경기도 지자체 도시브랜드 이미지 제고를 위한 CI, BI, VI 차별화에 관한 연구

Abstract

(Background and Purpose) As cities’ importance is emphasized because of economic structure and social change, local governments create city brands such as CI, BI, characters, and mascots, to recognize and remember the city and manage them as symbols. Differentiated symbols reflecting city identity are competitively developed as large assets of local governments; however, they are not differentiated within local governments because of the development of CI, BI, and VI, whose boundaries remain unclear. This study proposes perspectives to be considered for future symbols renewal or development by identity confusion in user perspective and non-differentiation among local governments through CI, BI, and VI analysis. (Method) To s urvey the status of CI, BI, and VI posted on homepages of 31 local governments in Gyeonggi-do, comprising cities and counties, and to compare and analyze visual identity components, such as symbol, symbol mark, logotype, and wordmark, when BI and VI are with CI. Furthermore , information on coverage and management to investigate actual usage was sought; additionally, the reasons why visual components are unclear, concerning the concept of confusion, confusion theory, and brand confusion, were considered. (Results) Gyeonggi-do local government has symbols such as CI, BI, and VI, and there are various elements of visual identity managed by the same or different departments, that are governed by the same or different coverage, with unclear boundaries, and different local governments. (Conclusions) Logotype, a component of CI and BI visual identity, is created in a particular typeface and acts as a trademark, but is made in different typeface, resulting in less symbolic functionality. If BI is the name of a local government or a wordmark with other modifiers, it is visually distinguished from CI; however, in the case of symbols such as CI and visual components of symbol mark and logotype, it is highly likely to be confused with CI. Whereas the scope of application of CI and BI is different for each local government, CI, BI, and VI are not differentiated and are sometimes applied together, thus causing confusion. Based on these problems, local governments should consider the following perspectives when renewing or developing new symbols. First, enhancing the image of the city brand, the identity as a symbol representing the local government should be established. Second, it is necessary to distinguish the scope of application of CI, BI, and VI. Finally, local governments with CI should not be visually confused with CI by users when developing a new BI. This is because it is difficult to expect differentiation from other local governments if symbols created to establish differentiated identity from other local governments are confused even within one local government.