Research conducted by the Economic and Social Research Council in 2001 found that charities could significantly increase their income through voluntary donations by employing fundraising managers committed to branding. Further investigations in 2005 found that the growth of ‘exchange relationships’, where donors are rewarded for their generosity with gifts such as free magazines or the opportunity to take part in a trek across Peru, are also forcing charities to think more like businesses about branding and its impact.

Bruce says having a clear identity is absolutely essential for all three main functions of a charity; fundraising, campaigning and delivery of services. “If potential donors don’t recognise the charity they’re very unlikely to give,” he says. “If decision makers don’t recognise and trust the brand then they’re not going to be persuaded. If potential beneficiaries don’t recognise the brand they won’t know where to go for services and they’re less likely to trust the service deliverer, especially if they’re in a vulnerable position.”

There are, of course, some exceptions to this rule. Charitable trusts can remain largely anonymous and small organisations, such as the Howard League for Penal Reform, can assert their position by publishing credible research into a niche field.

For the rest, branding may appear prohibitively expensive if calculated within one financial year, but could pay dividends in the future. “I think the charity brand has to be absolutely right,” says Cathy Pharoah, director of research at the Charities Aid Foundation. “It has to work well for the charity and it has to look professional, and the spend has to be offset over a number of years.”

Pharoah says the process of developing a brand is broader than simply designing a logo. “I think it should express the organisation’s values and attitudes and indicate what the organisation’s mission is. That’s why it’s worth spending some money on.” Some charities choose not to spend money on branding, adopting a deliberately basic identity to make a point about avoiding unnecessary cost outside their core work. However, Pharoah warns, this is a dangerous strategy, especially for those looking to expand.

Charity supporters may lack enthusiasm for taking a big business approach to identity because it seems at odds with a charity’s overall aims. But Richard Thomsett, director of consultancy Brand Architects, argues that charities have a more important responsibility to communicate through branding than private companies. “Charities have not only to prove that they exist, they have to define their motivation for whatever role they’re undertaking and their success at it,” he says.

Despite the importance of getting it right, Thomsett says that in the past, charities and voluntary organisations have wasted valuable money getting it wrong. “In the not-for-profit sector it’s not always spent wisely,” he says. “Sometimes you get some under qualified people who spend in the wrong areas.”

Public perception
Marketing consultancy Black Pig assesses the perception of its clients and presents its findings to the trustees and supporters groups. The general public often has a poor impression of a charity due to its outdated branding, and this has to be communicated to its supporters.

Black Pig’s managing director Sarah-Jane Higgins says the results of these public perception polls shock, helping to convince supporters that re-branding is the right thing to spend the charity’s money on. “Every time, how they think they are perceived is not the reality,” she says. “We need to have the key stakeholders believing and seeing the key benefits. A few cold, hard facts about the perceptions often kick starts that.”

And as a charity has no product to sell, its brand is all it has to work with. “With charities that have been going for such a long time, often what the charities stood for has got lost,” Higgins adds. “There is no strong brand, there is no consistent message, and there is nothing to hang it on.”

London-based homelessness charity Thames Reach Bondway is about to begin a process of re-branding. It took its current name in 2001 when two charities Thames Reach and Bondway merged to form one organisation. Now, it is to revert back to Thames Reach.
Chief executive Jeremy Swain admits changes had to be made to the brand. “We have to make sure that we get the brand right,” he says. “The change is really because five years on from the merger the name Thames Reach Bondway clearly is too long. Staff are finding it difficult to hold on to.”

Five years earlier, the Thames Reach Bondway logo was designed by a member of staff, and cost cutting will continue to be a key driver of this year’s re-branding exercise. “The more that we can do in house the better,” Swain says.

But many believe cost should not be the focus. Linda Seaward, head of marketing and publishing, has led branding projects at both the Children’s Society and Age Concern. She says the emphasis, from both within the organisation and from its supporters, is always about getting it right. “I was never personally asked how much did this cost,” she states. “The things that trustees argue about are things like colour and logos, not the principle of it.”

Case study: Christian Aid
Christian Aid used its flagship fundraising drive Christian Aid Week to launch its new branding (above) earlier this month.

After working with consultants Johnson Banks, responsible for the identities of Shelter and the UK’s presidency of the EU, the charity designed a new logo and penned a longer list of strap lines aimed at diversifying its marketing strategy.

External relations director Kate Phillips says part of her job was convincing the trustees that it was the right thing to do.

“We involved them from the beginning and told them what we were planning to do and get the agreement to do it,” she says. “We had to make a case, which I think is quite correct.”
Christian Aid is keeping trustees onside by ensuring its re-branding costs are minimised, running both the new and old identities in parallel.

“Some things we’re actually still running with old logos,” she says. “If the material is up to date but it’s got an old logo, we’re living with that. That’s to save costs wherever possible and to be environmentally responsible in everything we do.”