Re-branding can about be *less* than a name change - and my contention
is that this is what was required here.
"Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals" is
cumbersome, but it is not *unnecessarily* cumbersome - it is
*necessarily* cumbersome. That should have been the starting point for
the exercise.
John Briggs
On 29/05/2013 20:00, Dempsey,Lorcan wrote:
> "We uncover what really counts and get across what really matters"
>
>
> CILIP is not a good name because [1] you don't know how to pronounce it
> [2] it gives no clue to what it is, and [3] in its expanded form is
> quite long. CILIP is not one of those organizations which is central
> enough for people just to know what it is.
>
> Re-branding is about more than a name change, it is about ensuring that
> the identity of the organization communicates its values and what is
> valuable about it. To do this, you do have to understand 'what really
> counts' and get that across effectively.
>
> This is especially important when the advocacy role of the organization
> is so important, and where ongoing professional development is crucial.
> In the past CILIP may have thought about its identity in the context of
> the constituents it serves. It is now very important to think about its
> identity in the context of the broader constituency in which its
> constituents operate, who do not have the same context and affiliations.
>
>
> The phrase above is from the website of the consultants. I think it is a
> good description of what this exercise should be about. However, for
> whatever reason, it is clear that neither the consultants nor CILIP are
> living up to what is expressed in the statement. The language used in
> the survey and the proposed names were awful. As an instrument, it will
> not 'uncover what really counts' about the organization, or help to get
> across what 'really matters'.
>
> How could an organisation which claims to advocate on behalf of its
> members, or a consultancy with the purported aims of this one, produce a
> statement of aspiration like "For everyone to have access to the
> essential power of information to help change lives and create a fairer
> and more prosperous society"?
>
> Does going out with this survey now suggests that CILIP and the
> consultants already know what 'really counts' about it as an
> organization? It might be useful sharing that at this stage rather than
> an ill-formed survey? If they don't - and the questions in the survey
> suggest that they don't - it would be useful to do some work on this.
>
> I suggest that uncovering what really counts will in large part depend
> on addressing two questions. [1] How central are libraries and the
> library profession - its development, promotion and certification - to
> CILIP? [2] What is the 'information profession' or what are 'information
> professionals'?
>
> Answering [2] may be difficult, as all professions have been
> 'informationalised' in recent years, and rely on managing, mining and
> acting on data. By this, I don't mean to raise any profound or
> philosophical questions, or to suggest that there aren't 'information
> professionals', but merely to ask a pragmatic boundary question which
> affects CILIP's positioning. Whose interests do they represent here, or
> want to represent, and what are they? Again, there is probably prior
> work on this question also.
>
> I suggest that questions like these are central to 'uncovering what
> counts', and need to be answered before you can 'get across what really
> matters'.
>
> Lorcan
>
> http://www.twitter.com/lorcand
> http://orweblog.oclc.org
> http://www.oclc.org/research
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library and Information Professionals
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:23 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CILIP Re-Branding
>
> He makes some interesting points. He tries to distance himself from the
> exercise, saying that the first he knew about the contents of the survey
> were when it was shown to him on Friday afternoon. Unfortunately, this
> may be a little disingenuous, as the e-mail publicising the survey is
> timestamped 15:30, so his approval (tacit or otherwise) was probably
> being sought.
>
> He doesn't defend the indefensible ("I agree entirely that 'The
> Knowledge People' is as grim as it gets") but is clinging to the message
> that CILIP needs to re-brand and change its name. He dances around the
> "Library" and "Librarian", while simultaneously claiming that a minority
> of CILIP members who use 'Library' or 'Librarian' in their job role.
> What he doesn't do is discuss why we ended up with "CILIP" in the first
> place. Everyone agrees that we need something like "Information
> Professionals" and "Institute" or "Institution" (although "Information"
> and "Institution" don't run well together.) Quite a few want "Library"
> and Bradley seems to agee with them. Bung in "Chartered" and CILIP
> defines itself! There really doesn't seem to be any practical
> alternative - and he doesn't address this.
>
> He does name the guilty people: Spencer du Bois - does anyone know
> anything about them and what (if anything) they are good at?
>
> John Briggs
>
> On 29/05/2013 16:07, Healey Nicola (WESTON AREA HEALTH NHS TRUST) wrote:
>> Dear All
>> Just in case you have not seen this - comments from Phil Bradley in
>> todays CILIPemail newsletter about re-branding
>>
> http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/presidentphil/archive/2013/05/29/r
> ebranding-cilip.aspx
>
|