Witness to brandicide
It’s not as if we weren’t warned.
Really smart people have written about the killing power of a new “brand”. (See Jeff Brooks at Future Fundraising Now or Tom Ahern’s site: Ahern Communications, Ink).
If you’ve seen it up close, you know what I’m talking about. It’s infuriating.
The process works something like this: Fundraising isn’t all it could be, so you hire a consultant.
Doing the hard work of reaching new donors just isn’t enough fun, so talk turns to your “brand”.
Suddenly, you must change your name. Change your logo. Oh, and of course, you need a shiny new website!
Any one of those things might need work.
But beware the consultant who just wants to play in your sandbox.
Then they leave you with mud. Another case of brandicide.
Muddy messaging. Wasted money. Confused donors. Fewer donations. It’s one great big outrageous time suck.
The people who don’t know any better will be entranced by the flash. The ones who do know better will be pissed off.
Communicating well isn’t about clever word games.
It’s almost never about your name. Or what your logo looks like.
It’s about how clearly you talk about the problems your organization works to solve.
And it’s about how your audience can help solve the problem. Directly connected to your mission and existence.
And directly connected to your donors or potential donors.
Absent that, no amount of design or verbal flash will get you there.
You need clarity and responsiveness instead.
So say no to the razzle-dazzle. Focus on your donors – that’s where the answer is.
What’s your experience been? Do you have a horror – or success – story? Please share it in the comments!
Photo by Ryan McGuire
Mary,
There is an organization here in Oregon that is highly regarded for the work it does cleaning up the Oregon beaches and green spaces called SOLV (Stop Oregon Litter and Vandalism) that has been around since 1969. Just recently, they have gone through the nightmare of changing their brand by including an “E” to the end and changing its tagline to Sustaining Oregon’s Legacy by Volunteering. Just by adding that E, it has made online searches more difficult with fewer hits.
I have great respect for the organization and support what it does, but it is a perfect example of what you are talking about.
Richard, thanks.
My experience of this was probably due to a consultant wanting to work in areas they were comfortable with (rather than what was needed).
But whatever the motivation in the case you cite, your example is a great one. You have to wonder – did anyone do a simple risk/benefit assessment? Was it really worth being clever or “perfecting” the acronym? At what cost to donors and donations? To me, it seems like an expensive experiment without any concrete goals…