But first of all, what is more worth discussing is why many local logo contests in Vietnam in recent years such as Nha Trang (Khanh Hoa), old Quang Binh, Hai Phong... and now Da Nang, despite attracting hundreds of authors and thousands of options, still often lead to similar debates?
In my opinion, the root of the problem lies in the fact that we are putting the logo in the position that brand strategy must take on.
In modern brand management, logo is not a starting point. A city must first identify who it is, what it wants to be remembered for, what values it wants to compete with and which public groups it targets. That is Place Brand Strategy - local brand strategy.
From the new strategy developed into Place Branding, then to the brand identity system (City Brand Identity). The logo is only the most condensed part of the entire process.
If going against the process - testing logos first and then thinking about brands - it is very difficult to expect a logo to solve problems that inherently belong to strategy.
Why are Da Nang's logo design options controversial?
This is not a problem of each designer alone, but a consequence of the same starting point.
First, a logo is burdened with too many roles. We expect it to both represent the government, tell a historical story, reflect culture, promote tourism, attract investment and express aspirations for development. Each goal is reasonable, but no logo can do everything well at the same time.
The second is the mindset of "putting in what you have". Sea, mountains, rivers, bridges, sun, sea waves, cultural symbols... are all proud values of Da Nang. But the more images you try to put into a logo, the reduced recognition ability. The logo gradually becomes more like a miniature illustration poster than a condensed identification sign.
Third, the Design Brief does not really play the role of a strategic document. A good brief does not require the designer to tell everything about the city.
It only needs to clearly identify the most important thing that the city wants to be remembered. When the highlight is not clear, the options are forced to add meaning themselves with many layers of symbols.
Finally, the logo reflects the process that created it. If initial research, brief and evaluation mechanisms are not optimal, it is difficult to expect the final result to create consensus.
From the perspective of the person directly guiding 40 students with more than 120 options participating in this competition, I think the most difficult thing is not to find a beautiful idea, but to answer a fundamental question: What does Da Nang want to be remembered for in the coming years?
When that question is not clear enough, each designer will find a different answer, and the logo has to bear too many expectations.
Da Nang can do differently.
The positive thing is that this debate may become an opportunity for Da Nang to improve its approach to the city's brand.
The first step is not to edit an additional symbol, but to build a clear brand strategy. The city needs to identify competitive advantages, position and priority public groups.
From there, a professional Design Brief is built, laying the foundation for all design options. A Brief is not a list of symbols to be included in the logo, but a document that defines goals, messages and evaluation criteria.
Finally, a more interdisciplinary selection process, with the participation of experts in branding, design, media, culture, history and urban development. Community opinions are still very necessary, but should only be a consulting channel, not an alternative to professional assessment.
More importantly, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between "administrative symbols" and "city brands". Symbols serve legal functions; while city brands aim to build images, attract investment, develop tourism and improve competitiveness.
These two goals are related, but do not necessarily have to be addressed with the same logo.
