Researching your brand
58
-
Upload
nfpsynergy -
Category
Business
-
view
834 -
download
1
description
The significance of brand and how to research it, drawing on the experiences of two national charities and nfpSynergy’s experience in tracking charity brands over time.
Transcript of Researching your brand
What is brand made up of?
2
3
Total Awareness Macmillan Cancer Relief/Support 2006
82%
95%
86%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
W4 B
efore
W3 B
efore
W2 B
efore
W1 B
efore
W1 A
fter
W2 A
fter
W3 A
fter
W4 A
fter
W5 A
fter
W6 A
fter
W7 A
fter
W8 A
fter
RebrandAwareness Raising
Campaign 07
4
5
6
7
8
Total Awareness NCH/Action for Children October 2008
48%
44%
34%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
W4 B
efore
W3 B
efore
W2 B
efore
W1 B
efore
W1 A
fter
W2 A
fter
W3 A
fter
W4 A
fter
W5 A
fter
W6 A
fter
W7 A
fter
W8 A
fter
Rebrand
First advertising campaign Jan-09
9
10
Total Awareness National Deaf Children’s Society 2007
53%52%
41%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
W4 B
efore
W3 B
efore
W2 B
efore
W1 B
efore
W1 A
fter
W2 A
fter
W3 A
fter
W4 A
fter
W5 A
fter
W6 A
fter
W7 A
fter
W8 A
fter
Rebrand
11
12
13
14
Types of brand research
15
Rebranding – the experiences of a small charity
Why did we rebrand?
• Our identity was linked to a particular campaign rather than the overall cause
• Misconceptions of what we did and how we did it• Lack of consistent, coherent branding and
messaging• Old-fashioned looking• Difficulty gaining new supporters• Underperforming with the opportunity to be
better• The organisation was becoming a charity – so
time for a new start
What we used to look like
What process did we take?
1. Got buy-in from CEO, key staff and trustees by selling the idea that we can be better.
2. Set out what we thought the issues were and what we wanted to achieve.
3. Commissioned nfpSynergy.
4. Used the research findings to clarify what the problems and opportunities were.
5. Developed a new image and key messages.
The research objectives were to establish:
1. Why do people currently support us?2. What would current supporters like to see the
League do?3. What would encourage new people to begin
supporting?4. What are the barriers to support?5. What are the current brand attributes?6. What are the issues with the current brand?7. Do we need to change our name?
What research methods did we use?
1. In-depth interviews with 20 supporters.
2. Mail survey to the supporter base.
3. In-depth interviews with 20 non-supporters.
4. Online survey of 3,000 non-supporters.
5. ‘Disaster check’ of the new logo.
Findings : image problems were holding us back
Animal rights / direct action / aggressive
Old-fashioned
Closely linked to the Labour PartyUK based
Niche - hunting with a few other things thrown in
To overcome these issues our desired brand was:
ending cruelty to animals in ‘sport’ at the core
Broad range of campaigns
Lawful
No geographical boundariesNon-party specific
Dynamic, progressive, edgy
The new image
• Positioning – broad church of people against animal cruelty in sport.
• New target profile – 30 to 55, predominantly female.
• New look and feel – clean, simple imagery of animals and people.
logo
new magazine
new offline
materials
new website
vision and
mission
new image launch
Relaunch Timing
1. Just before the anniversary of the Hunting Act.
2. The lead up to the election.
3. Launch of dog fighting campaign.
What has the impact been?
• Clearer focus for the organisation and its campaigns• 25% increase in the supporter base (2010)• Web traffic increased by 335%• Clearer profile of target donors• Most (!) supporters have praised the change• 33% over income target in 2010
(Note – this is a mixture of rebranding and other development projects)
What did we learn?
1. Is your brand working as hard as it could? Identify opportunities to be better.
2. Sell the idea and get buy-in.
3. Use research as the ammunition to drive change.
4. Speak to as many people as possible to harvest ideas.
5. Be prepared for criticism.
6. As a small charity accept that you can’t measure impact as much as you’d like.
Action for Children
Lies, Damn Lies, Brand Measures!
C Tom Davis,
Marketing Director,
Action for Children,
31 March 2011.
Agenda
• Brand Programme - Themes
• Situation Analysis
• Departures
• Journeys
• Arrivals
• Conclusions
Situation Analysis
• NCH founded 1869
• 1980s/1990s growth
• 2004: recognition of need to become more businesslike debate over “who we are” and should we be a charity strategic review Building on Success kicked off 2005
• Brand Project started 2006
Situation Analysis
• organisational scepticism
• persistent brand weakness
• failed attempts to address
• effects on fundraising, use of services, etc.
• internal perception of what ‘brand’ is and means
Situation Analysis
• greater competition and changing marketplace
• enormous growth of public spending, now ebbing
• commissioning agenda and increasing need to get better at influencing/shaping marketplace
• fundraising increasingly recognised as important
• political and social agenda changing constantly
1910 1964 1974
1994 2000 2008
Departures
Project I: BrandAudit
Project II:New Brand Project
Project III:Implement New Brand
Go/No Go Decision
ApproveNew Brand
ApprovePlan
Departures
Spontaneous Awareness
16%
22%20%
21%
24%
27% 28% 28%27%
28%
35%
10%9% 9% 9%
10% 10% 10%
8% 8%
12%
10%
1%2%
3%2%
4% 4% 3% 3% 4%5%
7%
0% 0%1% 1%
2% 1% 1% 1% 1%1% 1%1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Jan-06 May-06 Oct-06
NSPCC
Barnardo's
ChildLine
Children's Society
NCH (all mentions)
Source: nfpSynergy Charity Awareness Monitor Base: 1000 adults 16+ Britain
Departures
Conclusions:
• strong business-to-business brand
• very poor business-to-consumer brand
• general lack of awareness of what NCH did or stood for; and what NCH did do was not communicated well to its audiences
Departures
Conclusions:
• NCH is a completely unbalanced brand
• everything that we try to do in the business-to-business arena is likely to reflect our brand strength in that area…
• …and everything that we try to do in the business-to-consumer arena is likely to be seriously undermined, relatively underpowered, partially successful, or more costly
Departures
Conclusions:
• changing methods of obtaining business may mean that a stronger brand in the public arena becomes more important
• weak brand with general public weakens any NCH appeal to the public, and…
• …when we do appeal to the general public, we spend more money and time on getting our message across: our campaigning, marketing and fundraising costs more both in direct and indirect terms…
Departures
Conclusions:
• staff
• fundraising
• campaigning
Departures
Recommendations:
• move to project II to explore ways of renewing/revitalising brand
• external support and assistance
• develop separate workstream on marketing and communications to address other embedded problems
Journeys
• Brand Project II – Devising New Brand
• Brand Project III – Implementing New Brand
• launched September 2008, new advertising January 2009
• continuous research throughout brand programme:
brand platforms positioning maps stakeholder perceptions name research, 4 Nations research, etc.
Journeys
• stakeholder researchStakeholder group
Current perception Desired perception
Service commissioners
NCH is good in social care, but is a bit weak in education and health. They are innovative and reliable, have high standards, a vast amount of experience, and are very good partners to work with. On the other hand, they’re expensive, bureaucratic, and a little bit old fashioned in some areas. They’re also very quiet when you compare them to NSPCC and Barnardo’s.
We can trust NCH to run great services for children and young people.
Staff/volunteers I’m proud to work here, but I find it hard to feel part of something that’s coherent and that can be easily explained.
I know who we are and where we’re going, and I’m proud to be part of NCH.
Policy makers They are not a campaigning organisation, and have something to do with children’s homes, but I don’t really know what they stand for.
NCH’s practical experience and high principles make them the authoritative voice among service providers for children and young people.
Service users NCH are useful, helpful, supportive, human and open. NCH are here to help without judgment.
Methodists NCH provide a good level of care and do excellent work. They are a vehicle for Methodist social values but they are poor at communication.
I’m proud that such a great organisation has its roots in Methodism.
Journeys
• stakeholder research
Stakeholder group
Current perception Desired perception
Donors/supporters NCH use money wisely. They operate at the local level, undertake great work with children, and are a positive organisation. However, they are also a little unglamorous, outdated, and need to publicise themselves more.
NCH makes a real difference to young lives.
General public Who are NCH? By helping NCH I can make a real difference to young lives.
Journeys
• brand platform, “always there”
Arrivals
• agency appointed to do BHIs
• methodology agreed to keep costs down and facilitate reporting we thought we needed at time
• brand journey since then has been a very different one and we’d locked into a mode and frequency of reporting
• administratively burdensome
Arrivals
• Brand Health Indicators: Wave 1 (July 2008) and Wave 2 (February 2009)
• 1 in 4 people claim to recognise ‘Action for Children’ logo
• Action for Children has greater claimed consideration to donate than NCH had at the pre wave (8% of respondents, and 5% for NCH at the pre wave). This could be a simple effect of the name itself, suggesting that the name ‘Action for Children’ may be more compelling than ‘NCH’
Arrivals
• key donor target audience of ‘people with children in the household’ proved potentially most receptive to the new name: 57% of respondents said they would be likely to consider donating (compare to 36% pre-wave NCH)
• from a prompted list of children’s charities, 9% of respondents claim to have seen Action for Children advertising (total advertising awareness)
• the TV campaign reached 6/10 of the general public and just over 1/4 people claim to have seen both adverts
Conclusions
• important to have absolute, complete and agreed clarity on why you’re rebranding...
• ...to fully understand what you need to be measuring
• important to ‘project forward’ out of brand production period – too much going on and too much to do – but what will it look like in 2 or 3 years, what will you want to measure then?
• rainy or sunny?
Conclusions
• need to separate corporate objectives, KPIs, marketing and functional objectives, etc. – where are you measuring brand impact and how?
• what level of detail do you really need and what is really actionable and how much do you have to spend on it?
• easy to tie oneself in knots on Committee and Board reporting
Questions and discussion
57
2-6 Tenter GroundSpitalfields
London E1 7NH
(w) www.nfpsynergy.net (t) 020 7426 8888
Registered office: 2-6 Tenter Ground Spitalfields London E1 7NH Registered in England No. 04387900
VAT Registration 839 8186 72
2-6 Tenter GroundSpitalfields
London E1 7NH
(w) www.nfpsynergy.net (t) 020 7426 8888
Registered office: 2-6 Tenter Ground Spitalfields London E1 7NH Registered in England No. 04387900
VAT Registration 839 8186 72
