Bridenstine: "The NASA brand is the most valuable brand America has"
Two teams from the grade 11 at the Goldengate International College, Battisputali, Kathmandu will be searching asteroids with us at All-Nepal Asteroid Search Campaign, November 20-December 17, 2019 #AsteroidSearch #ANASC2019 #Nepal pic.twitter.com/CpzfJqUbci
— Nepal Space (@NepalSpace) November 24, 2019
Keith’s note: Yesterday at the STA luncheon Jim Bridenstine said that “the NASA brand is the most valuable brand America has” – Inside – and outside our borders. In October I cited an example of how NASA’s logo – its brand – has a ubiquitous, global reach – and that it is associated with exciting, hopeful, advanced things with no known downside.
“This is a perfect example of so-called “soft power”. This costs NASA virtually – literally – nothing. Having worked with folks in Nepal on things related to this, the mere visibility of the NASA logo and recognition by NASA is enticement enough to generate in-country resources and support. Done properly you can have a global awareness of what NASA is and does and spark interest in other nation’s space efforts. And the cases where a country has no space activities, spur their development. One would hope that this becomes part of what NASA includes in its Artemis outreach activities – since the ultimate goal is to go there with other nations.”
NASA has done a good job – an increasingly good one – at allowing the logo’s use – and not discouraging its use when the its is used in a positive and inspiring context. This is a consumate, textbook example of soft power. One would hope that NASA can continue along this path and that legislation that currently hinders NASA’s ability to project its message via advertising and other venues – can be lifted by Congress.
– NASA’s Global Branding Reach Is Often Under Appreciated, earlier post
– Understanding NASA’s Global Reach, earlier post
– NASA is Still A Potent (If Underutilized) Brand, earlier post
– Using NASA’s Logo: Expensive T-Shirts Or Global Soft Power?, earlier post
– NASA’s Pervasive Brand Recognition, earlier post
– One Major Road Block To Bridenstine’s Advertising Ideas, earlier post
I’m inclined to agree with Keith and Administrator Bridenstine, and I think Jim continues to be a good ambassador of that brand. Cheers.
It is a pity that federal law prevents them from monetizing it. A good brand could bring in hundreds of millions a year, enough to fund a good part of their robotic lunar exploration strategy.
Actually that would just cheapen and mare the image, turning it into money grubbing instead of a bastion for science and exploration for everyone.
Shame on you, Mr. Barker. You can be shunned by members of The Church Free Enterprise for a remark like that.
Drs. M and C make points more carefully constructed than mine, requiring me to realize that in some ways, my resistance to NA$A isn’t quite fully formed. I’m not completely sure why.
An argument can be made that at least on some level over-merchandising has devalued a certain slice of American life. That’s not my opposition.
My opposition, I think, is to the level of coarseness that is an inseparable part of monetization.
Why? What would be different than the merchandising going on now?
The Olympics seem to do OK owning and merchandising their own brand. Or do you consider them to be just into money grubbing and not a bastion for athletics and sports?
“do you consider them to be just into money grubbing and not a bastion for athletics and sports?”
Well, yes, I do, at least to some extent; this is a lesson learned by many, but not all, host cities, Sochi is a particularly sad example.
The Host Cities do use it as a tool for promoting, and perhaps go overboard, but I was referring to the actual licensing deals that the U.S. Olympic Committee approves for use of its logo as part of its Team USA campaign.
https://www.teamusa.org/
No, that would cheapen _your_ image. Lots of people aren’t offended by making money. To those people, the idea of NASA getting one cent in royalties per shirt sold with a NASA logo on it would not be offensive. That’s not money grubbing; it’s just paying the bills.
This is absolutely true. Ive been to over 34 countries, and every time people find out I work in the space program their eyes light up and they are interested and happy and have often been asked to do space related talks in several countries, especially for children. This is how you win over hearts and minds.
I think you are missing the point. The report was about the _NASA_ brand, not the idea of spaceflight in general. I don’t see people wearing ESA, IKI, JAXA or ISRO shirts or hats all that often (actually, ever, to the best of my memory.) So this is about a particular organization, not the field in general.
The NASA brand is awesome, I have two (different) T-shirts with it myself, as well as all kinds of other stuff. However, I am predicting that the SpaceX brand is up and coming, and could supplant the NASA brand in a decade or so. If SpaceX continues to do what they have been doing and are saying they will soon do, then NASA needs to either get aboard or be left behind, simple as that. If they get aboard, I predict that the NASA brand will continue to be predominant, but the SpaceX brand will be develop into a strong second place, as the “enabler” of NASA.
As much as I like the shirts, and I’ve got more than a few, some people need to tone it down. I’ve got a shirt from a NASA robotic mission I decided to throw out when I noticed it had “launch team” written on it. I wasn’t on that team. Someone just thought giving everyone shirts saying so would promote some sort of team spirit. To me, it felt like stealing honors from the people who actually deserved them.