The Nonprofit Syndicate Podcast

Episode 008: The Branding Mistakes Nonprofits Keep Making

• The Nonprofit Syndicate

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 40:41

Branding is not just your logo, your fonts, or your colors. It is the reputation your organization builds over time.

In this episode, the team gets honest about nonprofit branding: what it is, what it is not, and why so many organizations misunderstand the role it plays in fundraising and growth. They debate whether rebrands are worth it, talk through the risks of visual identity changes, and explain why brand consistency, positioning, and messaging matter so much more than most people think.

If your organization is considering a rebrand, struggling to stand out, or trying to clarify its identity in a crowded market, this conversation is worth your time.

 00:01 Welcome and branding hot takes

 01:38 Recognition is cheap. Belief is expensive

 02:39 Why branding is much bigger than visual identity

 03:28 The “ugly tax” and what bad design costs you

 04:14 Why nonprofit brands often play it too safe

 07:18 Can a better brand actually improve fundraising?

 11:51 Why messaging should be fixed before the logo

 17:15 What kind of branding actually boosts fundraising

 23:16 What a logo is really for

 34:47 Gary V’s “not on brand” quote gets debated 

SPEAKER_02

What's going on, everyone? Welcome back to the nonprofit syndicate podcast. I am joined by David Schwab, Ryan Nichols, and batting in uh the third slot today instead of Jonathan Beck is Trevin Streen, who is the creative czar, creative director at Share with me. Um, one of the sharpest brand thinkers I know. So welcome in, dude. Thanks for joining us. How's it going?

SPEAKER_00

Thanks. Uh you're way too kind, as always. Uh I'm excited to be able to do that.

SPEAKER_02

Only people who don't actually know me that well think I'm kind.

SPEAKER_00

Excited to jump in and disagree with all of you about everything. Sounds good. Sounds good.

SPEAKER_02

Ryan, Dave, what's going on in you guys' world?

SPEAKER_01

I don't know, man. It's it's January, and I feel like I've worked a year already.

SPEAKER_02

You have.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

You have already. Uh time is speeding up. Ryan, what about you, man? How's things in your world?

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, I I would probably echo that. It's like I I realize it's 2026, but I didn't realize the whole month had disappeared already, pretty much. It's gone. It gone. So welcome to almost February.

SPEAKER_02

Cool. Cool. Uh well, today we're gonna be hopping into a big conversation branding. Uh, we're gonna we could go a lot of different directions with it. But just to get us kicked off and get the juices flowing a little bit, I want to just ask, what is your most hot take on branding for nonprofits for each of you? Like, share whatever you want. This is open season to say something wild, but what is your hottest take on branding for nonprofits?

SPEAKER_04

Go for it, Trevin. You're the guest.

SPEAKER_00

Oh, I'll I'll jump in right here. I I feel like everyone is chasing recognition when they should be chasing belief. Say more. Like every brand is out there trying to make the next charity water when they really should just be focused on finding the niche of and segment that will make people believe in the thing that they are specifically doing. You're not trying to beat charity water. Like, why do you want to be recognized as them? You're is that even a relevant comp for you? Is that realistic? I so I think that there's like, you know, there's an element there where recognition is cheap, you can buy it with ads. And belief is expensive because you can't build it without consistency and a laser focus on knowing what you're about. That's good.

SPEAKER_02

That's good. I like it. Schwab, you got any hot takes for me on branding?

SPEAKER_01

Well, if I hear one more person talk to me about branding and they're talking about their logo, I'm probably I'm probably not gonna be able to hold back the high roll. I think that's that's my hot take, is branding is is far more than your logo or your icon or your favicon or your color palette or your brand, which specific version of a Ryle or Surif or whatever font type you use. That's a component of a brand guide or a brand presence, but brand is so much more than what you look or sound like, right? I think that's my hot take is we have here's here's how I'll put it um we have a far too limited perspective of what brand is far too often. Amen to that.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah. I want to throw something in here. Yeah, I will just say the ugly tax is real. Like, so yes, branding is not just a logo and fonts and colors and all those things, but if you're if your stuff is ugly, that's a tax on your brand.

SPEAKER_01

I don't know, but I've made a whole brand about being ugly. Like I am a walking ugly font, and it works for me. Listen, dude.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah. I don't know why you felt the need to bring that up about yourself, but okay.

SPEAKER_01

Well, I can't say it about anyone else and be me. If it's me, it's funny. We can laugh at it.

SPEAKER_04

Oh, that's amazing. But then you feel guilty. That's the problem.

SPEAKER_01

It's yeah, my mom always used to say I had a face for radio, and here I am on a video podcast. Video podcast, man.

SPEAKER_02

You uh you're a little you're five years past when audio podcasts were were the thing, right?

SPEAKER_01

Oh man.

SPEAKER_02

Oh, that's good. Uh I my my my big hot take on branding is I think that when we think about brand, it's not it's not something to Trevan's point. Like it's not just the visual identity, it's it's how people, what is the Bezos quote? Like it's everything a customer thinks about you. Um, that being said, I think too many nonprofits are far too safe on how they try to brand themselves and create their sense of how people view them in the world. Um, I would like to see more nonprofits take risks with their brand, uh, be willing to think outside a classic corporate bubble box and assume that there are audiences, to your point, Trevan, if you if you know that smaller audience you're trying to go after, that will really like the fact that you're not just, well, this is safe. This feels like something that I would see at some other booth at a nonprofit conference. I would, my hot take is that most nonprofit branding is wildly boring and wildly sanitized. And I would like for it to take more risks, have more fun, be more playful, be more edgy, take a stand for something beyond just general do goodery. Uh, because that feels really boring and sanitized. That's my hot take.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, I'd agree. And uh I'd say, what is it? Nike isn't the swoosh. You know, Nike is the company behind the swoosh. And everybody that I've dealt with in nonprofit world at times thinks that if we just get the right, like you said, logo, then that'll be our Nike swoosh. And it's like that's cool, but they also have a product behind it that people want to buy. So you could have a fancy check mark, and if it was just really bad flip-flops, who cares if it's got a check mark on it? You know what I mean? Uh, who cares if your logo is the fanciest thing that anybody has ever created if it there's nothing behind it? And so they do go hand in hand to a degree, but I would say to a larger degree, who you are, what you do matters more than what that little logo icon does, and you're too afraid to change it. Oh no, it's been we've had this for five to ten years. We can't change that because then we'll have to change all of our paperwork and stuff. Okay, well, if we're holding on that tightly to a JPEG or an SVG file, and we're not willing to update it in order to better display who we are or what we're doing, then you're holding on to the wrong thing. That's why people aren't interested in what you're doing, is you're more focused on, oh, this looks pretty. That's great. Your website can be awesome. And like you said, I loved it, Trevor. Look like another nonprofit that you wish you looked like, but you know, it doesn't mean anything if what you're doing, and and if they find out what you're doing, they're like, oh yeah, I did join that organization, and they're really bad at that. So your swoosh was expensive and your product was terrible. Yeah, that's all it is.

SPEAKER_02

Do you think there's ever a use case for a nonprofit fixing their branding, right? Actually just doing a visual identity that actually contributes meaningful ROI to the bottom line for fundraising.

SPEAKER_01

When you say yes, what do you mean? Yes, but not in the way you're talking about. Okay. Yeah, say more. Every time I've worked with an organization, particularly a ministry, that has gone through a rebrand, it costs them three to five years of revenue. Not three to five years of full revenue, but they see a revenue decline for the next three to five years. It pisses donors off, it confuses the market, and it changes the message. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's okay to purge like these donors don't align with the direction our book our business or our ministry is gone. That makes sense. Other times, I just want a different logo and I'm ready for a new name, and you're purging 200 years of ministry history, 100 years of ministry history, you're gonna it's gonna take years just to get you back to the point you're at now between new donor acquisition, donor churn, all of those things. So opposite to what you're saying, where does branding make a tangible impact? Yes, it does, but negatively, which means good branding, consistent branding does has a have a positive impact.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00

I would I as I get further and further into my creative career, I am more and more anti-rebrand. Mostly because p because of where we've landed around, with everyone fundamentally misunderstands it. Like, how can you cannot actually rebrand or undertake an exercise when you don't understand the thing. Like how what is it based off of?

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, and I'd say having uh even been through we'll call it a refresh, it wasn't even a full rebrand, it was more of a brand alignment. Even that took two two years of just convincing people that it's okay that the logo is the same color. It's okay that even though we know that Canada loves maple leaves, we don't have to have one in the Canadian logo. Sorry, that's my hot take on Canadian stuff. Yeah. But um Love Canada. Love you guys.

SPEAKER_02

Uh but we're huge in Canada in case you guys didn't know. Oh boy. Totally huge.

SPEAKER_04

No, but like just the fact that it it took two years to align in just consolidation and then figuring out that ten different locations said the same thing almost the same way, but basically ten different ways, to say where they served and how they did it. So at that point, if you didn't to your I guess to everybody's point, if you don't know what you're doing as a ministry or an organization, then rebranding is useless. It's or expensive, not just useless, potentially useless. Um however, if I would I would say 200 years of history is great, um, yes, it might be time to update your logo if it has nothing to do with your organization, doesn't basically brand you at all, could be just your name or this and that, but doesn't show who you are. Um and that might be okay, but that's where you do. You let your donors know, and people know ahead of time, hey, we're kind of trying out this, we're going in this direction. Bring them on the journey with you, so it's less of a jarring like, hey, we used to be this company, now we're this company, and we're tightening what we do. If if that's all they see, it's like, okay, well, that's not what I signed up for. But if I'm on the journey with you going, hey, we realized over time we set out to do three things really well, and we tried to do 50 things terribly, we want to get back to doing things really well, I'm more apt to stick around. So yeah, there you go.

SPEAKER_00

I can't remember where I heard this, but like your brand should be a mirror, not a monument. Like you're not trying to build the Lincoln Memorial for people to come and visit and be like, oh, this is such a great thing that exists in the world. You're trying to reflect the identity of a group of people so that they can participate in a mission that you're trying to impact with you. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00

Like that's why brand I think is transforming fundamentally more into community-based things than whatever you see on a website or an advertisement.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

I think in that sense, I would prefer if a nonprofit's out there and they're like, oh, we need to rebrand. I would almost always say to them first, let's let's look at updating your messaging and your words before you ever touch your icons and your logos, because frankly, there's a ton more work involved with updating, especially if you have physical presence, like signage and all your digital stuff and every print thing that you ever have with new logos. And that is an instant visual shift for your donor base, for your constituents, for everyone in the audience, versus words. If you change the words on the hero page of your website, most people are not going to notice outside of it in a positive way, unless you do a really bad job with it, right? And you're like, that doesn't seem to make any sense. But you can update your language in such a way and really rethink your messaging, really without any shock to the system in a lot of ways. Uh, and that that allows you to have the power of, hey, we're repositioning this, we're using better language, we're clarifying the message for our audience, we're clarifying why they give, we're clarifying the impact without ever really having to do a huge shock to the system. So if if there's a nonprofit out there that's thinking about it, I would say, let's see if we can do a re-messaging first and get 90% of the juice out of the orange without any of the like, you know, the rind of it having to go in the blender. And and and then and then after that, let's see, if you still think it's really bad, that's fine. And a lot of, if we're honest with a lot of the reasons rebrands happen, you get a new leadership team in place who is personally embarrassed by the visual identity. They came from somewhere where it was slick and cool and clean, and they came to this organization, like, oh, it's so outdated, and it offends their personal sensibility of aesthetics. And it's actually not based in what actually needs to happen for the ministry, but it's like, ooh, I viscerally, I'm embarrassed that our logo looks that way. So donors.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, or they're late to the game, and the org that rebranded five years ago has seen an increase in donors, and it's like, oh, that must be what we need to do. It's like, no, no.

SPEAKER_02

Or or the other side that often happens is, and this I can actually uh I can actually kind of get on board with this. Uh a visual rebrand can be a very powerful signal to your community, whether it whether that's the community of donors, community of staff, community of people you serve. It is a signal of trying to build momentum and go in a new direction. And so if you're an organization, like I can think of one that immediately comes to mind that was very large a few years ago, massive financial scandal, massive, I mean, just lots of public news cycle that was terrible for it. They probably need a rebrand to just break with the past and create some sort of new momentum. Like there are times where that's important, where the rebrand actually does symbol some sort of actual momentum shift, but oftentimes that's trying to manufacture something that doesn't need to be manufactured. So that's uh I'll I'll stop there if anyone else has thoughts on it.

SPEAKER_00

I think that people need to really embrace the idea of brand as reputation and really like think deeply about what that means and what you're doing to affect that. And like how you're thinking about whose reputation you're stewarding where. So your programs are touching a different group than your donors versus your employees versus XYZ, this, that, and the other. And most of the time, at least from my observation, everyone's talking to all those people the same. Yeah. But they fundamentally need different experiences if you're going to shape their individual perceptions around what your brand is.

SPEAKER_04

What's interesting, one place I went, it was um, I think we're there's words that are kind of synonymous, but it's like we don't we use the word brand and we think of all the media and all the stuff around it. Instead of it's really more synonymous with culture. Like if you want a brand refresh, it is a culture shift, whatever that means. And it has to be a full culture shift where it's not just how you look or dress or whatever, but it's how you act, think, speak, the language you use. Are you using the same language when your constituents or like the people you who support you or serve with you or whatever go through your program? Do they then speak the same? Does do they catch the vision, catch the culture because it's so apparent and clear? Or are is one group confused while the other seems to think that they know what's going on? Because maybe the donors come to your website and that looks great. But the people that serve go through your organization and they're like, that's not at all what happened. Um and so if there's no alignment there, no culture shift, then at some point the whole thing comes down.

SPEAKER_02

Um Schwab would love to know from your your experience on this. Um have you seen an example of branding accelerating fundraising?

SPEAKER_04

You know, besides GoFundMe and their landing pages.

SPEAKER_01

Don't get me started.

SPEAKER_04

Just gotta find a way to throw it in there.

SPEAKER_01

Yes, but again, not in the way we're talking about it.

SPEAKER_02

In what way?

SPEAKER_01

Really good brand positioning sets you apart in the market. Great stellar brand anthem, great visuals, great storytelling, great message, great offer, clear reason to give and exist, which is all critical brand elements. Yes. An organization that changes their name because they're doing something different, or an organization that changes the color of their logo. That's I've never seen that have a net positive effect initially. Does that mean it can't long term? No. But I would say with a very high degree of confidence, changing your logo, changing your colors, changing your name is not going to have a positive effect. Changing your messaging, fixing your positioning, landing who you are in the market and why donors should care is going to fundamentally change for good your fundraising.

SPEAKER_02

When an organization is looking at a rebrand, do you think they should actually be hiring someone outside? Because there's a line of thinking that says, hey, maybe just do this all internal because we actually know. Like no one's gonna get our culture the way we do. Would would you look at someone external or would you go internal?

SPEAKER_01

If your internal team could nail your brand, you wouldn't need to rebrand.

SPEAKER_00

I was just gonna go down the route of asking you guys whether you feel that you should invest it or not. Um since it's so often done poorly. Like how do you feel about investing in brand from a fundraising standpoint?

SPEAKER_01

It's the single highest yield investment you can make in a marketing strategy.

SPEAKER_02

Investing investing in good branding or like a new logo?

SPEAKER_04

Ooh, changes answer.

SPEAKER_01

Investing in your brand. I will stand by my answer. Investing in your brand is the single highest yield investment you can make in a mass marketing program. It's not gonna match what you can do in a major gift program, but that's not what we're talking about. But again, if you have a really good brand, you have a really good major gift program too. Investing in your brand is not changing your name and logo. That's my hill to die on. Sometimes that you sometimes that is necessary and you have to do it, and that's part of investing in your brand. Yeah. But when was the last time Ford changed their logo and color and name? But Ford is fundamentally focused on a different niche market and positioning now than they were a hundred years ago. They deliver a different product to deliver deliver a different service, they serve a full, a completely different sector of the market, but they still have a circle blue logo that says forward on it. Has the color blue changed a little bit? Sure. Has the depth of the circle changed a little bit? Sure. Is it more square and boxy for digital executions now? Yes. But it still says forward, and it's still a circle, and it's still blue, and they're still doing really stinking good, right? Like, yeah.

SPEAKER_00

I would argue that they have rebranded though. They have rebranded many times. They just haven't changed the visual presentation many times. Exactly.

SPEAKER_01

They've done branding the right way.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah. What about okay? So let's let's use a car industry as a as a hot uh because I think it's a good vector to help flush some of this out. What about someone like Kia, who historically was known for cheap cars, like cheap, crappy cars when they first got to the States? They had their old red kind of logo with the white text. Kia is pattern three, four years ago. They updated what looks like just video game robot text now, and my kids can't read it, I can't read it, but apparently it says Kia. Uh, because let's be honest, they started producing way better quality cars. And now Kias are great cars and super reliable and some of the best-rated stuff out there. Do you think in a scenario like that where the fundamental product being offered has either improved in quality, it's improved in market positioning, is that a time to actually look at visual identity.

SPEAKER_00

Amen. All the time. Because the it's not even the product. Like Kia's strategy fundamentally changed. Right, right. Like they went from a positioning for a valuable or value based, affordable, yeah, kind of kind of crappy car to oh no, we want to like compete with Toyota. Right.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, I would agree. I would say I I would say, especially if you're on the rise, like okay, your your brand is doing well, you're focused, and your team is doing well, and I think this is this is both an internal and external piece. If your internal team is firing on all cylinders, and and yes, you are fundamentally shifting, then that is a good time to consider what does that mean in a brand shift. Does that mean tweak and I would call this tweaking? So your example of Ford stuff, they didn't completely run away from the logo, but they polished it. You know, it's like there this is the time to polish what we're doing, remove the rough edges, or bring it into what we're doing now slash the future to where we're still competing with what we're doing now without actually breaking your brand. You know, a complete redesign or rebrand, that's hard to do. Even in that world, if Kia were to change their name, or if they had changed their whole name and product line, there's a chance that they would have like just stopped existing. I mean, Saturn doesn't exist anymore. You know, like and so they were like, let's build these little speedster cars. Well, and now we're gone. So yeah, I think it's worth that point.

SPEAKER_00

Like it is it is for people to be able to identify your unique product and brand with all of the context and storytelling and everything else behind it. So yeah, it doesn't really matter that you can read the Kia logo or not because you recognize it. I recognize it, I know it's right. And you and you attach it to everything. Same with the fourth thing. Like they didn't change their logo because that's how people identify them. Right. That's smart branding. Like, why would you change the way people identify you can make the argument that your logo is your most valuable visual asset? We can argue about that, but I would I would agree with that.

SPEAKER_02

No, I I think that's true. I think your your logo is your most valuable visual asset. What else is gonna be your most visual asset or your most valuable visual asset? Your font? Right? Like your photography style, your I mean, yeah, website, uh maybe that's a visual asset, but I would say, yeah, your your logo is your by far your most valuable visual asset.

SPEAKER_04

Speaking of font, please everybody stop using Proxima Nova. We get it, you all like it. It's easy. There are 7,000 font versions of it, but but be a little unique with your font.

SPEAKER_02

I don't hate it.

SPEAKER_04

Um I don't hate it. I I've used it in three different organizations. I spotted it on the wall of an organization that I went to help with and was like, that's Proxima Nova, how do you know? Because 100% of you use it. Okay.

SPEAKER_02

So you're like, I got it. There's my high take. Done. Um okay, so a brand is for, you're saying, Trevin, a brand is for identification, right? Like it's how it's how people understand who it is that's behind this thing.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, I think David talked about this a little earlier. Like, brand is about differentiation. So if there's one and a half million nonprofits in the United States or in the world, or I don't know how we actually categorize that number, divide that by the number of causes, what are you competing against? Like 10,000, 20,000 other brands serving the exact same thing that you are? Why, as a donor, should I give you money versus one of the other 19,999? Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

It's because of the logo. Yeah, definitely. That's why they give it's really because of the logo. I mean, okay, so I want to get back to something because I think I think this is something like I understand Schwab where you're coming from. I think Trevan's right, though. I do think there is such a thing as an ugly tax. I think it does degrade donor trust and credibility, and at least in the in if we're talking about differentiation, right? Like at the very least, if you're if your logo is bad, like objectively, poor design, illegible, like all the stuff that we we know the ones that have really bad. It looks like it's from 1993. There is definitely a positioning problem that that visual logo is going to send out to your donors of, oh, these people are behind the times. They're not innovative. Not that you always want to see innovate. You may trustworthy, maybe what you're trying to say. But like, I do think there is a an ugly tax that you pay if your if your logo and your visual identity is not done well.

SPEAKER_01

I I think I disagree. Uh actually, I know I disagree. Okay. I don't think I don't think visual quality has a tax on it. I think inconsistency has a tax on it. So if you suck all the time, then people are cool with it. So I'm not saying this logo sucks, but I want you to think of the most well-known non-profit logo internationally. It's got a red shield and white letters on it. Yep. It says the Salvation Army. Yep. I challenge you to think of the last time you saw that logo change. I bet it looks, and I don't know. Trevor Burrus, you might know this. You're the you're the designer, but like that logo looks like it could have been printed and made 50, 60, 70 years ago and worked just as well then as it does now.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01

I would say many people would look at it and say it's arguably an under-designed logo. But it still works. And it still communicates, and they're not paying, they're not paying a tax because it's been consistent. Same with the Red Cross, Salvation Army. Like these think about think about the longest term. They don't have fancy logos. They don't try to pack in all of the brand fonts or all of the colors or all of the things. It's simple, right? It's tangible, it's no one, and it's consistent. So I would say, I would change there's an ugly tax to there's an inconsistency tax. I think both are true.

SPEAKER_00

Both are true. Because the Salvation Army logo is not ugly.

SPEAKER_02

No, it's it's historic and classic. It's like Ford, like it's of a certain time, and it's not modern, but it was well done for the time, right?

SPEAKER_04

Well, and I get what Schwab's saying, because ugly can be objective.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04

You know, and so and so somebody might think it's the best thing since sliced bread. But I do agree that there are there are subjectively times, so I'm I'm a little in between on all this, where, for example, I won't name, you know, anything, but like, let's just use the the word car. There was a logo that should say, and it's it's an acronym, you know, C-A-R for some company, and they actually spelled CAR in lowercase, you know, capital and lowercase letters, so it looks like the word. So the logo was ugly subjectively and objectively because it didn't even it didn't even do the acronym thing. It didn't tell you that that was the brand name. And then when you zoom out, it looked like a wild animal. Like you couldn't tell what the logo is until you're oh, that's the the continent that you work on. And then their international logo actually used the continent and like the first map that their founder drew of where they're going. That which would have been a perfect rebrand, because it it said everything they did, and they could have all agreed on it. But in this case, it was the the logo is ugly. Yeah. And so, but to your point, there is an ugly tax where it's like, what is that? What does that say? I don't even know. But the to the other piece of it, the inconsistency or the consistency part, everybody knew that that was their logo. Oh, yeah, I've seen that. That's that's those guys. So I I do think there can be a cost to both, and especially if both are inconsistent, and they were. Each one of their or their franchise organizations had a slightly different version color font choice in that logo, and and so they had the ugly inconsistency tax for sure.

SPEAKER_00

I do think there's an element here, too, with like generational differences. So the emerging younger generations are definitely more about like I I would just call it radical transparency and authenticity. I hate the word authenticity because it doesn't really mean anything if you don't have the values to define it, but just leave that on the shelf for a second and just say like what content performs. It to it tends to not be that polished, like it tends to be pretty off the cuff, pretty raw. So I think I think you do have to have what Ryan was saying about okay, what is it to be bad? Like what is what does that mean to be subject or objectively bad or objectively ugly? It is a little bit in the eye of the beholder. I don't know if you can get to an objective point on that. But if it doesn't, I mean all of this comes back to why are you doing this? We can all make raw content, but if we have nothing behind it, it's it's gonna be ugly and bad. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04

And and I define ugly as, okay, we've got a dolphin in our logo and we call ourselves the Seahawks.

SPEAKER_01

You're like, well, um, or you really got you really hit a touchdown on that one.

SPEAKER_04

I know. Totally did. And it's like the whole, what is it, roll tide and all the other stuff where you're like, wait, what's your logo again? And what's your mascot? Why are you yelling that? And I get it. I get why you're yelling. I'm just making fun of roll tide. But that's the kind of stuff you're like, no, I think you missed. I think you missed. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

Uh I I I I think you've convinced me, David, that the inconsistency is more important. Um I I think ugly, uh okay, so we're talking visual here for a minute, but d if the logo is consistent, okay. But I do think there is something to be said for you can have an old school logo that hasn't been changed very much or that is not trendy or modern or isn't up with the modern design styles. But if your design around it and all your other visual identity language is consistent, then it can still look and if you follow basic design principles, it can still look professional. It can look like, hey, this is intentional. I think that's that's one of the words that frankly is to me most important when we talk about brand, all of brand, not just visual stuff, is intentionality. Whatever you're doing, it has to be intentional. I had someone, I had someone come at me yesterday about shares brand. And I I then I walked through, I was like, no, this is very intentional. Here's why we do X, Y, and Z. And they're like, oh yeah, okay, yeah. No, I get it. I forget everything I just said. It's a so much of this is about are you being intentional with your brand and your reputation and how donors think of you, how people that you serve think about you, how you message, how you visually message. Or are you just kind of saying, well, we'll design this way for this gala event that we have because that's just the way we thought it would look nice. Or this person has this preference for the way we should talk about our programs, and they're writing the major donor, you know, handout for this. So we're gonna talk about it this way. I think the intentionality and consistency is probably the most important thing across having a great brand.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, I think on that point, brand branding as a practice is a very long game, has long horizons, and in a world of fast-paced whatever the results this quarter, that doesn't really dive. Um which is why I think so many people are bad at branding, because our general way of thinking about things does not suit the practice of it, like the realities that it takes. It's gonna take me years to build an effective relationship with a person that has deep trust. So why would that be any different for a person to company relationship?

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. Can I give us one hot take that I really want to talk about? And here's Trevin's response. So um a couple years ago, our good my good friend Gary V published a book called Day Trading Attention. Um in it, he has a quote that has stuck with me, and I want to I want to give you guys the quote and get your response. Um his quote is uh anyone who says that's not on brand is a lazy marketer and afraid of trying something innovative. Respond to that.

SPEAKER_00

I don't agree with that as a blanket statement, but I understand where it's coming from. Um it's easy to see something new and say, well, that's not on brand. But it's harder. How would I even define that? If you don't know what your brand is, you actually can't use that as a response. Then it's lazy. Because how would you know? How would you know to evaluate the the new thing by? What if we're gonna do a new campaign and we don't know what we're about or what we stand for, like how would you be able to know if it's on brand or not? So I think from I think it could be both and like it is lazy, but it also isn't.

SPEAKER_04

Like I think it's the anyone, like if you're not a brand champion, which everybody should be in your organization at some point because that's what you're inviting them in to do, is become part of the brand. Um then yeah, if they just come up and say, Well, that's not on brand, that's personal opinion. You know, especially if you're the intern, you've been in there six months, you've been in there maybe a year, you're getting an idea of what the brand is for sure. Um but to Trevan's point, like you don't always make forever long-term, whatever, you know, relationships with people after six months or a year. You may have just gone to school with them at that point. Doesn't mean you're gonna hang out with them, you know, till you die or whatever. And so I I would say, yes, the anyone who says that, that can just be lazy. However, if you're owners of the org, the brand ambassadors, people who have championed this for 20, 30 years, and you're like, that's not on brand, it's probably not on brand.

SPEAKER_00

I mean, the thing that I would say though is like if you can't you have to be able to answer the question why afterward. So if you tell someone that and they're like, why? And you can't answer it, then it's a bad answer. It doesn't matter.

SPEAKER_04

Touche, to your point, yes, if somebody just goes, it's not on brand, it's like because I don't like it, that yeah, that no. But but like it's not on brand because we're a child sponsorship organization, and that's you know, dealing with child trafficking. We don't do that, so that's not on brand here. Yeah. Like exactly the why. Yeah. I agree.

SPEAKER_02

Uh I I have heard that Gary Vee quote before. I disagree with it as much as I love Gary Vee. I think in the context he's talking about, knowing how he's talking about day trading intention, he's probably talking the resistance of large corporations to try new things on social media or marketing, right? Like, so I get that. If it he's in the context he's talking about, where he's saying, hey, it's okay to try non-polished short form video, he's right to say it's lazy to avoid that because you're like, oh, it's not on brand. I think it's a wrong principle to apply to an entire organization. And the the example I'll give is like if you are if you're a nonprofit that is a faith-based ministry, and you uh you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna go even more specific and timely. If you are a uh a Jewish nonprofit and you decide in order to try to day trade attention, you're gonna post a we support Palestine flag on your social media. That's not on brand, bro, and you're about to destroy a lot of hard work you've done for a long time. And like you're gonna be day trading a lot of the wrong attention. And so I think it's a valid argument to say there are absolutely some things that are not on brand for us to do as marketers, and we should not do when they're contrary or could hurt the brand sentiment that we have worked very, very hard to build. And but then it's just actually a question about making good and wise decisions with your brand. It's like, should you be open to trying everything if you're not a lazy marketer? Absolutely. Yeah, like you should, yes, you should be open to trying every new channel. Should like, you know, a classic historic brand be open, like, you know, open to trying things on TikTok. Yeah, sure. But like at the same time, use TikTok without like, I'm thinking of like, if you're a classic bank, right? Like, or like a trusted financial institution, think, you know, Lehman Brothers before 2008, right? Like that has like this very classic, you know, studious brand. Yeah, maybe you don't need to post like video of your CEO like doing the recent TikTok dance on TikTok. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try short form content on TikTok, though. It's just be why. So I I disagree with Gary V. I think it's not lazy to say this is not on brand for us. I do think it's lazy to miss out on opportunities for new channels of growth because you think our brand can't play in that channel.

SPEAKER_00

I mean, more often than not, isn't it just that you're uncomfortable with the thing being presented? Yeah. Like that's that would be the lazy piece.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00

Oh, I'm not comfortable with short-form short form video. Right, right. It's not on brand. Right. Well, that's bad because it's a tactic that's just a part of modern media and all strategies. Like that has nothing to do with branding.

SPEAKER_02

I do I agree with Gary Vee's underlying sentiment though, which is that brands are not static things, they're living organisms. Your brand is constantly changing, it's constantly evolving. It has to be. It has to be constantly growing, has to be constantly shifting and rethinking itself in some way, shape, or form. Like it can't just be a static thing forever. And so I appreciate that about what he's saying. But yeah, I think I think it's very valid to say at times this is not on brand for us. All right. We have done 40 minutes on brand. Hopefully, it's been helpful for everyone. Thank you, Trevin. Thanks for pinching today for Jonathan. It's been fun having you on. We'll have you back again. Uh, Schwab, Ryan, thanks for for joining, guys. And we will see everyone back here on the next episode of the Nonprofit Syndicate podcast. See ya.