Acronyms are overplayed and are (best) effective when used in highly impactful names/brands/organizations with brand equity (or other significance) built around them: IRS, CIA, USPS, UPS, FBI, etc.
Hospitals and lesser-known government agencies use acronyms/initial as shorthand to those “insiders” who know/deal with on some level (stakeholders) the organization regularly—as would politicians, board members and specific members of the community. This can work, but these entities are still very much less well known, particularly if they do not commit to the task of branding (i.e. putting money into the effort to own an acronym).
Who knew what FEMA was before 2005? … And if there is a FEMA, why is there then a MEMA (Maryland)? (Random thought)
Most importantly, when members of a particular community are unknown and the brand recognition amongst them is low, it may stand to reason that the primary usage of an acronym positions an organization distances the general public from the significance of the organization, since the name is less focused on intrinsic recognition with the public.
For example: ABC Rentals vs. Plumbing Supply Rentals. (Which name gives a sense — at a glance — of what the company’s primarily positioned to do for the prospective customer?) In this vein, one could say that using acronyms is a nickname of sorts and the public gives the most effective nicknames: FedEx (shortening of the proper name Federal Express—and rebranded as such afterwards because of the saturation with a specific position—overnight package service).
Obviously, not all meetings should be two hours max. I mean someone is trying to solve Middle East Peace, but I was in a meeting where, after a certain time, I just felt there’s no reason this meeting should be THIS long. I think every person has this quotient (at different lengths) ticking in their heads. Keep the info utility front-loaded, you know!
I answered a LinkedIn Group question today regarding showing work-in-progress. My answer was does not apply, not because it’s fully accurate, but becasue the breadth of the issues weren’t explained in the available options:
On showing works in progress, I think many of the answers above show the complexity and problems of showing a client work-in-progress and they take me to a point of summation, in that a client hires you for vision and part of that vision is to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff of decision-making, if you will.
I remember hearing Georgia O’Keefe say something like it’s the artists’ role to choose and I feel like that’s utterly important here in developing client work. Yes, good contracts, yes explaining scratch work, yes showing work as “progress” and progress payments, but the other thing is that, dependent on the relationship (I have a long-standing relationship where WIP is great, for example), it’s often difficult to foresee the degree to which the client can visualize that it truly is a process and the degree to which the process can be proportionally fruitful farther in (i.e. once you really lock in on a concept–inspiration isn’t always a straight-line ascending line graph).
So, I tend not to because if anything goes wrong, wouldn’t you rather be that person who did admirable work, as exhibited through process, that they just didn’t like or the moron who scribbled on napkins and you hated it?
Whenever I’m concepting logo design, this quote, attributed to Joseph Stalin (likely under different circumstances) is what I think about because it’s key to come at the problem from such a multitude of angles that one can have a good solution and then impeach it with an even better one.
In that initial stage, it’s quantity that rules the day.