The trend
In recent years, several nonprofits have rebranded with more generic, inspirational names. For example, The Lakeview Pantry, a food pantry in Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood, renamed Nourishing Hope. Teen Living Programs, an organization that helps young people find long-term housing, became Ignite. The Chicago Children’s Choir was renamed Uniting Voices.
Add to that the recent rebranding of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to make it Discovery of T1D and the June 2024 renaming of the French Institute Alliance Francaise, a New York organization dedicated to teaching French and promoting French culture; at L’Allianceand the trend is clear.
Logic
All of these rebranding efforts seem to be based on a similar logic: the old brand was considered too narrow, and the new brand opens up more opportunities for growth. It’s also more inspiring.
For example, Lakeview Pantry explained its rebrand as follows: “Nourishing Hope began the process of rebranding in 2019 after realizing that its legacy name, while strong in reputation, no longer represented the company’s work and limited plans to escalate its impact.”
JDRF CMO Pam Morrisroe explained the rebrand: “Together, we have developed a visionary, powerful brand that more accurately reflects who we are: the global leader in type 1 diabetes research, advocacy and community support’.
There are several reasons their logic is not wrong. First, a descriptive brand can feel narrow and flat. Many of the world’s best brands lack a descriptive element—Nike is only distantly related to footwear. Apple does not immediately recommend computers and technology. It’s not immediately obvious what Uniqlo or Instagram or Google means.
The Problem
So what problem does this present for nonprofits?
The point for them is that brands that lack a descriptive element are also meaningless. As a result, organizations that choose generic, inspirational names must then create that meaning, and this requires a huge investment.
How much has Apple spent on building its brand? Maybe $1 billion? How about Nike? Or McDonald’s? Each: hundreds of millions of dollars.
Nonprofits typically don’t have the resources to build these brands. If they did, people would probably wonder why the organization is spending on marketing instead of working on the task at hand. As a result, these new brands are sometimes more confusing than clarifying.
What is the Lakeview Pantry? It’s a pantry. where is it Lakeview.
What is Hope Food? Is it a Christian music group? A therapy app? Maybe it’s a drug addiction treatment center?
What is the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation? I’m just guessing here, but this may be an organization that invests in research to fight juvenile diabetes.
What is Breakthrough T1D? This sounds like a fitness plan. Or maybe it’s 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 of directors. One reason board members serve is to give away their resume. If you’re on the board of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, you’re clearly a fanatic. Say it and people listen. A meaningless name doesn’t have the same impact, “Oh, you’re on the Breakthrough T1D board. Definitely, great.” It doesn’t mean much.
Another issue is with donors. If someone contributes to the Lakeview Pantry, it’s pretty clear what they’re doing. A donation to Nourishing Hope may not feel the same. Even transitioning donors to the new brand will be a challenge.
Outlook
I suspect that some of these organizations will phase out and return to their old brands. Most of them still refer to their old brands, for obvious reasons.
Alternatively, organizations should consider switching to a more descriptive brand or adding descriptive elements such as a slogan or tag line. At some point the Lycée Francais de Chicago, or LFC, added “French International School of Chicago.” The line provided some clarity.
A seemingly successful rebranding was America’s Second Harvest becoming Feeding America in 2008. This move shifted toward a more descriptive name. What does Feeding America do? It provides food. I understood.
For nonprofits considering a less descriptive brand, be careful. Switching 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 on StrongBrands.
