Which is precisely why this fiasco is so unnecessary: the firm of
consultants involved provide this service (re-branding, re-positioning,
etc) to charities both *with* and *without* a name-change.
John Briggs
On 04/07/2013 13:08, David McMenemy wrote:
> Of course I was talking about the re-brand in the context of the proposed name change, apologies if that was not obvious.
>
> I doubt a new slap of paint and a font-change would get people's backs up.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs
> Sent: 04 July 2013 11:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Rebranding again
>
> On 04/07/2013 11:27, David McMenemy wrote:
> >
>> It is the fact that you’ve “researched, consulted, discussed in a
>> structured and formal way over several months” that is at the heart of
>> the problem. You had no mandate to take this as far as you did for
>> something as important as a re-brand.
>
> Well, no - a re-brand can easily be achieved *without* a change of name:
> and that is exactly what half (or more) of the firm's client charities have done. It is the wrong-headed notion that a change of *name* was necessary that is at the heart of the problem.
>
> John Briggs
>
|