How (not?) to screw up a city logo or sign

Screwing up a city logo, sign, or flag is easy.

Across British Columbia, cities and towns regularly infuriate residents by seeking to modernize community brands and signage that residents cherish.

But it’s possible to do it right if a city is brave enough to actually try to say something, according to CBC reporter Justin McElroy, who has seen (and ranked) every city flag and welcoming sign in the province

While the City of Mission has recently looked to replace its Westminster Abbey-focused logo with an updated version, we talked to Justin about how the process can go so very wrong—or, occasionally, right. We also asked him for his first impressions of Mission’s new logo, and rounded up his rankings of each local city flag and welcome sign.

‘Why would you do this’

City signage is nothing to sniff at.

When voters in Quesnel went to the polls last year, a major factor in the town’s decision to oust reigning mayor Bob Simpson was his council’s decision to move the town’s large gold-pan welcome sign.

Elsewhere, municipalities have been forced to run for cover when branding exercises go wrong.

When that happens, thousands of dollars can go down the drain.

In Vancouver, city staff developed a new logo in 2017 that was trashed by the public and then ditched by council. The logo featured only words, and still cost $8,000.

In January, in the sleepy Okanagan town of Naramata, a local tourism board was assailed after it replaced its quirky welcome sign with one featuring a corporatized slogan. (It reversed the decisions). And on Vancouver Island, a planned “portal sign implementation project” for local parks hit the rocks after the public laid its eyes on the incredibly bland new entrance signs.

“Why would you do this?” one local wrote. “The new sign looks like something a construction company would throw up to warn people off the job site.”

How it goes wrong

Having published separate rankings of both BC’s welcome signs and its community flags (as a hobby), McElroy has gained enough online notoriety for the subject that Twitter users now quickly tag him when a branding controversy starts to make waves. Having also reported on the political fall out as a journalist, he now has a pretty firm grasp of when branding exercises go wrong.

He said cities and towns often get in trouble when they try to do too many things at once.

There’s an old joke that says a camel is a horse designed by a committee: a variety of seemingly attractive elements lumped together into something less useful and loved. A logo can end up just as doomed as that spitting, snarling (and maybe underappreciated) camel.

“You try to do something that appeals to everyone and it ends up appealing to nobody,” he said.

The challenge with city branding is that logos, signs, and flags are meant to appeal to multiple audiences.

“Ultimately, what municipalities say they’re trying to do is to have something that has pride for the community but also attracts… tourists or businesses.”

And, interestingly, a sign, tag line, or logo that might seem unique to locals (or at least local politicians) might not actually be all that distinctive when compared with other municipalities trying to do the exact same thing.

McElroy pointed to the saturation of green and blue—representing forests and trees—in BC towns’ signs and flags. The issue is not that green, blue, forests, and trees are bad or misleading, but rather that they are exceptionally common in British Columbia.

In a province where most towns have beautiful landscapes, a sign emphasizing a town’s beautiful landscape isn’t all that distinctive.

But finding or creating something unique and new for your community is hard. Because, McElroy noted, often a community’s relationship to their unique thing—be it a massive gold pan or a massive hockey stick or a massive fishing rod—is based on age (and maybe the size aspect). Something quirky and unique can eventually become a cherished symbol, but that often takes time.

“In the short term, there’s always the risk that being ‘out there’ will be seen as a gimmick and inauthentic,” he said.

The most beloved brands and signs have a historic element or an element of kitsch to them. But that is, by definition, almost impossible to deliberately create.

“If you try and deliberately make something kitschy, it tends not to be kitschy,” he said. “That’s part of the charm of these things.”

At the same time, municipalities looking to spruce up an image they consider tired or out of date might not realize their residents love their current “branding” (and might not even consider it as such.)

“Sometimes you don’t know what the underlying culture and pride is in your municipality until you suddenly tell people that this thing is going away,” he said.

McElroy pointed to Nelson, which considered updating its old welcome sign. The city looked at proposals for new designs from artists and asked their residents what they thought. In the end, the residents endorsed a concept that was essentially a slightly modernized version of their pre-existing sign. McElroy said it can take a little bravery for a municipality to spend time, effort, and money on a process and then stick with an old concept.

Building a brand

That’s not to say there aren’t things a municipality can do to set itself up for success.

McElroy said there’s a “certain element of homespunness” to the designs with the most appeal.

“You can tell it came from an individual and has a distinct point of view. But that’s hard to get when you go through the modern-era, deliberative, consultative, hire-an-outside-consultant [process],” he said.

A new logo

Mission’s new logo is based around the red cedar, a tree found in abundance in the city’s sprawling forests and which has a direct connection to Indigenous communities that have lived in the area for thousands of years.

The Current first spoke to McElroy after the logo had been described in a city staff report, but before it had been visually unveiled. And from its description, McElroy suggested the fact it was based on a particular species of tree (rather than a non-specific evergreen) was promising.

“It’s like, okay, there’s really been some thought as to how they can be individualistic that a lot of these design and branding exercises can sometimes lose sight of.”

Soon after we spoke, the logo was revealed. It emphasized the unique lines of the red cedar’s brown and red bark.

And from someone who had just said good logos have something special and unique about them, McElroy’s one-word verdict was an unambiguous endorsement.

“Distinctive!”

As for going beyond the logo, we asked the City of Mission whether, having rolled out a new logo, it now will now look to replace its flag and welcome signs. There are currently no such plans, a city spokesperson wrote in an email.

The best signs and flags in the valley

In recent years, McElroy and his friends have ranked all of BC’s welcome signs and flags. Here’s how local municipalities have fared.

Best flag: Abbotsford (third out of 130); Abbotsford’s flag was also recently voted the best among 64 from across Canada

Worst flag: Kent (120th out of 130)

Best welcome sign: Harrison Hot Springs (46th out of 185)

Worst welcome sign: Kent (178th out of 185)

McElroy’s rankings (click each city to see comments):

Flags

1. Abbotsford (3rd in BC)

2. Langley Township (15th)

3. Chilliwack (22nd)

4. Mission (33rd)

5. Langley City (60th)

6. Hope (75th)

7. Harrison Hot Springs (89th)

8. Kent (120th)

Signs

1. Harrison Hot Springs (46th)

2. Mission (53rd)

3. Hope (113th)

4. Chilliwack (148th)

5. Langley Township (163rd)

6. Abbotsford (170th)

7. Langley City (174th)

8. Kent (178th)