Carrot and stick
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
Once a year some mysterious instinct grips the primitive crustacean minds of an army of 250,000 spider crabs in the depths of the southern ocean. Some primal urge draws them together to shed the bony shells that they have now outgrown. I know this, because I watched David Attenborough’s ‘Life’ the other week, and it certainly was an awesome sight.
The same primal instinct appears to drive charities too.
Hardly a week goes by without some charity or other ‘rebranding’ or ‘refreshing its identity’ or some such. Why is this?
It can be for very valid reasons. In some cases the name or brand really has become an inflexible shell that has started to restrict the growth of the organisation. Few would argue that The Spastics Society was placed in a very difficult position when spastic became a term of abuse in every playground. Sometimes two organisations merge and a new organisation is born that is more than the sum of the parts – Cancer Research UK, for instance.
However, is this always the case? It bothers me that almost every organisation I talk to has either recently changed some aspect of its identity, or is debating doing so. While it is great that organisations are thinking carefully about how they are perceived I worry that brands can be the victim of another deep-seated primal instinct – the urge to tinker.
My guess is that if you aspire to be head of communication for a charity it is important that you can talk a good game about brand. Masterminding a corporate identity project looks good on your CV. It’s a high profile project and rather fun going to meetings with those swanky branding consultants. And changing the typeface or coming up with a new strap line is a lot easier than actually changing your organisation or reputation for real.
So if you really have got a good reason to try and significantly change the way you are perceived by supporters and the public then the best of luck to you. But don’t make it an annual ritual.
David Burrows
Head of Fundraising
TDA
10 Dec 2009
People tend to focus on corporate identity, as if that was the brand, which it isn't.
The focus on visual identity also misses the fact that so much recruitment is now done face to face or door to door, where the story the fundraiser tells is much more important than the logo.
Vibeka Mair
Reporter
Civil Society
8 Dec 2009
I think it is better to be encouraging and wanting freshness than the other extreme of flogging a dead horse.
But, you are right brand changes are rarely justified. I wonder how many charities measure the effectiveness of their rebrand and communicate this to donors?
RSPB to undergo brand 'stretch' in bid to strengthen its market position
Action for Kids angry at Commission's sanction of NCH rebrand
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
21 May 2012
How do you solve a problem like a pension deficit? David McHattie tackles the issue.
15 May 2012
David Davison mounts his soapbox to call for pensions reform.
24 May 2012
Charities, like businesses should be held to account over their environmental standards, says Katy Wing.
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
17 May 2012
Men may have ruled the political panel, but women packed the punches from the audience in the Civil Society...
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
19 Nov 2012
Alexandra Goldstein
Digital Marketing Officer
Dogs Trust
15 Feb 2010
As someone who works for a charity that underwent a major rebrand - a name change - I agree that it shouldn't be done for frivolous reasons. For one thing, six years later we still sometimes have to deal with misunderstandings surrounding our old name, and for another it involves a tremendous amount of work!
[In case it's interesting: National Canine Defence League didn't really work any more for a number of reasons. It made a lot more sense to have 'dogs' in the name, and also to widen the scope so that it sounded less like a lobbying / rights organisation and more like somewhere that deals with all aspects of welfare, including (crucially) rehoming.]
[Reply]