UNCF Gets C+
Awhile back the NYT ran this piece on the re-branding campaign of the United Negro College Fund.
When I saw that the Fund actually acted on the advice they received from a prominent “branding” consultancy to change their name (for non-legal communications purposes) to UNCF, I thought to myself, “what a dumb move.”
[OK, I'll concede a prejudice … I've never encountered a branding consultancy that wasn't full of hot air, including the agency involved here.]
Acronym names are totally useless unless backed by years of MEGA-marketing and advertising budgets. Even then, no one but the employees ever recognizes them. I'll bet, ten years from now, no higher percentage of non-UNCF donors will recognize the name that would recognize it today. Anyone want to take the bet?
I filed away the article till I could collect my thoughts. But then Nancy Schwartz, writing in her January 30 edition of Getting Attention wrote a superb review of this branding exercise. She found a few things that seemed praiseworthy, and a bunch of things to criticize. Her piece convinced me to award the “UNCF” a C+ instead of an F.
Thank god the “UNCF” had the good sense to keep its outstanding tagline … A mind is a terrible thing to waste! That tagline, backed by 36 years of valuable public service advertising, says everything about the organization that needs to be said … and, in fact, that's where the organization's true brand equity lies.
Unfortunately, “UNCF” didn't see the course through and come up with a name that is evocative of the organization's history and mission, and suggestive of its future.
Just my opinion!
Tom
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