Branding the NNMI – Situation Analysis & Best Practices Dannielle Blumenthal, AMNPO Communications, 2/9/2015

I. Summary Communication - including network branding, communication mechanisms, and collaboration mechanisms - is a critical need for the NNMI and the status quo requires immediate attention. Comparison cases suggest that a single, centralized outward-facing brand with significant internal flexibility, and individual names, is the most effective way forward. The longer we delay in establishing consensus around communication, the more difficult it will become as individual “workaround” solutions are developed and funds are spent at the Institute and distinct agency levels. Therefore, recommend a review of the benchmark cases below, development of consensus on the way forward, and forward movement to achieve a Network brand deployment within 60 days. Consultation with General Counsel will be required on the funding mechanism for any proposed solution within FY15. II. Detail 1. The law (Revitalize American Manufacturing & Innovation Act of 2014) calls for:

Individual “Centers” (Institutes) “Network” of Centers National Program Office to “convene

2. Conflict between immediate vs. long-term needs is a branding issue: Immediate: Institutes require independent financial sustainability within 5 years – e.g., strong individual brands Long-term: For a network to be valuable to prospective new + current members, it must have value over and above individual institutes

3. Areas of consensus: what Institutes readily agree they need An easy way to get information about best practices – no need to reinvent the wheel An easy way to conduct engaging outreach and build the brand – e.g. communication templates

4. Areas of contention: what Institutes don’t want To lose their individual brand identities To be viewed as the government (excessive identification)

5. National-level network branding challenges Value of network is predicated on a future state that does not yet exist; no grassroots demand for a central brand and institutes are branding independently Massive central communication effort required, but not yet effective due to unclear workflow and coordination between WH/NPO/interagency offices Authorization without appropriation complicates funding for branding effort

III. Benchmarking – Other Government Entities 1. Branding Both the Department of Homeland Security and USAID faced similar branding challenges as the NNMI:

x Integration without internal consensus as to the value of a unified brand x On-the-ground independent communication activity x Lack of clear process for getting to a unified brand

Each resolved the challenge using a similar process:

x Hired a top-tier branding firm x Branding firm engaged stakeholders in a conversation about the brand x Leadership discussions were held, and firm decisions were made on a way forward

Each had a similar outcome, with some differences:

x One descriptive name with some use of acronym o Department of Homeland Security uses “Homeland Security” on website, and

DHS for news articles and short reference (e.g. “DHS agents”) o USAID uses acronym with descriptor in wordmark (“from the American people)

x One graphic identifier applied consistently o USAID allows offices to have a separate sub-icon on webpages o Homeland Security allows components to use component names

x One website for the central brand o USAID eliminated sub-sites o Homeland Security allows agency sites with similar look and feel

x USAID underwent mission/vision/values exercise internally using Google Apps collaboration platform

x Ultimately, a brand that looks consistent on the outside, with significant internal flexibility and independence

2. Communication

x DHS and USAID worked rapidly to create a unified brand both externally and internally, and the website was an integral part of that effort.

x Both agencies centralize responses to media queries: ideally AMNPO leadership would be co-located in the WH for ease of coordinating and facilitating coordination from the center out. This is an immediate issue.

x Agencies draw on the expertise of components: There is a need for communication support from the agencies that comprise the interagency AMNPO – particularly DOD and DOE – so that all are working collaboratively rather than separately

x The website is a critical communication vehicle: The current NNMI web vehicle, manufacturing.gov, is inadequate to create value at the network level because it is intended to serve as a portal describing advanced manufacturing efforts – an NNMI-specific website is needed

x Across the government, social media is integral to communication, it is not an add-on: There is a concomitant need for social media across the NNMI to provide network-level information and an opportunity for the public to interact

x Funding is needed for communication products and services to rapidly scale up a communication presence; the agencies listed here, and others, spend significantly to achieve core communication goals. However, NNMI is authorized but not appropriated for FY15, and the legal solution to this challenge requires consultation with Counsel.

3. Collaboration

x Brand value at the network level depends on creating an internal conversation among members – we are not currently facilitating this

x The National Archives purchased an internal collaboration system called Jive to enable geographically dispersed collaboration in a simple manner – this cost $1m

x Drupal offers an open source alternative at no charge that can be implemented and customized by a vendor at a lower cost.

x Absent an effective, secure, easy-to-use and appealing inter-Institute collaboration model facilitated by the Network, the Network rapidly loses value.