By Christian Mullins
This morning I read on CU Tomorrow a case for creating a national brand for credit unions. As discussed by Jill in the post, the argument has typically been split between those who desire a national logo and those that wish to keep their full individuality. I think the idea has true merit, as several industries have been able to accomplish this feat, though several monumental questions remain, including who will pay for this and which credit unions or industry groups will influence the initial, then continued direction of the branding?
After deciding those questions are better left answered to those who would devote more than a few minutes to their answer, I shifted my focus to current national efforts. Various state credit union leagues create advertisements for their credit unions, but the only national attempt I could find was The Little Guy, which was created ‘to illustrate the key differences and provide our members with a BIG voice on the (Capitol) Hill’. Technically, this is more of a lobbyist effort, but an effort to educate (or influence) Congress is, in my opinion, considered national.
A lot of people like The Little Guy, but I have to admit that a combination of Charlie Brown and (Family Guy’s) Stewie, sporting Little Orphan Annie’s eyes no less, is not my first choice for industry or member representation.
And therein lies the problem with creating a national brand. No matter how well thought out, beneficial, or original the idea may be, a solid portion of the industry won’t like it, whether it’s for economic, philosophical, aesthetic, or selfish reasons. On the flip side, conforming to the majority may water down the message so much that it hurts rather than helps the cause.
It’s a difficult topic and I look forward to reading additional articles and posts on the subject.
Posted by Christian Mullins 