We Are Our Brands and Branding in Safety

How we want to be known by the semiotics we present, the metaphors we use and the discourse we maintain, is our projected identity. This identity is not objective or neutral but rather interpreted. Sometimes, the by-products of a brand or a discourse takes on a life of its own which cannot be seen at the beginning. This is why we see so many fads and cons (https://safetyrisk.net/theres-no-other-place-like-safety-for-a-good-con/) in safety. Many start out with a good intention but end up entangled in by-products that were never intended. Usually, this occurs due to a lack of knowledge of semiotics.

A brand is a term, language, sign, symbol, design, name, text or a combination of many of these.

In the commercial world we often see efforts at ‘re-branding’ to try and change market share or to re-invent a new identity. Perhaps the biggest example of this recently is the rebranding of ‘twitter’ to ‘X’. Sometimes a lot is lost in the process.

Branding is all about: association, anchoring, priming, pitching and framing – the essentials of any form of communication but in no safety curriculum across the globe. Once something is anchored, it is challenging to move. Once a comfort with a certain discourse or brand has been made, it is difficult to change. Once a message is primed, framed and anchored it becomes the identity, regardless of the undercurrent interpreted in the association of symbols.

I have written before about brands in safety:

And so, we see many brands, flips, turns and re-branding in Safety as it searches for a humanising method to tackle risk. Unfortunately, most of the branding is anchored to objects, systems and mechanistic symbols that can never deliver a humanising method to tackle risk. Often, the accompanying slogans simply re-state the same thing another way eg. we don’t want to control you, we want to harness you. Fortunately, such linguistic changes seem to succeed in the short term because the industry is so poorly educated and undiscerning.

So, just look around safety and watch and see the brands change. What was it last time? How long did it last? What is the new brand? It used to be zero, then beyond zero, journey to zero and now 1% safer. See a pattern? The same applies in the S2 group. All looking for a humanising method to tackle risk.

A method is the outcome of a methodology (philosophy) and, a philosophy is more than a few slogans.

If you want to better understand brands and branding you could start by reading Berger, (2010) The Objects of Affection, Semiotics and Consumer Culture.

Or perhaps study some Semiotics (https://cllr.com.au/product/semiotics-and-the-social-psychology-of-risk-unit-3-overseas-online-elearning/ ) to better understand what your brand is really are saying in safety.

Related