A New Name Can Give a Charity a Louder and Clearer Voice

Red Rooster Group Principal, Howard Adam Levy, is quoted extensively in this article on nonprofit naming in the Chronicle of Philanthropy on October 16, 2011.

By Heather Joslyn

The founders of Washington Shakespeare Company chose the troupe’s name 22 years ago to signify civic pride: This would be a group of homegrown professional actors, not the New York pros who filled the stages of other local productions.

In the intervening years, the nonprofit theater company gained attention for its cutting-edge versions of the classics. In one notorious 2007 production, “Macbeth” was tweaked to emphasize the primitive passions of its characters. To make it seem as though the murderous Scots had “emerged from the primordial ooze,” says Christopher Henley, the artistic director, actors performed clad only in body paint, which gave the production a reputation as “the all-nude ‘Macbeth.’”

With such daring as its calling card, Washington Shakespeare Company seemed to have outgrown its plainly descriptive name. Also, it sometimes found itself confused with a similarly named local troupe. So, its leaders sought a new name: something that described the nonprofit’s mission yet also was singular and unforgettable.

In August, the Washington Shakespeare Company rechristened itself WSC Avant Bard.

Response to the new name has been mostly positive, says Mr. Henley, though sometimes listeners “groan like you would at a bad pun.”

But then, he adds, “they go and tell it to their friends.”

A ‘Sense of Identity’

In recent years, organizations with a variety of missions have renamed themselves—or, if they haven’t legally changed their name, they have “rebranded” it for common usage. In one high-profile case, YMCA of the USA has neither renamed nor rebranded itself officially but has simply embraced its nickname, the Y, in a more public fashion this year, says a spokeswoman.

Nonprofit officials who have been through the renaming process say that the experience can benefit an organization if the new name is chosen with care and if it is unveiled in a way that intrigues potential supporters without alienating existing ones.

Renaming a charity can provide a group with “a renewed sense of identity and an opportunity to deepen a relationship among staff, the board, partner organizations, clients, donors, and so forth,” says Howard Adam Levy, principal of the Red Rooster Group, a branding consultant in New York that works extensively with nonprofit clients.

Mr. Levy adds, “It starts a process: What is the organization all about? What are our values? What is our history? Why did we start doing this, and why are we doing this now?” (For advice on carrying out that process, see below.)

Inspire and Galvanize

The burden of bearing a name that has outlived its usefulness, Mr. Levy says, “is like walking around with a limp leg. When the pain gets unbearable enough, then an organization will say, ‘Hey, we can correct this. We can run now, we can sprint, we can compete better.’”

Because nonprofits rarely have the resources to devote to marketing that for-profit companies do, he adds, a charity’s name bears a lot of weight. It has to convey the group’s mission but also “excite and inspire and galvanize people,” Mr. Levy says. “It has to have positive connotations and avoid jargon. It can’t be too long or people will wind up abbreviating it. It does a lot.” And, in a tough economy, when marketing resources are even scarcer than usual, nonprofits may have less tolerance for an imperfect name.

Charities change their names for many reasons. Some groups, like WSC Avant Bard, say the original name no longer fully represents what the organization does or is too similar to another group’s name. Sometimes a nonprofit seeks a more streamlined name because its original moniker is simply too long, clunky, or vague.

Beautiful Simplicity

Sometimes the original name uses antiquated or politically loaded words that make the group seem out of step with modern times. United Negro College Fund, for instance, founded in 1944, commonly goes by UNCF now.

In July, Campus Crusade for Christ International announced that it will simplify its name early next year to Cru.

The 60-year-old charity’s own surveys found that 20 percent of people who said they were open to the group’s Christian message were less interested in the organization itself when they heard its original name. And further study revealed that the words “campus” and “crusade” were hindering its mission, according to a statement on the group’s Web site.

“Campus” signaled an exclusive interest in ministering to college students, which didn’t fully describe the group’s work. And, said the statement, “the word ‘crusade’—while common and acceptable in 1951 when we were founded—now carries negative associations.”

The charity chose Cru, a common nickname for its campus chapters, from a list of 1,600 alternatives in an effort to “accomplish a greater level of effectiveness in ministry,” says Steve Sellers, vice president for the United States operations of the Orlando, Fla., group, in a written statement. (The group declined The Chronicle’s request for an interview because, it said, its name-change process is still under way.)

United Jewish Communities, which was named following the merger of three groups in 1999, had a different problem: Potential supporters had little familiarity with the name.

Research commissioned by the New York umbrella association of Jewish philanthropies in 2008 found that while about 50 percent of those polled were likely to have heard of their local Jewish federation, only about 10 percent recognized United Jewish Communities and its mission.

The results were similar for respondents of both genders and all generations, adding up to a “dismal” verdict, says Adam Smolyar, the group’s senior vice president for strategic marketing.

To give the group a more defined identity, United Jewish Communities became the Jewish Federations of North America in 2009.

“There’s beauty in its simplicity,” says Mr. Smolyar. “It tells you everything you need to know: We’re Jewish, we’re a federation, we’re from North America. It’s not a convoluted, acronym-like name. By being descriptive, it needs a lot less explanation and therefore a lot less marketing behind it.”

No Panacea

But getting to that beautiful simplicity can be a long and winding road, and it’s a journey that won’t benefit every organization, says Julie Chapman, president of 501cTech, a nonprofit in Washington. The group changed its name last month from NPower Greater DC Region, to solve trademark issues and better signify its mission of offering technology help to charities.

“If it’s something you don’t need to do, I probably wouldn’t do it,” she says. “It’s very time-consuming. And, at the end of the day, these jobs are all about achieving the mission. And does that rename or that rebrand really help you deliver better on the real work of your organization?”

She advises charity leaders not to look to a name change as a cure for a group’s deeper problems. “Changing your name and having a new logo isn’t going to save an organization that’s in trouble,” she says. “But for one that is operating well and is effective, it can help sharpen the focus.”

Source: A New Name Can Give a Charity a Louder and Clearer Voice,
The Chronicle of Philanthropy, October 16, 2011

Get Help

If you feel that your organization’s name is not as effective as it can be, contact Red Rooster Group to discuss the options.

Red Rooster Group is a New York based graphic design firm that creates effective brands, websites and marketing campaigns for nonprofits to increase their visibility, fundraising and communications effectiveness. Contact us at info@redroostergroup.com.