When ignorance is far from bliss
20 May 2013
A shifting political atmosphere is putting power in the hands of the inexperienced, warns Robert Ashton.
Share
Should a charity's name explain what it does?
Gareth Jones asks if we are seeing a trend for charity names to explain clearly what the organisation does.
Yesterday’s news that Rethink has rebranded as Rethink Mental Illness raises the age-old question – to what extent should your organisation’s name reflect the work it does?
Rethink’s reasoning was that its name wasn’t clear enough about what it does, yet only five months ago Sue Ryder Care dropped the ‘Care’ from its name on that basis that it made the name sound “distant and corporate”.
So which is the best approach? In recent years it has felt as if charities have been shaking their fusty old literal names for hipper, yet more vague, monikers.
Notable examples of this are World Emergency Relief changing its name to Emerge Poverty Free, Excellent Development becoming simply Excellent, YMCA Glasgow becoming Y People and, understandably, the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations (NCVCCO) re-launching itself as Children England.
Perhaps the classic in this field was the decision in 2008 of the organisation created by the merger of Rainer and Crime Concern to call itself Catch 22, a move that left some scratching their heads.
Clarity
On the flip-side of the coin, there have been relatively few examples of charities moving in the opposite direction and adopting names which clarify what they do.
Perhaps the most notable example of this was NCH’s decision in 2008 to become Action for Children, a slightly more descriptive term than the acronym which harked back to the somewhat forgotten and obsolete ‘National Children’s Home’.
This was, however, the only high-profile example until June this year when RNID went ahead with its decision to become Action on Hearing Loss.
With Rethink now joining the descriptive-names club, will we see a renaissance for this approach?
Can we expect to see Oxfam return to its roots and calling itself the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief? And is it time that NCVO shrugged off the lengthy acronym and renamed itself Charities England?
Place a comment
Ian Byrne
Deputy Director
National Energy Foundation
21 Sep 2011
I agree it's an interesting article. One additional point worth making is that with most charities so dependent on Google for people to find them on the web, you either need something uniquely distinctive (Oxfam, ActionAid) or sufficiently descriptive (Rethink Mental Illness works, but my own charity, National Energy Foundation, only just about explains its purpose - but that name goes back to pre-web days). Calling something Rethink on its own (or Catch-22) doesn't work. Any people don't want to type in a long strapline. And with few available distinctive names (corporate branding consultants have used the best ones years ago), I think Rethink have made the right decision.
Erica Mills
Claxon
21 Sep 2011
Such an interesting question! I agree with Jules that there's no "right" answer. One approach speaks to the benefits the org offers, the other the features. Both can work but for different reasons.
Brand personality also factors in here. If your brand is young, hip and approachable, the straight-forward names can seem out of sync. However, if you want to known as serious and dependable, they can work perfectly.
Interesting to consider naming trends alongside tried and true approaches. Thanks for the post!
Jules Brown
20 Sep 2011
Very interesting article. I can see the benefits for both directions, but as a copywriter/creative director who's been involved in a number of renaming/rebranding exercises, I really feel it depends on the circumstances.
Time and familiarity often allow a one word name to move from being meaningless to saying everything: ActionAid, Oxfam, Amnesty, Macmillan, Barnardos, Scope. To begin with, a strapline is necessary to do the explaining, but over time, the name come to say it all.
On the other hand, a descriptive name always has the benefit of saying exactly what it does on the can. Great for organisations like The Heart Foundation, Cancer Research, Dogs Trust, St. John's Ambulance. It's only when you run into five, six and seven word names that things become problematic.
Unfortunately, mistakes are frequently made. And mergers can definitely produce some of the worst results. Catch 22? Oh, dear.
Tags
Gareth Jones is a freelance journalist and communications consultant specialising in the charity sector. Having previously spent over seven years as a reporter and senior reporter for Charity Finance magazine and civilsociety.co.uk, he has developed expertise in a broad range of areas, including public policy, IT, investment, fundraising, taxation, insurance and social media.
Martin Farrell (43)
Tesse Akpeki (40)
Robert Ashton (27)
Andrew Chaggar (21)
Tania Mason (18)
Ian Allsop (12)
David Philpott (12)
Celina Ribeiro (9)
Niki May Young (9)
David Davison (8)
Less +++
More +++
Pointless ministers?
9 May 2013
Ian Allsop muses on the unattractive political career prospects of a charities minister.
Tablets: the end of an era?
9 May 2013
John Tate asks whether the inexorable rise of the tablet will spell the end for the humble PC.
Attending our one day courses is a highly effective way of ensuring new and existing trustees fully understand their role, responsibilities and liabilities.
>> Find out more <<
Governance (with optional website)
from £95.00
BUY NOW
Charity Property Conference 2013
29 Oct 2013
VAT & Tax Conference 2013
29 Oct 2013
Charity Investment Conference 2013
29 Oct 2013
Charity Technology Conference 2013
27 Nov 2013
Contact us
Civil Society Media Limited
15 Prescott Place
London SW4 6BS
United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0)20 7819 1200
Fax +44 (0)20 7819 1201
info@civilsociety.co.uk
Co. Reg: 2855714
VAT reg no: GB 629 3702 31
Louise Evans
Development worker
Southampton Voluntary services
26 Sep 2011
I trust that NCVO won't rename itself Charities England- and as a result only support charities and not voluntary organisations. Working for Southampton Voluntary Services, an umbrella organisation supporting voluntary organisations, at least half of my work is with voluntary organisations either too small to become a charity or whose voluntary activity does not meet the criterion to register as a charity.
So yes, its easy to make an error in renaming an existing organisation
[Reply]