Marketers dumb-down and dilute sophisticated messages because they are following conventional marketing tactics (public relations, advertising, etc) that aren’t well suited to a learning organization. These so-called “best practices” do not communicate leadership but no one is pushing them to be different. There was a good article I read some time ago about publishing that I wish I had access to at the moment. In a nutshell, it said that we don’t lack for good writers or good thinkers, we lack publishers. So, the do-it-yourselfers you’ve described have rushed into this vacuum. I agree with you that the experts are looking to talk about their expertise; they have something to say, which is any organizations best hope of getting attention. It is up to museum managers to recognize how and why they can benefit from the people in their employ; why publishing and other forms of substantive content development should be such a crucial part of the brand museums need to thrive. It isn’t a “nice-to-have” feature, rather it should be seen as indispensable. Similarly, comments that equate branding and “the obligatory logo” should remind us that “best practices” don’t fit every occasion. A decade ago, in response to 9-11, I wrote about the pitfalls of relying too heavily on a presumably “well-understood” logo: http://contrabrand.wordpress.com/2001/12/01/brand-truth-and-consequence-a-cautionary-tale/
