginsburg, Dottie Moon, Laura Claggett of Unilever, and Bill
O’Connor of Source, Inc. The
presentation provided background information for SLA’s project and highlighted
several successful and relevant branding campaigns of other organizations.
June 2001: The branding taskforce members participated
in presentations of branding information in the SLA Marketplace. The segments ran 45 minutes in length Sunday
through Tuesday at the annual conference.
The presentations included information packets on the process and the
importance of the brand identity.
June 2001: A branding expert panel (focus group) is convened by Source to
tap into the thoughts of those regarded as leading thinkers in our industry.
July 2001: Source used the stakeholder list that was developed by the
taskforce as a starting point for interviewees. The stakeholders included members, non members, vendors,
educators, CEOs, press, and the general public. While originally intended to be a telephone interview, Source
decided that a more appropriate means would be to expand the interviewees from
60 to 450 and to perform the survey via a web-based survey. Source ran a pre-test and sent the survey to
about 30 people to confirm that the survey instrument is clear, fast, and
efficient. The response rate for the
survey was poor and we decided to run the survey again the second week of
September.
October 2001: Given the desired release date of September
12, 2001 and the events of September 11th, the survey was delayed
until the first of October. The return
rate for the October release was much better than that in July.
November 2001: The first deliverable from Source contained
the brand identity profile which outlines the attributes and image which have
been defined through the research as well as a visualization which is the
imagery from the culture that helps us put words and thought attributes into
visual images. This report was deemed
disappointing by the task force. Two
staff members and the Board liaison met
with Source to convey our disappointment and to re-align the project with our
expectations.
January 2002: Source, Inc. meets with the Board of
Directors. The Board of Directors
conveys its disappointment with Source.
January 2002: Town Hall Meeting at the Leadership
Development Institute includes a discussion on branding.
February 2002: Branding Task Force and Board decide to
sever ties with Source, Inc.
March 2002: The consulting firm, Creative Project
Management, is retained for the branding project. Background
documents were transferred to CPM.
Conducted a conference call with Task Force to discuss new directions
for identity and review examples of likes/dislikes.
March 2002: SLA briefing and brainstorming session with staff and CPM to
ensure that staff bought in to member and volunteer perceptions about branding
and identity.
March 2002: Development of Name/Tagline Ideas; Initial name/tagline idea
presentation to Task Force for reaction/input.
April 2002: Solicited wider membership reaction – through surveymonkey.com
polls.
April 2002: Selection of names and taglines for logo development based on the
polling results.
May 2002: Logo Development.
Preliminary logo presentation to Task Force for reaction/input. Logo Revisions – to Task Force.
June 2002: Present logos to membership at annual conference town hall
meeting for input and encouraged feedback.
Collected feedback at the town hall meeting and through
surveymonkey.com. Realized from
feedback that we needed to focus on a name only and that the logos and taglines
should follow.
July 2002-September 2002: Task Force works on revision of names based
on feedback.
September 2002: Polled the leadership and membership with a list of 22 possible
names. Received 2143 responses. Cross-tabulated the responses by
demographics on employment, age, and membership.
October 2002: Presented two possible name changes to the Board of Directors for
consideration. Updated the communications plan.
Appendix 2: Branding Communications Plan
The actions and intentions of the Branding task Force will be routinely communicated to the leadership and membership through presentations, print material, and electronic updates. The plan is conservatively cautious in overloading or overselling the point. Please find below a timeline and summary of the communiqués planned.
The
communications plan and its components concentrate on the following points:
The communications plan has been devised to
reach the full membership in a logical, positive, and timely fashion. There is great opportunity to present the
Association’s challenges and opportunities, as well as to address the members’
issues and concerns. With this concerted
effort, the Branding Task Force is confident that the short and long-term goals
and objectives of the Association will continue to be met.
|
Date of Action |
Action |
Audience |
|
October 2002 |
Present the branding
task force proposal to the Board of Directors. Have a task force representative available for answering
questions. |
Board of Directors |
|
November 2002 |
Develop a summary of
actions regarding the branding initiative for distribution in
BOARD.COMmunicate. |
Full Membership |
|
January 2003 |
Present the branding
initiatives and name choices to the leadership at the Town Hall Meeting
utilizing a facilitator. |
Unit Leadership |
|
January 2003 |
Present the bylaws
amendment proposal to the Board of Directors for approval. The Board must approve by a two-thirds
margin in order for the information to move forward to the annual business
meeting. |
Board of Directors |
|
January 2003 |
Develop an article for
inclusion in Leadership Update outlining the branding initiatives and
how such fulfill the goals and objectives of the Association. |
Unit Leadership |
|
January 2003 |
Develop an article to
be distributed to the unit bulletin editors that outlines the branding
initiatives and proposed naming changes. |
Bulletin Editors/Unit
Members |
|
January 2003 |
Distribute a
BOARD.COMmunicate to the membership outlining the proposed name changes and
the voting process. |
Full Membership |
|
February 2003 (to be
printed in April) |
Develop an article for
Information Outlook outlining the need for developing the brand
identity in order to fulfill the goals and objectives of the Association. |
Full Membership |
|
February 2003 |
Create a section on
the front page of Virtual SLA that outlines the branding initiatives and
provides updates regarding the process.
Include basic polling techniques to gather input related to support of
the initiatives. |
Full Membership |
|
March 2003 |
Focus a chat room
discussion on the Association’s brand identity. |
Full Membership |
|
March 2003 |
Post branding
initiatives FAQs to the discussion lists. |
Full Membership |
|
April 2003 |
Publish Information
Outlook column. |
Full Membership |
|
May 2003 |
Publish bylaws
amendment proposals in Information Outlook. This must be done 30 days prior to the annual business meeting
per bylaws requirements. |
Full Membership |
|
May 2003 |
Utilize
BOARD.COMmunicate to promote positive spin on creating brand identity. |
Full Membership |
|
June 2003 |
Hold an open forum at
the Leadership Development Institute for participants to present their
questions and issues pertaining to the branding initiatives and bylaws
amendment proposals. |
Unit Leadership |
|
June 2003 |
Present information
regarding the bylaws amendment proposal at the annual business meeting. |
Full Membership |
|
August 2003 |
Mail bylaws amendment
ballot to the voting membership along with a brochure and letter from the
president and branding task force chair requesting support of the branding
initiative and name change. |
Full Membership |
|
October 2003 |
Tabulate ballot
results. |
Board of Directors |
|
October 2003 |
Present results of the
bylaws ballot to the Board of Directors. |
Board of Directors |
|
November 2003 |
Develop
BOARD.COMmunicate to convey the results of the voting process and the process
for implementing a name change in 2004. |
Full Membership |
|
Ongoing |
Promote the branding
initiatives and bylaws amendment proposals during chapter visits. |
Full Membership |
|
Ongoing |
Promote the branding
initiatives and bylaws amendment proposals during focus groups. |
Full Membership |
|
Ongoing |
Monitor discussion
lists to ensure that fair and accurate information is stated regarding the
branding initiatives and bylaws amendment proposals. All responses regarding such should be
channeled through taskforce chair, Stephen Abram, to maintain consistency and
reliability of information. |
Full Membership |
Appendix 3: Choosing a New Name – Pandora’s Quandary!
A sample of the final conversation we had as a task
force that might assist the Board in seeing some of the thinking behind our
decision. In any two year long process
it’s impossible to capture every nuance and idea at the decision point. Be assured we listened, cared and considered
everything we heard seriously and with an open mind.
This document is informal. It is meant to give the Board a flavour for the kind of thinking
we achieved in the Task Force. It is
not a representation of the depth of the polling, the breadth of consultation
or other information and feelings that informed our ultimate
recommendations. Please accept it in
this spirit.
A key issue to our final conversation was that we do see the potential for this vote on a new name to be divisive and to hurt our Association over the long term. We are very concerned and believe that that this must be avoided or mitigated as much as is possible. This is a critical factor that must be addressed in the communication plan.
It is also why we chose a clear choice rather than two
or three similar but acceptable names.
Our research shows that a clear majority of our members want and need
change. Therefore, we are recommending
that not changing the name is not an option.
However, we are do think that we must offer clear options that allow
each significant member constituency to find a comfortable home for their vote.
Without prejudice we could call these two groups traditionalists
and non-traditionalists. Each group has valid and respected
foundations for their positions and thoughts.
We have named each group for the purposes of facilitating discussion and
no value judgements are meant to be inferred, one way or the other, based on
these names. We’re simply trying to tag
two key positions, which were clearly delineated by our polling, for discussion
purposes.
Traditionalists see value in the name reflecting the wonderful
history and foundations of the Association.
They also see value in the words library, librarian and “L”. They tend to be more represented in the
academic and not-for-profit sectors as well as over 55 cohort.
Although this may be a generalization, we thought that
the SLA name would be palatable to
the traditionalists or those who can't live with a more aggressive
repositioning. Only a vote will tell!
Non-traditionalists see value in change and strongly support the need
for change. They respect the value in
history but want the name to be more open and reflect a wider diversity of
future opportunities. They tend to not
want to see the ‘L’ series of words.
They tend to be more represented in the corporate, independent and
vendor groups as well as in the under 55 cohorts.
Again we may be generalizing, but we felt that few were
ready for names that were 'off-the-wall' or too 'out-there'. We think that it's unlikely that our members
are ready for too much change or trendiness.
There was a strong tendency for many polled to want significant change
and in the opinion of the Task Force, Information
Professionals International reflected this view.
We also believe that - whatever way the vote falls - that our members will rally around a new name. However, they will only do this if they feel that they had their say, they perceived fairness and voted democratically. The very vast majority of our members come from countries with long democratic traditions (even though Neil and I have a monarch). Our members have a long history of living with what the majority decides in our work and nations. Most of us don't up and leave the country when we elect an idiot as president or Prime Minister. We don't think many will up and leave our Association at any greater rate over a name - they'll have plenty of reasons if we don't step up to the plate and prepare our Association for the future needs of our members.
Let's put it to a vote and remain sensitive to listening
to the needs and concerns of the minority.
Here's are some short points:
A)
The name
"Special Libraries Association, Inc." is irredeemably broken and
cannot be repaired without excessive effort and dollars in building new meaning
into the brand (and there is no guarantee that it would work or that we have a
long enough window of opportunity to make the resuscitation succeed). After two years of thinking on this issue,
the Task Force is resolute that this is the case.
B)
We believe
that is especially difficult to use the old name brand for recruiting,
communications with decision makers unfamiliar with our profession, and for use
in certain core markets like corporate, for profit, independent consulting and
emerging alternative roles.
C)
The markets
most essential to our Association’s future success (younger or newer
librarians, corporate librarians, librarians and other information
professionals practising outside of traditional libraries, etc.) were
overwhelming in favour of a changed name.
This is not to say that other sectors are not very important but in
sheer numbers we must acknowledge where the Association’s growth must come
from.
D)
The two names
represent a clear choice. Our
Association can live with either and be very successful at an image
repositioning. We have not stacked the
desk and the Task Force feels that each name has equal advantages and
disadvantages.
E)
There is a
significant group who want a more traditional choice. These largely pool in the academic, non-profit or over 55
segments. These segment's views must be respected and the more traditional
"SLA" gives them a place
for their views to be counted but gives the Association the opportunity to be
more creative in our image and communication activities. It is possible and
desirable to reflect the 'information professional' and 'international'
concepts in the tagline(s).
F)
There was also
a significant enough cohort who wanted a choice that was in no way associated
with the traditional Association name.
This segment’s views must be respected and we believe that "Information Professionals International"
most closely reflects the needs and desires of this group based on the
feedback. It is possible, and likely
desirable, to reflect the 'L' in the tagline's).
G)
Each name
allows for each member to place their vote into a name that represents the key
messages (and contradictory messages) we have heard over the past two years.
·
Keep the L
there - Remove the L
·
Change it to
"Librarians" - Be more inclusive
·
Do
International, Do Global - We're National let's admit it.
·
Make it short
- make it long enough to include everyone
·
Care about the
initialism - Ditch the Acronym and have it say something
·
Librarians ARE
Information Professionals (Don't make it look like we're not)
·
Shorter is
better - find a short, easy name and good acronym.
·
Keep our
history - Find our Future
·
The most
common suggestion - using Specialist or Specialized was thought to be a small
enough change or too small.
H)
We listened to
the members and have made the decision about the name clearer. Issues about taglines and logos can
follow. This was the key message from
Los Angeles. We can use more than one
tagline since that would allow us the flexibility to attract good attention in
variant markets. This is desirable in
the opinion of the Task Force. “Putting
Knowledge to Work” is an excellent tagline for certain purposes and
members like it. We will need to focus
on a single logo. Logos are artistic
'business' decisions and rarely (probably never) benefit from votes. We can use various logos and taglines as
part of the fuller sales pitch but must be careful not to muddy things.
I)
Both choices
work well with our current, trademarked tagline "Putting Knowledge to
Work".
J)
We were
cheered as a Task Force that most of those who hated the choices we've tested
felt that they couldn't think of anything better!
I’ll be at your Board meeting to discuss this and take
any questions.
Respectfully,
Stephen