Post-Supervision Task: Legal Research
After our supervision meeting, our team divided up the next steps, and I was assigned to explore potential legal issues that could impact Bright Side’s branding, communication, and international expansion—particularly in the context of UK and EU law. This section offers preliminary insights into the legal considerations that may be relevant to Bright Side Studios.
At first, I thought the task would be relatively straightforward: find some relevant laws and summarise them. However, as I went deeper, I realised the situation was far more complex than expected.
- Bright Side is not an individual creator but a registered studio — its legal obligations and risks are more institutional in nature.
- We are not legal advisors; the information we provide is based on publicly available sources and broad suggestions, and should not be taken as a substitute for professional legal consultation.
- To what extent can they leverage legal tools to strengthen their brand communication?And what legal boundaries or risks might restrict them from doing so??
Reflections sparked by team discussions
Initially, I felt confident that I had covered the legal dimensions thoroughly. But through our team conversation, I realised how important it is to challenge our own assumptions. Each of us brings a different mental model to the table—and it’s only through collaboration that we begin to question and expand our thinking.
For example, my teammates raised several key questions that I hadn’t considered:
- Do they have clearly defined legal boundaries for publicity?
- Are there significant differences between UK and EU law in areas like data protection or the presentation of cultural content?
- Are there specific regulations that might explain their particularly cautious approach to marketing?
- Should we advise them to seek legal counsel, rather than relying on our general recommendations?
These insights shifted my perspective—especially the idea that their reserved attitude toward publicity may not be a lack of confidence, but a sign of legal uncertainty. It’s a subtle but important distinction, and one we might not have uncovered without team dialogue.
Further financial considerations
In addition to legal matters, our discussion also raised a crucial point about financial feasibility. If we recommend more investment in social media, video content, or marketing campaigns—where will the funding come from?
Given that Bright Side appears to rely solely on internal funding from the founders, some of our ideas may not be financially realistic unless external investment is secured. The financial planning and future funding expectations are areas we need to clarify with the client in the next meeting. This ties back to the need for recommendations that are not only strategic, but practical.
Critical Thinking in Practice
In the KIPP course, we’ve consistently been encouraged to apply systems thinking to solve complex problems and use critical thinking to avoid premature assumptions. This week’s discussion was a perfect chance to apply both.
- It’s not just about summarising surface-level insights, but about uncovering deeper structural challenges—like financial constraints or unclear legal frameworks.
- And it’s not just about offering recommendations, but about asking tough questions:Are these suggestions truly feasible? Are they targeting the real problems? Does the client have the capacity to implement them?
This experience reminded me that thoughtful consulting begins not with answers, but with the right questions.
Leave a Reply