RNID to look at name change in £260,000 rebrand

News

RNID to look at name change in £260,000 rebrand 10

Governance | Vibeka Mair | 4 Aug 2010

RNID is considering changing its name as it starts a rebranding process set to cost around £260,000.

RNID chief executive Jackie Ballard announced the news on Twitter, during a live chat with supporters where she said the charity could face financial trouble if it didn’t widen its appeal:

“Our research told us the current brand is not well recognised and is a barrier to people who are hard of hearing,” said Ballard, “In a nutshell we think (and our research shows) that finance may get tighter if we don’t broaden our appeal.

“We hope our rebrand will make us more relevant to everyone – deaf, hard of hearing and hearing.

"The total cost will be about £260,000 over 2/3 years."

Ballard said RNID planned to have a new website and new online presence by next June, while a new name was also mooted:

“The current name is a barrier,” said Ballard, “people don’t know what the initials stand for and many don’t consider themselves deaf so are put off.”

Design and strategy experts called in to help

In response to a question on her favourite charity rebrands, Ballard said Macmillan Cancer Support, Catch 22 and Rethink stood out.

RNID has engaged two specialist agencies for help with the rebrand – Spencer du Bois will help with the naming and strategy areas and Hat Trick Design will lead on the creative side.

RNID has already had five names in its 100-year history including the National Bureau for Promoting the General Welfare of the Deaf in 1911 and the National Institute for the Deaf in 1924.

Directory: Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID)
Who's Who: Jackie Ballard

Place a comment

Melow Meldrew
director
Self employed
10 Aug 2010

The re-brand is to remove the 'Deaf' presence from the image of the RNID, how they will do that via a name change is hard to see. They have over 15 years downgraded the 'deaf' influence, and RNID membership from this sector is now virtually nil. I think it a very bad move to re-brand to appeal to the 'Hard Of Hearing' because they have an issue with being 'mistaken' for deaf, what is wrong with being deaf ? and should the RNID pander to these prejudices and re-enforce them ? If the deaf element is sidelined/removed, then should not the 'Royal' patronage go as well ? after all that is what they signed up for. The RNID should be very careful what it wishes for, and 3 re-hashes of their website all offered real barriers to deaf involvement=, and they removed deaf feedback options too. It is in reality the DEAF sector that has forced the re-branding, they openly challenge the RNID's right to represent them in any form. Take the 'D' out they have nothing let's face it, no name or image !

[Reply]

SUE
DEAF
8 Aug 2010

Yet more money wasted by the RNID. However deaf people have not benefitted from any of their projects. More people have hearing aids yet never wear them. Elderly people seem to take everything which is free, yet they never think about the repercussions. They are selfish and they never wear the hearing aids. People who need hearing aids to function receive an appalling service. Deaf people should receive a voucher to purchase their own heraing aids which should be VAT exempt. Glasses should also be VAT exempt. I have already cancelled my donations to the BNID.

[Reply]

Gordon Hunter
Director
Lincolnshire Community Foundation
6 Aug 2010

I'm with the "what's the problem?" crowd. I too worked with the dDeaf community. We progressed from "deaf & dumb" to brands like "hearing concern".
So, it's fine to move with the times and to be descriptive. But what about the cost? You could be cost and customer effective by consulting the clients rather than too many agencies.

[Reply]

Tootech
5 Aug 2010

What is the problem with this??

I am partly deaf, use the RNID website and consider a rather 'grey' name with no real meaning or presence.

Names of businesses or charities is most important and can help secure long term support.

If you don't like it and stop donating, will you still use the services of this charity? Will you benefit from the work they do and the presence they have? I bet you will even if you turn your back on them directly.

C'mon, have some vision........

[Reply]

Roger Adelman
Chairman
Lifeline 4 Kids
5 Aug 2010

Absurdly profligate. I rebranded The Handicapped Children's Aid Committee into Lifeline 4 Kids 10 years ago at a cost of £1,500 and I baulked at that! RNID may be a larger charity but they still have a responsibility to their donors. Jackie Ballard should beware the backlash.

[Reply]

James Wright
4 Aug 2010

This is a total waste of money and ridiculous! I will withdraw my donation if this process go ahead.

[Reply]

Graham Hanze Banks
4 Aug 2010

This is the most ridiculous idea. RNID is supposed to be a charity FOR deaf people, not for people who have daft ideas on how to waste "hard to get" money. The name brand money could have been used to FIGHT for deaf awareness in all walks of life.

I therefore propose that Ms Ballard should RESIGN!

[Reply]

Carl Allen
none
none
4 Aug 2010

Since there is no intent to deceive or defraud, there is nothing wrong with a rebrand so that a new name better reflects the vision and objectives fully.

But it is a daft research conclusion that the hard of hearing hear the name as meaning they should not bother to check RNID when looking for help. Really daft.

It would seem a case of the evidence being made fit for the initiative at a cost of £230,0000.00

[Reply]

Hal
4 Aug 2010

[Reply]

Don
4 Aug 2010

This is simply ridiculous, and Ballard should resign for even proposing the idea. The need for improved communication with diverse audiences may be proven, but it will not be resolved by changing the charity name.

A solid marketing communications programme to the different audiences is what is required. To suggest that a name change will achieve this objective is patronising.
I have a profoundly deaf granddaughter and have been a supporter of RNID, but that will change if my donations are wasted by this daft idea.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.