Featured Faculty
Marketing Aug 8, 2024
A Troubling Trend in Nonprofit Branding
When nonprofit organizations rebrand themselves, inspiration may not be the answer.
Yevgenia Nayberg
Summary While many nonprofit organizations are choosing to rebrand, many of them are moving from more-descriptive to broader, more-inspirational brand identities. This is a move that comes with a great deal of risk, according to Tim Calkins, a Kellogg professor and branding expert. Inspirational brands are often chosen as a way to broaden a narrow, descriptive brand and encompass the mission of the organization. But this risks the new brands not conveying the meaning of the organization.
There seems to be a trend developing in the world of nonprofits: rebranding. Many organizations are moving from descriptive brands to broad, general brands. This is well-intentioned but sometimes a bad move.
The trend
In recent years, a number of nonprofits have rebranded with more-general, inspirational names. For example, The Lakeview Pantry, a food pantry in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago, rebranded as Nourishing Hope. Teen Living Programs, an organization that helps young people find long-term housing, became Ignite. Chicago Children’s Choir rebranded to Uniting Voices.
Add to these the recent rebranding of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to become Breakthrough T1D and the June 2024 rebrand of the French Institute Alliance Française, a New York organization dedicated to teaching French and promoting French culture, to L’Alliance, and the trend is clear.
The logic
All of these rebranding efforts seem to be grounded in similar logic: the old brand name was seen as too narrow and the new brand name opens up more opportunities for growth. It is also more inspirational.
For example, the Lakeview Pantry explained its rebranding like this: “Nourishing Hope began the process of rebranding in 2019 after coming to the realization that its legacy name, while strong in reputation, no longer represented the work of the agency and was limiting plans to scale its impact.”
JDRF’s CMO Pam Morrisroe explained its rebranding like this: “Together, we have developed a visionary, powerful brand that more accurately reflects who we are: the world leader in type 1 diabetes research, advocacy, and community support.”
There are several reasons their logic isn’t wrong. First, a descriptive brand can feel narrow and flat. Many of the best brands in the world lack any descriptive element—Nike is only distantly related to footwear; Apple doesn’t immediately suggest computers and technology. It’s not immediately apparent what Uniqlo or Instagram or Google mean.
The problem
So, what problem does this present for nonprofits?
The issue for them is that brands that lack a descriptive element also lack meaning. As a result, organizations that choose general, inspirational names then have to create this meaning, and that takes enormous investment.
How much has Apple spent building its brand? Maybe $1 billion? How about Nike? Or McDonald’s? Each one: hundreds of millions of dollars.
Organizations should consider moving to a more descriptive brand or adding descriptive elements such as a slogan or tag line.
—
Tim Calkins
Nonprofits usually don’t have the resources to create these brands. If they did, people would likely wonder why the organization is spending on marketing instead of working on the task at hand. As a result, these new brand names are sometimes more confusing than clarifying.
What is Lakeview Pantry? It is a food pantry. Where is it? Lakeview.
What is Nourishing Hope? Is that a Christian music group? A therapy app? Maybe it is an addiction treatment center?
What is the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation? Just guessing here, but that might be an organization that invests in research to fight juvenile diabetes.
What is Breakthrough T1D? That sounds like a fitness plan. Or maybe it is a supplement. I guess it could be a K-Pop group.
This confusion will likely become a problem over time.
Here is just one issue: board membership. Every nonprofit depends on its board. One reason board members serve is to burnish their CVs. If you are on the board of New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, you are clearly a high flier. Say that, and people notice. A meaningless name doesn’t have the same impact: “Oh, you are on the board of Breakthrough T1D. Sure, great.” It doesn’t mean much.
Another issue is with donors. If someone makes a contribution to the Lakeview Pantry, it is pretty clear what they are doing. A donation to Nourishing Hope might not provide the same feeling. Even transitioning donors to the new brand will be a challenge.
The outlook
I suspect some of these organizations will gradually retreat and return to their old brands. Most of them still refer to their old brands, for obvious reasons.
Alternatively, the organizations should consider moving to a more descriptive brand or adding descriptive elements such as a slogan or tag line. At one point the Lycée Français de Chicago, or LFC, added “Chicago’s French International School.” The line provided some clarity.
One apparently successful rebranding was America’s Second Harvest becoming Feeding America in 2008. This move shifted towards a more descriptive name. What does Feeding America do? Provides food. Got it.
For nonprofits considering a less descriptive brand, be careful. Changing to a new brand is exciting, but ultimately it will only succeed with significant investment, and that investment is rarely available.
*
This article originally appeared in StrongBrands.
Add Insight to your inbox.
This website uses cookies and similar technologies to analyze and optimize site usage. By continuing to use our websites, you consent to this. For more information, please read our Privacy Statement.
