Can a familiar slogan restore confidence during times of crisis? Or does effective disaster recovery require far more than memorable words?

Those questions have emerged following the Queensland Government’s decision to spend approximately $150,000 to acquire the rights to the long-recognised slogan, “You can count on a Queenslander,” with plans to use it in future disaster recovery communications. While the purchase has attracted political criticism over the use of taxpayer funds, it also raises a broader discussion about the role of branding in public service.

Government branding is often viewed differently from commercial marketing. Unlike businesses, governments are not selling products, they are communicating essential information, building confidence, and encouraging public cooperation during emergencies. In this context, a trusted brand or slogan can carry significant value if it is already deeply embedded in the public consciousness.

Brand recognition plays an important role in communication. Familiar messages are processed more quickly, are easier to remember, and can help audiences identify official information during times of uncertainty. When people immediately recognise a slogan or campaign identity, they may also be more likely to engage with the message and trust its source.

There is also the element of emotional connection. Long-standing slogans often evoke shared experiences, community identity, and resilience. Marketing professionals frequently refer to this as brand equity, the value that accumulates through years of public recognition and positive associations. Rather than building awareness from scratch, organisations sometimes invest in established brands because of the trust they have already earned.

Similarly, nostalgia marketing has become an increasingly effective communication strategy. By reconnecting audiences with familiar symbols or messages, organisations can reinforce feelings of stability and reassurance, particularly during periods of uncertainty. For governments responding to natural disasters, that emotional familiarity may help messages cut through an increasingly crowded information environment.

However, the central question remains whether such benefits justify the public expenditure.

Critics argue that taxpayer money should be directed primarily towards frontline disaster response, infrastructure, and community recovery rather than branding initiatives. From this perspective, public confidence is built through visible action, efficient service delivery, and timely support, not through slogans alone.

Supporters, on the other hand, contend that effective communication is itself a critical component of disaster management. If a recognised campaign improves message reach, strengthens public engagement, and encourages faster responses during emergencies, the investment could deliver value that extends beyond the cost of acquiring the trademark.

Ultimately, branding cannot replace good governance. A memorable slogan may capture attention, but lasting public trust is earned through consistent leadership, transparency, and tangible results. Even the strongest brand cannot compensate for ineffective policies or poor service delivery.

The Queensland debate therefore extends beyond the purchase of a trademark. It invites governments everywhere to consider how public funds should balance practical service delivery with strategic communication. In an era where trust is increasingly difficult to build and easy to lose, the real measure of success will not be whether citizens remember the slogan, but whether they believe the actions that stand behind it.