My good friend Hildy Gottlieb, author of the very important Polyanna Principles, is in the midst of choosing a new name for her organization, the Community-Driven Institute.
She has written a very interesting and transparent article about that process, and has thrown a few ideas out there for people to react to.
The Vision Words
I love this photo of Hildy Gottlieb
So far, the advice she’s been given by a number of colleagues is for the organization to ask itself a number of vision-type questions: What change are you creating? What do you do? What does it look like?
So far, Hildy and her colleagues have settled on a general sense that the CDI is about “LEAPING from dreams to reality” and “That creating . . . dramatic social change is just taken for granted to be the expectation that guides our work.”
Having led a number of strategic planning and visioning efforts, these are important questions. However, they are not at all enough. It is a very short hop from “vision” questions to a boring, me-too kind of name that fades into the generalized social-sector obscurity that is filled with this Institute or that Center or some other Initiative.
Just think how many organizations could easily be named something like the “Community Change Institute.”
No, we’ve got to go beyond, and get underneath, all that mission-speak. When it comes to the name of the organization, it must be informed by — but does not necessarily have to include — the vision words.
The Searchability Imperative
There’s another organizational imperative: searchability. This is too often overlooked, but in the world of pervasive search it is critical. Organizations are well advised to consider a one- or two-word name that is unique. Invented, in fact. You don’t want to name your organization that is related to a generic search phrase. When someone searches on your name, you don’t want other results cluttering up the first page of hits.
I have in mind two renamings that I think hit the mark.
The first is my friend Jill Vialet’s organization. It’s now called Playworks, which I think is an awesome name. It used to be called Sports4Kids, which has the advantage of being unique but was a little dated with that number in the middle and also was not quite correct (her organization is about play, not just sports). And the tagline, “Education Energized” does a great job of following up and giving people the general direction that the organization goes in.
But . . . and this is important . . . the name does not rigidly adhere to mission-words. Here is Playworks’ mission: “To improve the health and well-being of children by increasing opportunities for physical activity and safe, meaningful play.” See? It’s not the Institute for Safe, Meaningful Play, nor is it the Center For Education Through Play. “Playworks” is memorable, one word, searchable, and awesome.
(Also, don’t get me started on how incredible the curly-human logo is.)
The second good renaming happened more than a decade ago (I don’t have the exact year). The National Center for Nonprofit Boards renamed itself BoardSource. Again, a manufactured name, that does a great job of conveying the purpose of the organization (Mission: “Dedicated to advancing the public good by building exceptional nonprofit boards and inspiring board service.”) At the time, the name rankled but that was because I was old-fashioned. I’ve come around, and now I think the organization was forward-thinking when it went with the one-word name.
BoardSource. Yep, that explains what it is pretty well.
The Hard Work
So that leaves us with the hard work of translating mission and vision words and phrases into a name. That takes creativity, long walks, late-night discussions, and epiphanies in the shower. But — this is important — it’s important to keep a high bar here. It can’t be rushed.
It’s also important to make sure to get out of your own echo chamber. It’s easy to think a word is working, when it is not. For instance, there is a highly respected organization that works on a number of progressive issues related to democracy. It’s called Demos. To some this is an apt name, but to my mind it is too hifalutin. If you don’t know what the Greek word “demos” means, you really don’t have a clue what the organization is about.
I don’t know what Hildy’s new name should be. That word “leap” has some potential. “CommunityLeap” is a possibility, but I am afraid it is too much of a mouthful. Plus, one of her key audiences is nonprofit consultants, and the name doesn’t convey that sense.
Hildy has been toying with the word “leapfrog” and there is some potential there, too. Although one commenter (I think rightly) said she wasn’t too thrilled by the word “frog.”
I also wonder if Hildy wants to get the word “Polyanna” activated somehow, since her Polyanna Principles are a linchpin of how she works.
As I think of things, I may chronicle them here in the comments — but if you have some ideas, or other thoughts, please add them below! Especially if you think I am all wet.
(By the way, that Amazon link to Polyanna Principles up top is an affiliate link, I could not resist.)