Cut Me To The Bone!
The Agitator might have ruffled some feathers last week by suggesting that all names of nonprofits are not equal — some, because they are symbolic or vague, make the job harder, requiring some extra lifting with respect to fundraising.
Sorry, wasn’t out to offend, but I’m not backing off the point.
Some commenters noted that big names like Salvation Army had no problem. Never fought a war. But people know who they are. Yep, and if you have about a hundred years and a hundred million dollars, make up a catchy name and go for it.
Other readers took the trouble to send emails or make comments explaining to me the meaning of their symbolic or less than descriptive names. But doesn’t that underscore my very point? Maybe the name means something quite recognizable to those ‘in the know’ — for example, one of the names related to essentially a trade association. Yep, everyone in that occupation category probably does recognize the name. But that’s fine only if you’re into ‘inside baseball’ and it’s not important that outsiders know who you are or what you do.
Someone noted that if everyone doing the same thing described themselves with a more literal name, they’d all be named the same. Which made me think … how many groups do we need doing the same thing, relying only on their name as a point of distinction?!
Another commented that “once I know them” the names might be striking enough that they’d be imprinted — not confused or forgotten. But again I ask … haven’t you added the burden of getting the prospect past “once they know you”?
And then it was pointed out that many commercial brand names mean nothing that particularly relates to the product, like Apple. And we still all buy iPads, right? I go back to the point above, as did commenter Bill Krieger … yes, spend a few hundred million and you can make Tide or any brand name recognizable.
I do admit, however, that one email comment did cut me to the bone. Here it is, from Brianna at ACTA (no comment on that name!) …
“I’d like to respectfully point out that I had no idea ‘The Agitator’ was a newsletter for development and fundraising professionals until a friend in the field forwarded an email to me that had ‘fundraising’ in the subject line.”
OUCH!
We’re guilty as charged! Roger and I went for a name that suggested a positioning … our mindset. And then we relied on a tagline that includes ‘nonprofit fundraising’ to establish the focus or context.
Has that made us harder to find? Probably.
Should we change our name? Tell us what you think.
Tom
10 responses to “Cut Me To The Bone!”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
I have always associated the word ‘agitator’ or ‘agitated’ with negative connotations! Being in an agitated state is not a good thing and so being an agitator is automatically linked with that state in my mind!
Your emails definitely don’t send me into an agitated state and so being the Agitator is probably not the best name?
Sanky … isn’t that an Instant Coffee?
Sanky … giving our fundraising clients a buzz!
As someone who actually MET Sanky, once, before she died, I get the “legacy” part of the naming of a company. But a company is not a nonprofit.
As for Agitator, sorry, Tom, I have to agree, you should change it.
But it would be so…. easy.
Nonprofit Agitator. See? That wasn’t so painful, was it?
– (the) Mitch
I thought you were dead on in the original article. I’ve also been in commercial advertising (as a production company) for over a decade and you just cannot compare an outfit that spends, literally, 100 or 200 million dollars on branding and advertising to a non-profit (or even a for profit) outfit with a considerably lower budget for same. It’s a fallacy to think “If tide can do it…”.
Anyway Agitator isn’t negative (to me) but then I’m a person who’s always challenged “the way things have always been done” to try to find ways to make outcomes better. But I like the suggestion Non-Profit Agitator. Works.
Thanks for the discussion!
When I think of an Agitator, I think of someone who stirs things up and makes you look at the world a little differently. I think the fundraising world benefits from that approach, and therefore think the name is OK.
One suggestion I do have — please know I acknowledge I may be doing something wrong — but I can’t seem to find you on Twitter and if you are there would like to acknowledge you with an @ attribution when I tweet your posts. I first learned of you and signed up when another fundraiser tweeted your insight.
If Tom get’s to ask for naming advice and list my name and org, I think I might as well jump in and ask for the same!
ACTA stands for “American Council of Trustees and Alumni” with the tagline “Promoting Academic Excellence.” It’s a mouthful, hence the acronym ACTA. We’ve been around for 15 years, so a full name change is unlikely. Is there a better short version to share with donors? The Council has been used in news coverage. “Council of Trustees” or “Council of Alumni” could be used when targeting only one of our constituent groups.
Thoughts?
You can’t expect 2 or 3 words to do all the work of brand-building. I like “The Agitator” because you generally deliver on the promise of new and challenging perspectives. Still, l need to engage with you before I know that you are talking specifically about nonprofit fundraising. Would “The Nonprofit Fundraising Provocative Perspective Blog” be better?
My firm, Cause & Effect, Inc., helps nonprofit causes become more effective with governance, communications and strategic planning services, but we still have to explain our business to new friends and then deliver on our brand promise before it really means anything.
I prefer a name that requires a bit of context to “click” over generic descriptive names, like “East Overshoe Community Development Corporation,” or “Family Services of Pleasantville.” These names seem to be literal, yet they don’t really say much about what their owners do, either. They both rely onassumptions about what “community development” and “family services” mean.
Do as I say, not as I do. I’ve always liked the inside-baseball feel of the Agitator, but what works for you isn’t necessarily good for others. I’ve worked for several organizations with name problems, and the uphill battle is simply not worth it. Rebranding and renaming are often expensive and frustrating undertakings, but if you find yourself in that boat it’s best to make yours something that’s truly descriptive of what your audience understands that you do. If you can’t rebrand, taglines, like the Agitator’s are a good alternative.
Don’t change your name Agitator
@Dawn, The Agitator’s Twitter handle is @AgitatorEditors (from Matt at @Mogulwebsites, the Agitator’s web developers)
DO NOT change your name! I read you BECAUSE you are The Agitator and because I think that development professionals and the entire nonprofit industry doesn’t do enough agitating. The really good stuff gets done when you get people, plans and work “stirred up” and that’s all agitation is to me. We need more personal and public and internal and external agitation — bring it on! If the name of The Agitator and the content ruffles your feathers or offends your sensibilities — you’re likely in more than one rut and you’ve likely had to much of your own Kool Aid to drink…you’re likely sitting there now thinking that you’re really pushing the envelope and doing everything “just so” when what you’re really doing is hiding behind fear and a wall of your work that is the “same old” thing…