Comments on: Bringing A Dead Brand Back To Life

By: J. Garland Pollard

J. Garland Pollard — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:29:08 +0000

Great idea on non profit brands. I blog about dead brands coming back to life that are consumer brands, but this idea you speak about makes sense for non profits that have either TOTALLY waned or need to be re-invented.

I think that many charities waste LOTS of effort on changing their name, when in reality, other changes are actually needed and the name change makes people think something new is happening.

I was on the board of TheatreVirginia in Richmond, which changed its name from the Virginia Museum Theater. As name changes go, it was pretty good, as it used two of the same words in the re-name. It almost worked. But our patrons, who were aging, ultimately didn’t get it. And because the the museum no longer felt connected to the theater, they eventually sent them packing. Not that they didn’t deserve it, but the name change didn’t do what was needed, which was to put on plays!

I was also involved with the William Byrd Branch of the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. The group merged with Historic Richmond Foundation. We kept the Historic Richmond name, but preserved the William Byrd name as the legal entity. That is often the best course for a charity that thinks it needs a new name-begin calling it a d/b/a, but keep the original name intact.

In Stuart, Florida, a charity dropped the name from Jesus from Jesus House of Hope. It, obviously, did not set well with the core donors, the church!

http://www.wptv.com/content/specialreports/story.aspx?content_id=dab87251-152a-4e06-95a8-12a2b7e435ed

By: Amber Naslund

Amber Naslund — Fri, 30 May 2008 22:34:03 +0000

Tom,

I’m a little slow on the uptake but actually read the article and then, an hour later, saw coverage on the Today show about just this.

I posted about it on my blog this morning, also. In the CPG world, I think you have to let sleeping dogs lie. At most, you’re setting yourself up for a flash in the pan remix that can only be short lived because of nostalgia.

But for NPOs, I think there’s HUGE opportunity if not for resurrection, for reinvention. The NPO world is fast learning that the power of brand, message, and community doesn’t just have to apply to slick marketers with big ad bugets. And NPOs have the power of compelling stories on their sides that for-profit organizations can’t buy or invent. So it seems to me like the circle of breathing new life into aged organizations can be alive indeed.

Amber

By: Fran Anderson

Fran Anderson — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:40:19 +0000

Fran here – from Texas Discovery Gardens in Dallas ! I sure hope that a dead brand can be brought back! We are renovating our horticultural museum and conservatory to include a new Butterfly house and Insectarium. Seems like this organization (of which I have only been an employee for less than a year) is much in need of an identity update (if not upgrade).

We used to be the Dallas Horticultural Society (and many others) through the years and were a place supported by the “white gloved” set for many years. We are hoping to put on new “gloves” since we have always been “green.” We are hoping to get a new generation of visitors and donors excited and an old group reinvigorated! So, keep sending out those good vibes!

I really enjoy the Agitator!

Fran

By: Carlene Hill Byron

Carlene Hill Byron — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:35:19 +0000

Nonprofit “brands” are less likely to retool because (in some ways, by nature) they aren’t held to the same fiscal standards as for-profit brands. If Brim isn’t sufficiently profitable, it’s shut down. But nonprofits live on the passion of their members … their staffs … their executive directors. So as long as a few people are passionate enough to keep driving at the original mission, taking no salary, but keeping the nonprofit running while they also work their paying jobs, the non-profit continues.

And BTW, I’m not sure where you’re located, but in this state and city, the NAACP would take umbrage at being described as a “dormant” nonprofit.

Carlene Hill Byron
Director of Resource Development
The Salvation Army

By: Tom Belford

Tom Belford — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:33:41 +0000

My argument would be that — to anyone with a long memory — the nonprofits I mentioned are mere shadows of their former selves. But that’s just my opinion.
Tom

By: Samer

Samer — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:19:22 +0000

“Brands like Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the ACLU, the National Organization for Women. Which of these possesses enough remnant equity to be re-invented, resuscitated?”

Aren’t these NPOs alive and well? As far as I know, all of them are still doing good, relevant work. What makes you think that they’re dormant?

By: Johanna Ettin

Johanna Ettin — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:32:38 +0000

The problem with your analogy is that the organizational brands that you mention have not been abandoned. Some, such as NAACP and League of Women Voters have declining membership, but ACLU has a huge membership. All are organizations with multi-million dollar budgets and a substantial corps of dedicated members. The brands definitely need refreshing, but it’s not quite the same as starting over from scratch. An analogy that’s closer is the Women’s Campaign Fund which had virtually disappeared and which is in the process of reviving itself. Would love to hear your comments on well-known brands that abandon their names (at the suggestion of highly paid consultants) to adopt new names which have much less to do with their mission and which no one can remember. I wonder if their donors can remember. Examples ZPG which is now Population Connection (or something like that) and NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (NOW LDEF) which is now Legal Momentum (heaven only knows what that means).