Whats in a Name?

What are the key issues if a charity wants to change

their name?
Introduction
This paper is designed to look at some of the issues surrounding a name change for
charities, and in particular the pros and cons. It also tries to set out some of the best
guidance on going about it. Wherever possible, we have tried to give examples to
illustrate the points we make, but from earlier drafts we have discovered that people
dont like it when their own charity gets a negative mention! We should make it clear
that these views are our own and are entirely subjective, based on our experience and
observations.

Why would a charity want to change their name?

Reason 1: Names are too easily confused. This is one of the most common reasons
for a name change and it is particularly the less well-known charities that may acutely
feel the impact of similar names. Before their name change to Action on Hearing Loss,
this was the problem that affected RNID. It could be argued that there is a similar
situation with Breast Cancer Care, Breast Cancer Campaign and Breakthrough Breast
Cancer, where the combination of Bs and Cs defeats distinction by most members of the
public. This is compounded by the threes love of pink, although the latter two are
merging this spring.
Reason 2: Too generic. While there are few charities that deliberately choose a
generic name, there are a number that have ended up with one. Typically, this comes
about because of a desire to escape the wrong name. Scope and Crisis are two
examples of too generic a name, though neither United Response nor International
Rescue Committee could claim to be examples at the peak of creativity.
Reason 3: Instant Abbreviation. There are some names which lead not to instant
oblivion, but instant abbreviation. The result is that a carefully thought-through name is
made instantly redundant. Try remembering what PDSA, BTCV and NCDL actually stand
for. Not all abbreviations are bad though - Oxfam and Unicef stand out as two which are
now words in their own right.
w: www.nfpSynergy.net t: 020 7426 8888 e: insight@nfpsynergy.net

This version is only for clients of nfpSynergys Charity Awareness Monitor.

Reason 4: No longer acceptable. There are some names which, for a variety of
reasons, become unacceptable. Its not surprising that The Spastics Society wanted to
change their name, nor Our Dumb Friends League or the Distressed Gentlefolks Aid
Association. Time or social norms have overtaken a number of names.
Reason 5: No longer relevant. The less dramatic version of reason 4 is that a name
becomes redundant as language or society changes. When the League Against Cruel
Sports was founded in the 1920s, the word League was in common use, but no longer.
The same goes for words like Society, National, Federation, and quite possibly in the
near future, UK, which could become part of our history.
Reason 6: Doesnt do justice to the great work of a charity. Lets assume that all
charities do great work. Does the name (and the wider brand) do that great work
justice? Do people get the kind of work that a charity does because of the name? Or
are they distracted or confused by it? Perhaps the single most important objective of any
name or brand is that they do justice to, that they adequately wave the flag for, all the
work of staff and volunteers and all those changed lives of beneficiaries.
Reason 7: Merger. Its slightly outside the scope of this section as a reason for a name
change, but any two charities merging will need to think about one. Sometimes the
dominant brand wins out, sometimes a whole new name is created, and sometimes the
two names are just bolted together like a crude piece of welding. Even if it is the merger
(rather than the brand) that drives the change, all the issues of how to find the right
name and the challenges of the process remain.

Which attributes make a good name?

Memorable. Perhaps the most important hallmark of a good name is that its
memorable or distinctive. There are many names which can be heard dozens of times
before they lodge in the brain and some that seem doomed to forever go in one ear and
out of the other. Some stick in the mind though and they often come with memorable
visual identities Virgin is a good example.
Representative/self-explanatory. A good name should give an indication of what
the organisation does, or at very least not mislead. A name like the Animal Health Trust
gives a pretty clear indication of what it does (even if it fails the memorable test).
Inviting. Names are the front door of an organisation and what it does, so it should

make people want to know more, get involved or give. A name like Acorns Childrens
Hospice not only gives a clear idea of what it does, but also conveys warmth and care.
Cant be shortened or misspelled. The charity sector is littered with names
shortened to three or four letter acronyms. Something about the human brain wants to
abbreviate almost any name, so the only real solution is to have a short name with no
easy way to shorten it further. An additional problem is where names are easily
misspelled, which is something our name, nfpSynergy, frequently falls victim to.
Not being the founders of a charity. Founders rarely make good charity names. Not
only do they usually have a first name and a surname, but they fade from public
consciousness. Leonard Cheshire (Disability) and Sue Ryder are two classic examples of
names which nowadays only mean anything to people in their sixties or older.
Internet-friendly. In the age of the worldwide web, names need to be easy to search
for. Those containing Children and Hospice probably dont match that need, nor do
Bliss and Sense, because they are also commonly used words that feature prominently
in unhelpful search results. There are inadvertent bad names too, like the public affairs
agency that decided to call itself Mandate. A sound political concept and a nice idea, but
of course the internet searches came up with Man date too. Oh dear.
Not being tied to the existence of the UK. We have had the referendum we know,
but it would be a brave person who would bet the house, or the name of their charity,
on us still having a UK in 10 or 20 years. So this means being called ABC UK may not
be a valid name for ever. This is a shame, as ABC UK had come to denote being a
charity in the same way ABC PLC has come to denote being a public company.
Works in all communications. A name will need to be spoken. It will need to be
written endlessly. It will need to be used graphically on paper and the internet. It will
need to be searched for online. It will need to appeal to those who see it for the first
time and those who see it a thousand times a day. In other words, a name must work in
all sorts of settings and communications, and that is no easy task.

So which are some of the best charity names at the

moment?
Well for us, here are five good ones:
WaterAid: short, memorable, internet-friendly and explains exactly what they do. Given
3

that WaterAids awareness and income are growing rapidly, it clearly works for them.
Oxfam: having emerged from being substantially shortened, for most its now a name
in itself. Being the charity with the highest level of spontaneous awareness is testament
to how well this one works.
Macmillan Cancer Support: What is good about Macmillans name is not so much the
full version, but the shortening to Macmillan (a rare exception to our founders rule). Say
to anyone that you are supporting Macmillan and everybody knows who you mean.
Save the Children: Inviting to those interested in children with an action verb to boot,
plus the benefit of doing what it says on the tin.
Accenture: Not a charity name, but conjured up for Andersen Consulting (by a junior
Norwegian employee) when they rebranded. Its unique, it cant be shortened, it works
well on the internet and it has tones of aspiration and professionalism.
If we had a prize for the all-time worst charity name, it would be National (which
nation?) Canine (whats wrong with dog) Defence (like with an army?) League (we have
already talked about words that go out of fashion). Thankfully NCDL, as it inevitably
became shortened too, has now become the greatly improved Dogs Trust. Toc H and
JISC would probably be our runners up.

What are the challenges of a name change?

Deciding that a name is wrong is easier than finding a new one thats right
We meet many organisations, many of which are charities, that dont like their names.
They know the current one is wrong for a variety of reasons and they may even have a
high level of agreement across the organisation. The problem is, agreeing that an old
name is not good enough is a long way from agreeing on a new one. Some people want
a completely new name, others a slow development. The result is all too often a fudge
which has all the cost of change, but doesnt actually solve the core problem.
Leonard Cheshire Foundation spent a long time thinking about a name change. Many
thought that becoming Disability UK was the solution, but they ended up with Leonard
Cheshire Disability. It can hardly be described as revolutionary, and still ties them to a
founder whose admirers are only getting older and becoming smaller as a proportion of
the population.

New names will never be right for everyone

A charitys name change doesnt always deliver the revolution they hoped for, often
because there is rarely a name that works for all stakeholders. When YWCA changed
their name to Platform 51, the staff thought it was great, but external audiences really
didnt. The internal vote won, the name was adopted, and then a few years later was
changed in favour of a new one, Young Womens Trust, which was as vanilla as Platform
51 was hot chilli. So with any name change, the organisation needs to decide who the
name needs to appeal to most. That is rarely the trustees.
Short-term hit versus long-term benefits
As the case studies show, a name change will almost certainly result in a short-term hit
in terms of awareness and possibly income. The benefits of a name change will usually
be felt over decades, while the downside is felt over months or years. To compound this
challenge, the reasons a name change is needed will rarely diminish. If you need a
name change now, you almost certainly will in 10 or 20 years time, probably even more
acutely. Not making a decision doesnt make the issue go away, it just pushes it down
the road for others to deal with.
Once a new name is announced, the work has just begun
There are many charities that make the effort to go through a name change only to see
the new one delivering less than they expected. This may be because a poor name was
picked (Platform 51, 8.59 or ), but more often its because the charity went back to the
day job once the name change was made. If we had a rule of thumb, it would be that
only one third of the necessary work for a successful name change happens before Dday.
Whose benefit is the name change for?
Perhaps the biggest single strategic choice in a name change is to decide which key
audience or audiences awareness, attitude or understanding will be positively impacted
by a name. It can rarely be all of them and our instinct would normally be beneficiaries.
The name Help the Aged possibly worked better with donors, but it was probably not
the best one for a person thinking about receiving their services. However, this will
always be a key and finely balanced decision. We listened to a CEO tell her staff that the
fact they were confused with other charities didnt matter. In the workshop that
followed, staff made it very clear that to them it did.
Balancing the short-term loss of awareness with the potential long-term
gains
Are the benefits of a name change (higher awareness, greater distinctiveness, increased
relevance) greater than what a name change will lose (support of a particular audience
or generation, the loss of awareness built up over years, etc.)? Its a value judgement.
5

Our observation is that trustees almost always place greater value on the awareness bird
in the hand than the two or three birds in the bush. This is partly because trustees have
a tendency to be overly attached to the history of an organisation, and partly because
those who see the issues with a name are at the frontline of a charitys work.
Can alternative solutions do nearly as good a job?
One of the challenges in thinking about a name change is that approaches to creating a
distinctive and appropriate identity need not only be done through changing the name.
It can be done through a strapline, the colours and style of a logo, the words and action
of an organisation and so on. So for an organisation that isnt wild about their name,
there are other ways around the problem, akin to the way a football team can cover for
one weak player.
A strong brand strategy is at the heart of a strong identity
Linked to the point above, a name change doesnt happen in isolation; it should be part
of a wider brand and identity strategy. Any organisation that carried out a name change
in isolation from the wider brand would be asking for trouble, or more precisely, a waste
of time, resources and opportunity.
Obtaining the legal rights to use a new name
There is a lot of legal and organisational groundwork to be done once the decision to
change a name has been made: changes in memorandum and articles of association,
securing legacies written in the old name, ensuring ownership of property and any other
assets. Before all that however, the key legal issue is whether the rights to own and use
any new name can be secured. The best name in the world can be created, but if legal
ownership cannot be established, its a very risky strategy to make the change as
sometimes there are inadvertent legal issues. For example, when the Fundraising
Standards Board was created, it became instantly shortened to the FSB. The Federation
of Small Businesses then protested (though the Russian security service, also the FSB,
didnt as far as we know) and it became the FRSB.

Five golden rules of a name change

A name change is a costly, time-consuming and long-term decision, so if it happens, it
needs to be done right. Here are five ingredients for the successful project management
of a name change:
1. Put someone in charge. There needs to be a project manager who can focus on
the project more or less full time. They need the ear of the CEO and senior managers,
plus the authority to bang heads together.
6

2. Do the groundwork. We have lost count of the number of times charities have told
us that they know exactly what people think about a name change or a brand. Yet when
we dig a little deeper, the research is almost always partial, out of date, about a different
issue altogether or only done on selective audiences. We cannot emphasise strongly
enough that if you want a successful name change, its critical to understand what your
key audiences think about it. Its just as crucial to understand their thoughts on your
brand.1 We also havent included here the legal groundwork which often can be the
stoppers on the best laid plans, as mentioned in a previous section.
3. Go at the right speed. Name changes are a big decision. We often find that
charities have talked about a name change for years, like a kind of strategic Haileys
comet which never quite goes away and comes fully into view every once in a while. We
would say that it takes six months to do the groundwork on whether a name change is
the right decision, another six to decide whether the right name can be found and a final
six to twelve months to implement the decision.
4. If in doubt, dont. Its unlikely that many boards have ever said We havent quite
got the right name, but lets go with this mediocre one anyway. However, to the outside
world it often looks like they got so far that they just decided to go with a mediocre
name anyway, rather than do nothing.
5. Invest in a name change. Any organisation that is going to change their name
needs to invest in it. Invest in the groundwork, the creative and brand expertise, the
new materials, and the activities that will build awareness going forward. It is possible to
do a name change on a shoestring, but the benefits will take longer to be realised.

So should your charity change its name?

Well we cant answer that question for you. Each individual charity situation is different.
So here are arguments for and against just to make sure we are balanced:

Five arguments for a name change in a charity

The language of many charity names is out of date

The benefits of a name change over decades can far outweigh the hassle of the
next year or two

And yes, as a research agency we are biased about the value of research, but we believe it to
be true.
7

Its a crowded, indistinguishable market and a charity needs every bit of brand
strength it can get. A good name is part of that

Many charity brands are pretty cold, and anything that can make them warmer
and personal is a good thing

It can work - look how successful Age UK or Arthritis Research UK have been in
their name changes

And five arguments against

Which new name should be chosen? Its easy to argue that the current name
isnt quite right, but what would be the new name to replace it?

Its a huge project. Make no mistake, changing the name is a major undertaking
that affects every part of the organisation

The brand is the issue, not the name. As has already been argued, many charity
brands are cold and clinical considering they claim to be all about people. Brands,
or more specifically the image and perception of a charity, can be altered without
a name change

Most charities have invested a lot in their current brand. Is any new name really
going to make enough of a difference to throw all that away?

It can easily not work. Look how some charities have lost what little brand
awareness they had by changing to a new name

So how do you decide?

The decision to change a name can be made due to issues with income, awareness,
influence, image, or a range of other metrics. One branding guru pithily captured the
balance of benefits by paraphrasing Amaras law: We tend to over-estimate the benefits
of a name change in the short run and under-estimate the benefits in the long run. In
essence, however, charities need to ask themselves these two key questions:
What do key audiences think?
For us, understanding what those at the frontline of a charitys work think and feel about
the brand and a name change is key. Do volunteers, donors and beneficiaries think the
8

name is the right one? Would a name change bring more people to your services, and
deliver more (financial) support for your work? Again, we dont think that trustees and
their views on the issue are the most important to take into consideration.
Is there a name that might work?
While a decision about a name change is very difficult, a vital ingredient is seeing if
there is a new name that could get a broad consensus. If no name can be found, or the
legal rights to it cannot be secured, and the pressure for a change from the frontline is
minimal, then the decision is pretty easily made. If a name can be found, and the
message from the frontline clearly indicates that the current name is a major issue, then
changing the name must at least be considered.

Joe Saxton and Michele Madden

May 2015

nfpSynergy is a research consultancy that aims to provide the ideas, insights and
information to help non-profits thrive. We help charities track their profile and
engagement amongst their key stakeholder groups through regular, syndicated
surveys. We also work with charities on bespoke projects, providing a range of
quantitative and qualitative research services.
Our thanks go to Max du Bois for his witheringly incisive yet very useful
comments on early drafts of this paper. Please contact Joe Saxton on
joe.saxton@nfpsynergy.net if you have any thoughts, comments, queries or
questions.