People who think branding the recovery is a bunch of malarkey need look no further than the 1930s, when that era’s “recovery” plan was branded the New Deal. Without this easily identifiable brand, how would one so easily revere and reference the Economic Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and Social Security Act, among others that made up the New Deal?

While boring stimulus bills are the meat and potatoes of the recovery efforts, savvy rhetoric and communication will bind it together and brand it. In this respect the heavy lifting will be done in speeches by President Obama himself and through www.recovery.gov. President Obama has already heavily promoted the website, including during his recent, nationally televised address to Congress. So, is Recovery.gov up to the task?

Human resource representatives and job seekers heading to interviews know that in terms of dress, dark blue means business. And a serious dark navy blue header greets visitors to Recovery.gov, underscoring one of the primary targets of recovery efforts—everyday people seriously affected by the struggling economy.

Under the stately blue heading, Recovery.gov resembles any other website produced by a small business with a moderate budget unsure of the areas it most needs to address. Smartly, the site compromises by addressing them all with equal weight—from accountability and transparency to jobs and investments. Yet, as Recovery.gov accumulates and analyzes information about its visitors, this may indeed change. The success of the site’s functionality will not be judged on merely what information it presents, but also how visitors with personal agendas feel they have been served. This is no small task.

From a functional perspective there are two small issues: one, the largest text size is hardly grump-old-geezer endorsed, and two, the timeline at the bottom is a jarring mess (that is, neither interactive nor justifiably edifying).

Also, a small but interesting detail: while the address of the site may be recovery.gov, the site refers to itself as Recovery.gov—a welcome departure from an alarmingly still-alive trend of anything new, hip or web-based using only lowercase letters. Hello, brandchannel.com. Ahem.

Of course, a brand’s potential for success is only as good as its communications plan. And though it probably was no catastrophic setback, having the vice president call the site “Recovery.com” instead of “Recovery.gov”—as Vice President Biden did to the US Conference of Mayors earlier this year—certainly doesn’t help.

All in all, the site is useful and appears poised to become even more so. But one cannot help but feel that Recovery.gov lacks a gravitas and scope proportional to the endeavor and challenges ahead—which, to be fair, may be impossible to foresee or even measure. Nevertheless, the past 70 years has produced mountains of cynicism regarding what “we” must or must not do. So it is comforting to acknowledge that although the site may not inspire, it certainly does inform, and often via the comforting navy blue header that lets visitors know their concerns are being taken seriously.

To date, the current recovery package is going by the name “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”—a severely grim appellation that will hopefully transition to something more punchy and historical. And while “recovery dot gov” doesn’t have the zing of the New Deal, it does prove that President Obama’s team is aware of the 1930s precedent and the importance of brand identity. The brand logo chosen to represent the Recovery.gov program coveys all of the New Deal seriousness and focus but on a modern, lapel-ready medallion.

Of course, in the end, the most successful thing a recovery plan can do to help brand itself is to be spectacularly successful. Or spectacularly not. A branding lesson China’s Great Leap Forward (1958-1961) can speak to.