The Bureau of Meteorology wanted to be taken seriously – the opposite happened | Lainie Anderson
In the midst of a flood emergency, the BoM – sorry, the Bureau – used $220k of taxpayers’ money to iSnack 2.0 themselves. Money well spent … not, writes Lainie Anderson.
This week, in the middle of a flood emergency, the Bureau of Meteorology issued a media alert that was not about the weather or the threat to lives, homes and livelihoods.
No. The media release was about its own hurt feelings.
In the face of “an ever-increasing number of severe weather events”, the Bureau of Meteorology – or at least some dunce in a leadership role with too much time and taxpayer money on their hands – wants the government authority to be taken seriously.
In short, that means no more referring to the Bureau of Meteorology by its acronym BoM or the “weather bureau”. In the first instance we’re to use the full Bureau of Meteorology title, and thereafter “the Bureau”.
Apart from “the Bureau” sounding like some 1950s FBI crime show (or the French spy series called The Bureau) there were some flaws in the execution of the BoM’s new branding strategy.
Firstly, the federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek knew nothing about it.
After launching an investigation, and amid revelations the rebrand cost $220,000, she declared, “My focus and the focus of the BoM should be on weather, not branding” before adding that Australians should call it whatever they like.
Apparently, the BoM’s been working on the strategy with a consultancy by the name of “C Word Communications Agency”. I’m not making this up.
Secondly, the BoM announced it was changing its Twitter handles in each state (i.e. to @theBureau_SA) to reflect the new brand.
Only, it didn’t secure the Twitter handles before sending the media alert, so the names were quickly taken by private account holders.
One account holder, whose image is a little desk drawer or “bureau”, issued three demands before he’d surrender the Twitter handle: “1) a weather balloon (will settle for a regular balloon); 2) a signed photo with Sunrise weatherman Sam Mac; 3) the power to manipulate the weather (like Halle Berry in X-men).”
So the rebrand’s going well so far – almost as well as when Vegemite launched iSnack 2.0, or when the SANFL insisted we call it the “SANful” instead of the “S.A.N.F”.
So well, in fact, that by Thursday afternoon the BoM had backtracked, announcing the public and the media were free to call it whatever they liked.
Clever idea, considering the BoM’s website is www.bom.gov.au, its emails are media@bom.gov.au, and its smartphone app is BOM.
Which leads me to the silliest aspect of this whole saga.
Maybe it’s a sign that my husband and I need more to talk about, but a couple of times a week one of us will say: “Check the BoM app!”
We check the BoM app to see when to walk the dog, or whether to put clothes on the line, or whether to mow the lawn. If we’re in Port Vincent we’ll check the BoM (and Windy.com) to see if the weather’s going to be kind to very amateur fishers in a very tiny tinny.
Like millions of other Aussies, we love the BoM and have great respect for the scientists who are marvellous at providing reliable, to-the-minute weather information.
But then on Thursday morning, I heard weatherman Nate on ABC TV Breakfast diligently referring to the BoM as “the Bureau” and I thought “what a bunch of bollocks”.
Talk about throwing a bomb at a great brand.
Penbo: Ashton Hurn is a career politician. Here’s why that’s good
