58 Comments on The RSA – do you get it?

joe on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 10:31 am


The RSA – thinking allowed. (With apologies to MT’s father).

Duncan Lawie on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 10:39 am


The RSA: For an Engaged Society.

David Gauntlett on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 10:45 am


‘Thinking allowed’ is actually good, but not enough about action, or citizens.

I’m afraid ‘RSA: Do you get it?’ seems too much like a horrible attempt to be streetwise.

How about remixing ‘Developing citizens for tomorrow’ into the simpler ‘Nurturing tomorrow’ ?

It lacks citizens, but they might be implicit in the nurturing, and at least it’s just two words…

David Wilcox on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 11:08 am


Hmmm … isn’t there a disconnect between development of new branding and purpose by staff, and the desire for strong Fellowship engagagement (yesterday’s post)? If Fellows can’t answer the question “what’s the RSA for” with clarity and enthusiasm, the new brand won’t be well rooted.
“Most of all we want the ethos and activities of the RSA Fellowship to come to exemplify the idea of citizens for the future.”
Don’t we need to get it first?

Sam Holmes on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 11:24 am


Hi Matthew
I like the ‘Do you get it?’ as a brand campaign idea, with a series of executions to make it meaningful.

Remember that brands are allowed to have a series of narratives that set off people’s understanding of what it’s about (they are meaningful). These don’t have to be ’strapline’ in style by any means. Same applies to the mission statement.

Off the top of my head strapline style (narrative development is a very valuable but involved and sometime tortuous process!)
RSA creating our future society
RSA understanding and shaping future society

premise that citizens are members of civil society

Mike Amos-Simpson on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 11:57 am


I like Joe’s – although maybe it needs to suggest theres more than just thinking going on? I think ‘Do You Get It?’ exposes the possibility of a lot of simple ‘no’ responses.

I’ve not really been involved enough to ‘get it’ yet so maybe not the best person to throw in a suggestion – but I will anyway Something along the lines of ‘Connect, Converse, Change’ – albeit substituted for more appropriate terms by those of you in the know.

James Horn on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 1:25 pm


The RSA – Think Talk Act

Matthew Cain on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 2:12 pm


Do you get it would make a great campaign to communicate the new RSA but isn’t a brand in itself.

If the strapline could use RSA then you could get around the manufactures and commerce problem.

RSA – real social action isn’t quite right, but if you could replace royal society arts with the contraction followed by a strapline then you could establish a clearer identity . . . perhaps like from British Telecom to BT.

Ultimately though brands are great because they work hard at communicating themselves and communicate a simple compelling story. By any sensible measure Amazon is a rubbish name for an online retailer.

David Wilcox on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 2:27 pm


hang on … isn’t this about branding the Fellowship, in large part? How do we (27,000-strong) get a say? Or is it branding by blogging:-)?

joe on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 2:58 pm


Well, maybe it boils down to whether the critical part of the RSA is ‘the fellowship’ or the ‘programmes’.

Maybe in fact we need to resist the temptation to tie down the untiedownable:

RSA: this, that and the other.

Tessy Britton on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 3:09 pm


With 27,000 existing Fellows I would suggest that what the RSA is doing and saying is already well understood and liked?

Increasingly I find that I value things that sometimes take more that 30 seconds in a lift to understand. As Sam Holmes says, branding is often more meaningful over a series of executions designed to build and develop perceptions.

John Thackara, in his talk at Life09 earlier this week described the word ‘future’ as an old paradigm word ‘already on the way out’ , one that ‘removes us from the responsibility of what is happening today’. God only knows what we could replace it with?

The RSA is complex and wonderful. It is very wise that a recognition of this depth is integral to the branding process, aimed at least in part at developing simplicity and clarity.

David Wilcox on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 3:11 pm


@joe “maybe it boils down to whether the critical part of the RSA is ‘the fellowship’ or the ‘programmes’.” – totally agree
It’s one thing to say the RSA is the programmes … let’s brand that and ask the Fellows to support, with some consultation.
Quite another to say (as Matthew implies) that the core of the brand is defined by the Fellowship … and then for staff to brand that and ask Fellows to put on their uniforms. Volunteers can be resistant to that approach
I rather like “citizens of the future” … but I don’t want to be forced to wear it.
In London region here’s council election discussion from candidates on “Is a Fellows-led RSA conceivable” http://bit.ly/18jP8x … so it’s not just me being a bit contrary. It’s about control. If Matthew wants Fellows to be the brand, they’ll want some.

David Wilcox on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 3:15 pm


Wise and calm words from Tessy, as usual:-) My question is very simple. Who is part of the branding process?

Tessy Britton on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 3:20 pm


David – I understand that a range of Fellows opinions would have been researched as part of the process? Mostly with branding research it is developed by consultation rather than consensus – with good reasons … I think ….

David Wilcox on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 3:41 pm


Thanks Tessy – maybe I’m just out of the loop. I think an explanation of the branding research, development, consultation process could be very calming

Tessy Britton on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 5:03 pm


Sounds like you need to be tortured in a ‘focus group’. In my experience working in branding etc, extracting opinion is harder than it sounds.

Matthew Cain on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 6:52 pm


Perhaps the RSA logo should be able to be re-created by Fellows so that it has the flexibility to stretch across different projects and to allow greater ownership of the brand by fellows . . . Like to O in the Obama logo or the 2012 graphic.

David Wilcox on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 8:05 pm


Simple first step – may Fellows see the consultancy reports on branding and development of online networking systems. If not, why not? We paid in part, it is about us …

phil h on Thu, 25th Jun 2009 9:18 pm


RSA – Re-shaping Society’s Agendas

Laura Billings on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 6:36 am


So I’m aware it’s ridiulously early in the morning. I’m not that work obsessed, but I’ve been up all night dealing with a leak in my flat and I’m trying to keep busy. Anyway, point being…

@matthewcain “Perhaps the RSA logo should be able to be re-created by Fellows”

Isn’t that the point of “FRSA”? It’s the part of the RSA that Fellows can use to show their support of / link to / expression of our shared values and aims, and is in a sense a logo in it’s own right. Fellows have the right to use it, and the responsibility as a community for ensuring it’s used in the right way. E.g. to raise the profile of a community initiative. E.g. not for personal financial gain.

David Wilcox on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 7:33 am


Sorry for previous querulous comment – shouldn’t send from mobiles. I really mean can we share in the background thinking.
On FRSA – isn’t the problem that it is even more misinterpreted that RSA … most people think it is a qualification or significant form of distinction when it isn’t. Of course FRSA’s are wonderful people, but has anyone been refused Fellowship? I’m personally embarrassed by FRSA … not because I don’t want to promote and celebrate RSA, but because it gives the wrong message.

Mike Amos-Simpson on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 8:56 am


I’d definitely have expected there would be fellowship involvement in the final decision about branding and presumably there will. That doesn’t mean theres no benefit to discussions through blogs, or through people getting together & just chatting – isn’t that what people do anyway?

PS I like the Think, Talk Act suggestion

joe on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 9:28 am


@David Wilcox – you seem to be arguing in almost opposite directions. First you say the branding exercise should be opened to Fellows. Then you seem to be arguing that the notion of being a Fellow is worthless and embarrassing.

Isn’t the truth that if the RSA was to try to canvass opinions on branding it would get trapped into a morass of different views, apathy and loud ’shouting’ by a self selecting group of fellows who are articulate?

It seems to me that there is a view that this institution is in fact a democracy and that its officers should ask for member’s opinions on every decision. First, it isn’t a democracy. Whether or not applications for the fellowship have been rejected, all fellows have been invited to join this institution which has been around since 1754. Second, even if the model is democratic, it is impossible to operate if decisions need to be constantly devolved.

So to turn the question around – why should the RSA spend resources trying to keep informed you (in particular) about the background thinking for branding an organisation of which you are a fellow but find the designation embarrassing?

David Wilcox on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 11:32 am


Hello @joe – is that Joe Turner of Freedom Clothing? I can see I’m being out-provoked here
I’m proud to be a member of RSA, but I think FRSA is an inappropriate and misleading label for that, as Matthew has mused in the past. Google FRSA and you will find people using it among their qualifications, and I suspect for business promotion. I’ve heard people say £140 is a cheap way of getting some letters after their name. Let’s have something that expresses what we do, not what we simply pay for.
I’m not suggesting a democratic process for rebranding, just that, first, we know what the process is, and then there is some means of involving the Fellowship. The brand – as discussed by Matthew – is substantially about the Fellowship and if we aren’t involved it is less likely to reflect our aspirations. How can we promote RSA if we get a line we don’t like?
There are many methods for engagement that deal with the issues your raise.
The line above this comment box is “speak your mind”. I am. OK?

Laura Billings on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 12:19 pm


Wouldn’t it be amazing if the Fellowship community could work to reappropriate FRSA as a truly positive mark of everything the RSA and the Fellows stand for? Especially the more outspoken and dominant members.

Rather than dismiss it, or be embarrased, Fellows could support each other in it’s use, encourage each other to use it more, and work together to dispel some of the negative connotations it has in some people’s minds.

Why dwell on the negative and continue to rehash old arguments? Let’s practise what we preach, and make change happen.

Mike Amos-Simpson on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 12:28 pm


I think thats a good argument Laura and goes well with a rebranding discussion too. I haven’t used FRSA, not for any particular reason. I’ve never used any other letters either but if you put it that we’re rebranding and we want members to help promote it through promoting their membership/affiliation/fellowship I’d maybe see that more as doing ‘my bit’ in part at least.

joe on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 12:51 pm


I like Laura and Mike’s thinking. I’ve not yet come to a firm conclusion about the letters, but if nothing else Fellows act as walking advertisements for the organisation. In the best world people would either look at it and think ‘wow, are you a part of that innovative/exciting/interesting organisation?’ or ‘FRSA – what is that?’.

Maybe there are some fellows that degrade the RSA. Maybe I’m too naive and mix in the wrong circles, but I’ve never met anyone like that. Hopefully as the organisation regains its roots in radical interaction with society, there will be less bystanders, letter-baggers and wifi users.

Also I think business promotion is a good thing. After all, part of the title is ‘for the encouragement of commerce and manufactures’

joe on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 12:53 pm


PS I realise I’ve accidentally suggested another idea for branding:

RSA – what is that?

ray wilkins on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 1:36 pm


Royal Society Arts
“Where People Change The Future”

Tessy Britton *FRSA* on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 1:42 pm


@David Wilcox
I liked what you said “Let’s have something that expresses what we do, not what we simply pay for.” I guess you could argue that what we all do individually through our work contributes to the FRSA brand. Your point emphasises the idea of *collective* doing, which is great too – something many Fellows are all looking for ways to do. I wonder though if it isn’t also good enough to be well intentioned in supporting and contributing to the RSA through membership?

@Laura Billings
Fellows promoting FRSA more would be great! The fact that it isn’t too difficult to join is in some respects a positive thing… removes some of the the exclusiveness and means we can welcome/invite more people to support all the valuable work?

david butter on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 1:44 pm


Good initiative and some really nice ideas – though I’m not sure we’ll get to a decision in a blog. How about a short Fellows & Staff branding workshop?

David Wilcox on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 1:56 pm


Laura – thanks, great encouragement. I’ll turn from provocative to positive.

Could we run a parallel-linked rebranding exercise on FRSA … in an open, positive, collaborative fashion? Could that be done in part through city/regional networks, face-to-face and online?

It would need some facilitation because there isn’t yet (as far as I can see) an active Fellowship community, but there are emerging communities.

Can you and/or other staff help us? I don’t think it will just happen spontaneously or through volunteer effort. Or is it something for the council?

Kevin Donovan on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 5:18 pm


Good idea, David and colleagues. I’ll certainly raise this at our next Liverpool network meeting. I do get it and it takes a while to explain. So, at present I’m thinking: “Why? Why do we need a brand/a rebrand? What purpose would it serve? Who needs to know? Fellows? Prospective Fellows? The ‘community’? Politicians? RSA staff?”

David Wilcox on Fri, 26th Jun 2009 10:02 pm


Kevin – I’ve just spotted that young American non-profit social technology specialist Amy Sample Ward, now living in London, has blogged about being invited to be an RSA Fellow, and why she didn’t accept. See her post here. Amy tried to join this conversation, but the comment didn’t get through for some reason. Amy writes:
“I do not plan to accept the Fellowship invitation because I have not, whether online or in person, from the invtation materials or conversations I’ve had with others, gained a clear understanding of what being a Fellow even means. Furthermore, and most importantly to me, I have not been shown how a Fellowship will help me in my work at changing my community and the world.
“Yes, slogans and colors, font and everything else are all important parts of the branding. It’s true. But the RSA is missing the most important part, at least in bringing me on board: proving to me that being a Fellow will help ME and not just that my membership will help THEM.”
The strong point that emerges to me is that before we can rebrand, we need to have a clearer Fellowship offer. No good changing the label until we have something better in the tin.
That gives us a really clear challenge. Let’s reflect on how the RSA has helped us do more in the world … or could help us do more … and tell those positive stories, and talk about them. Those conversations will be a firm foundation for rebranding.
We need people like Amy.

lynn broadbent on Sat, 27th Jun 2009 12:06 am


The Fellowship proposition has long been a mystery and means different things to different people at different times. I’ve often used the very simple phrase that the RSA “looks at ways to improve the ways we live and work” or that it “inspires the future”. I love the phrase on the new fellowship brochure : “We know you want to change the World”. Perhaps though at this time a discussion on rebranding and slogans is premature and might be better handled once the Fellowship Council is in place?

Socialreporter | RSA rebranding: is Twitter the one to beat? on Sat, 27th Jun 2009 10:03 am


[...] explain what it is for. This has recently been exercising chief executive Matthew Taylor and staff, as he very honestly explains on his blog (which, by the way, I think is probably the best of its kind by the chief exec of a [...]

Julian Dobson on Sat, 27th Jun 2009 1:13 pm


There are some fascinating arguments here. I think for an organisation the mission is the brand: be clear about that and the rest will follow. Slogans and straplines may or may not help.

But I’d caution against trying to boil the complex down into a catchphrase. The RSA interests me because it’s a kind of ’school of everything’ (sorry, folks, that slogan’s been nabbed) – I want to be part of something that stretches my thinking and enables me to make unexpected connections, and is driven by a mutual desire to benefit society.

There have been some imaginative and inspired suggestions above, but it would worry me if we all became the servants of a strapline. And whatever happens, don’t rebrand in a way which suggests you’re unconfident and uncomfortable with who you are (see my irate post about Sheffield’s latest rebranding campaign at http://livingwithrats.blogspot.com/2009/06/certain-je-ne-sais-quoi.html ).

Amelia T on Sun, 28th Jun 2009 12:04 pm


From your post and the comments afterwards it sounds like there is slight confusion as to what exactly you are looking for – is it a strapline/tagline to sit under your logo? Is it a vision statement or mission statement summed up beautifully? Sounds like it is a classic piece of what I would call Brand Architecture – what’s the brand mission and its brand promise, what are the brand values, brand tonality and brand end line. They are all part of the same exercise and can’t be done one without the other.

Personally I am not a big fan of the “do you get it thought” though without knowing all these other pieces of the RSA’s architecture it is entirely a gut-feel reaction. I am just not sure what it says about the RSA, I also think it leads too many people to say “no, i don’t get it…” but as an endline it doesn’t invite you in, it feels slightly aloof and a bit arrogant. Also a bit try-hard and yoof.

Can you share any other bits of your branding session so that we can try and put the endline discussion into context?

matthewtaylor on Sun, 28th Jun 2009 10:49 pm


What a great conversation. Thanks to everyone who took part. I will make sure our branding advisers see it. I just typed a long response but ran out of characters. So I’ll post properly tomorrow or the next day.

matthewtaylor on Sun, 28th Jun 2009 10:52 pm


Liked your post Julian. I agree with you that the new Sheffield brand is in danger of denying a lot of what is great about the City.

matthewtaylor on Sun, 28th Jun 2009 10:59 pm


Hi Amelia. Thanks for the comment. I haven’t got the branding presentation to hand but the interesting thing is how similar is the feedback the consultants gave us from the themes in this thread. People like the RSA and its unique combination of ideas platform, think tank and membership organisation but the potential isn’t being fulfilled and part of this lies in ambiguities about our aims and the role of Fellows. That’s why the branding isn’t just about straplines but about addressing more fundamental issues which have for too long been swept under the carpet.

matthewtaylor on Sun, 28th Jun 2009 11:01 pm


Good point Lynn. One of the first issues for the Council to address is the Fellowship Charter and that goes to the heart of these big issues about the meaning and role of Fellowship

matthewtaylor on Sun, 28th Jun 2009 11:03 pm


Hi Kevin. Thanks for the comment. As I’ve said I will post of this again very soon. But just to answer a specific point about ‘why re brand?’ – part of the reason is that our present brand – especially when the full name is used – can be very misleading

matthewtaylor on Sun, 28th Jun 2009 11:10 pm


PS Did anyone notice that Catherine Bennett’s comment piece in yesterday’s Observer was a critique of the whole ‘they just don’t get it’ thing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/28/hazel-blears-dont-get-it

david butter on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 8:54 am


Indeed! It’s not about ‘getting it’, or ‘getting the message across’. We should all be able to tell an authentic RSA story that is relevant, differentiating, visionary and empowering: Who are we? What do we do? How do we do it? What is the benefit? If appropriate I’d be happy to help in facilitating a workshop to harness and focus our thinking. We need to build it from and align it to our vision and strategic goals, resources and capabilities, and the needs of all our stakeholders. While our core brand message should be consistent, the benefits may vary by audience reflecting our diversity. Our current name needn’t be an impediment (cf. Charles Dunstone’s Carphone Warehouse, or the Radio Times). The process might even result in a new strapline!

Julian Dobson on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 9:30 am


I think David’s got a good point. To use a different analogy, many people will consider themselves to be members of a faith group or church, and even recite a creed to go with it, but will recognise that their faith is a complex matter with many permutations and huge areas that are open to debate.

Or those who belong to a political party might subscribe to a core concept (’social justice’ or ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’ but have a wide range of views about how those are to be achieved and won’t necessarily agree with a set of manifesto commitments.

I don’t think we should underestimate the value of those loose associations, or assume that narrowing them necessarily creates a stronger brand.

Mike Amos-Simpson on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 9:33 am


From my perspective it is about “getting it” and quite honestly no I still don’t. I still like the idea of somehow being connected to likeminded people but the questions David, Amy Sample Ward and others put are valid – why should I continue to pay for fellowship? If its as a charitable donation to support a worthy organisation then I know of ways I can direct that money that will have a much greater impact.

All the “we change the world” stuff is very nice warm and fuzzy – but how does that happen? How does my membership/involvement contribute to that? So for new fellows, non fellows and potential fellows I’d argue getting the message across is very important.

Mike Amos-Simpson on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 9:40 am


@Julian I think your point is valid, however religion and politics don’t seem to be thriving examples of successful membership in recent years. I agree about not overlooking the value of loose associations though and if anything thats maybe critical.

David Wilcox on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 10:03 am


I think Mike really pins it down, and before getting on to the branding we need to be clear on how RSA helps us do good stuff. How about Fellows and staff organise a workshop (s) like the one OpenRSA ran in 2007 before the big House event of November? http://openrsa.wikispaces.com/October+event Maybe on a regional basis? It would clarify thinking and hopefully move some projects forward.

Duncan Lawie FRSA on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 11:13 am


One of the key values to me of the RSA is the breadth of purpose. Trying to narrow all that down to a point is highly likely to miss the point. Even the Five Challenges are only focus areas.

The RSA can do anything – begin a project in any area. This is what I’m here for. We don’t have one purpose – that is why the RSA is still here after 255 years.

The RSA fellowship is, largely, self-choosing, and those who are most active in the fellowship are often pushing their own barrow – but the most effective are those who also listen – and thereby cross-pollinate.

Joe Turner FRSA on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 12:54 pm


@david – the problem with these kinds of meetings are that they are self-selecting. Of course, those contributing to this thread are also self-selecting, but the difference is that this is presumably not actionable for the RSA CE.

@Mike – these are good questions, but surely outwith of a discussion about a strapline.

@David_Wilcox – these are clearly useful meetings, but I’m not sure are really an avenue which for defining the RSA.

It strikes me that there are very likely to be a range of reasons why people chose to become fellows of the RSA. Isn’t part of the fun learning what it means to each person?

We have officers and soon an elected fellows’ council. I think it should be left to them to figure it all out in a line (if that is really the best thing) and then for the rest of us to decide whether the definition encompasses what we want to be part of or not.

For my part, I think I am going to spend some time looking at the Journals in the RSA library to see if they shed any historical light on what it is all about.

Lopa Patel on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 2:50 pm


How about ‘RSA – Inspiring Social Change’.?

MIchael in UK on Mon, 29th Jun 2009 11:29 pm


Remember that Conservative slogan “are you thinking what we’re thinking?” – I would be wary about choosing a strapline/brand statement which ends in a question mark. Too big a risk that the response will be a simple no.

But commenting on someone else’s slogan is easy.

Rob Greenland on Tue, 30th Jun 2009 8:36 am


I think the best definition of a brand – which I think is relevant here – is from Marty Neumeier’s book The Brand Gap:

A brand is a person’s gut feeling about a product, service or company. It’s not what YOU say it is. It’s what THEY say it is.

I like the gut feeling idea. I also like the fact that you’re not in control of your brand. You do what you can do things to influence what people feel, but you can’t control it.

When a lot of people have the same gut feeling about you, you have what Neumeier calls a “charismatic brand” – a brand for which people think there is no substitute.

I suppose the gut feeling idea chimes a bit with do you get it idea too.

I’ve reviewed the book here:

http://tinyurl.com/ploved

Thanks
Rob

David Wilcox on Tue, 30th Jun 2009 9:02 am


@joe I agree this is an issue of interest to the Fellowship council, and I’ve posted an item on our London City Network, where we have an election forum, inviting comments from candidates. Do join us there – it’s open to anyone. If you are in London on Thursday evening, we have a face-to-face with candidates. Free drinks for first-comers. Details in the post.
@rob I agree on the gut feeling. It’s about your reaction to the whole offer and experience … not just the strap line pushed by the brand. I don’t think that sort of ad-copy approach convinces many people these days.

Why did you join the RSA? RSA-US| RSA United States on Tue, 30th Jun 2009 1:18 pm


[...] What does RSA Fellowship mean to you?  Why is it important?  These and other provocative questions are part of a really interesting discussion taking place on Matthew Taylor’s blog, The RSA – do you get it?   [...]

Don Pinchbeck on Wed, 1st Jul 2009 8:57 pm


It seems to me that over the years, JAS has done “big, important stuff”, and Fellows have done “little stuff” or nothing. The MT initiative has triggered what I believe will be a sea change. However, I cannot see for the life of me what that new panorama will look like. Are we still for “The Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce” or “Civic Change”, “Thought Leadership”, “Advancing human capability so that people can thrive in the future” or what? We have left situation A as described above, but have not yet reached Situation B – the New RSA, where Fellow’s views, ideas and projects are considered on a meritocratic basis, and find support at relevant levels within the RSA. Problem is, we don’t seem to have decided what the RSA is going to stand for. Being between Situation A and Situation B means there is uncertainty and doubt – and those feelings are entirely normal. Until we do know what we are about – define Situation B, how can we evolve a brand?. To (mis) quote Kotler, If I were to ask you to define the brand attributes of Mercedes, you’d probably come up with expensive, well engineered, well built, durable high prestige motor cars. As a previous contributor said – it’s what others think we stand for. Straplines? logos? These come much later. Surely we need to define what the new MT world of the RSA is going to do/be/achieve before we can work through Brand Attributes, Benefits, Values, Culture, Personality etc. Adviser son branding can only really help when Situation B is very clearly articulated, and the Fellowship has bought in. It’s the Fellows and those in JAS that will live the brand, reinforce it or blur it.

Peter Churchill on Thu, 2nd Jul 2009 10:20 pm


The conversation above seems to be a (im)perfect example of what I assumed the RSA was about – CONNECTING MINDS.

It is not what you might call an “expert organisation” (in the sense that professional institutes arguably are) but a group of more or less interested, intelligent, motivated, accomplished and DIVERSE individuals who have come together to find something of value and interest to them.

The beauty of the RSA seems quite simply that this diversity offers the opportunity to find the unexpected (as an architect I had never heard of Web2, Ning or World Jam) and to really connect with others that are NOT in competition (as would be the case in an “expert organisation” with members all in the same field of activity).

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!