Name Changes: The Real Process
You get where we’re going with the above quote, right? Not so fast . . .
We attended an introductory meeting for the combination of two arts organizations. As part of it, they introduced the combined organization’s new name. We were reminded of how difficult the branding task of naming is. Entirely new names are rarely launched in the cultural field. More often, we address more subtle, yet complex, changes with very passionate stakeholders. Think about it: if you changed your name, all the who’s-its and what’s-its you’d want and need to involve.
This viewpoint is not another “5-quick-tips-for-naming,” but rather, it is meant to come before those tasks. It is meant to set expectations and provide a reality check. Yes, the heavy lifting of name change is the process part.
A name change is one of the most emotional endeavors a cultural organization can undertake. It requires consensus building of the highest level with a sound underlying strategy for why a name change is needed, and, as important, why any particular name is the right one.
Audiences such as board members, staff, field professionals, donors, subscribers/members, and educators will all have to be convinced that the current name is not working for various reasons and that a new one will help resolve the problems.
Any potential name can accrue associations or attributes over time, so why not use one that communicates the right ones from the start? Why not use one’s name to help communicate a central idea about the organization, its purpose, and its future? A potential new name should be a means to an end. A new name should reflect some larger initiative, some greater goal, something endemic to an organization.
Any potential new name will meet with resistance because it is completely new, with no history or accrued associations. An existing name, despite its faults, is known and comfortable. If the budget allows, names should be tested quantitatively and quantitatively. While neither of these methods, singly or together, will conclusively point to the right name, they will help managers shape their thinking and avoid potentially bad names.
Introducing a new name without a context invites criticism and places too much focus on the name itself. This may be veering into consultant-speak, but we feel strongly that name development should stem from an underlying strategy to ensure that it is on target in meeting communications objectives.
Implementing a new name will affect every communication that an organization produces, from a website and social media to advertisements, brochures, and posters. With a new name in the wings, items you are running low on can be ordered in smaller quantities, and new pieces can be redesigned and implemented over time. Yes, there will be a disjointed transition period. However, not wasting materials is greener, more responsible, and creates fewer internal headaches from having to produce all new items in a short period, because, you guessed it, everyone still needs to do their regular jobs while playing their part in helping launch the new name.
That said, groups of materials can be implemented over time, e.g., seasonal campaigns and brochures, exhibition materials, website, stationery system, and business cards, etc. Priority depends on the relative importance of each type of communication and their normal timeline for periodic updates.
Any new name will take time to get used to, but after a while, it too will seem comfortable and more right than the previous one. But it doesn’t stop there. As stated at the start: most cultural organization name changes are subtle yet strategic. Managers need to be diligent to ensure that everyone adheres to using the new name and does not continue to use the old one. Sounds like a given, right? We can think of at least three cultural organizations that changed their name, and for some reason, they and others still use a combination of the new and old names years later.
