I’ve been digging through annual reports lately, looking at which organisations have seen the most impressive growth over the last few years—huge credit to UNHCR, Tearfund, Islamic Relief, and MSF for their strong performance!

One area that’s caught my eye in the reports that I’ve trawled through is the impact of rebranding on individual giving income. Out of the charities I’ve reviewed, I’ve found six have rebranded – the launch often accompanied by senior leaders highlighting the need to raise more funds as a key reason for the change, for example…

“…the name change will also increase the organisation’s ability to fund (our work).”

“It’s the need for growth that has driven the new campaign.”

But does a rebrand actually attract a new audience or drive a boost in income?

The evidence I’ve seen would suggest it very rarely does.

The chart above (give it a click to see the full size image) shows what happened to voluntary income in the two years following the six rebrands I analysed – but with a quick caveat. Charities report income in different ways and I’ve tried to focus on IG income where possible – not including legacies. Year 1 marks the year of the rebrand.

The results?

All but one charity saw a drop in income over the two years following a rebrand. Some as steep as 38%, with an average fall of 13%. The combined fall adds up to over £10 million for all six.

Of course, the past few years have been anything but normal. But overall, this sample of charities rebranding would suggest that it rarely adds up to more income.

Which aligns with what donors tell us. They tell us a traditional rebrand can be distracting, expensive, and, perhaps most importantly, more aligned with the corporate world than the charity sector – which is rarely a good thing.

So should we agree that when considering a rebrand, it is sensible to plan for a fall in income? Which means it’s more crucial than ever to carefully assess your reasons for rebranding. If your reputation is damaged, your values feel outdated, or there’s been a significant cultural shift, a rebrand might be necessary – but we need to recognise that it might come with a cost rather than a financial boost.

If you’ve been involved in a charity rebrand that has genuinely driven long-term growth – without relying on a massive injection in spending – I’d love to hear from you. At Bluefrog, we’re launching a study looking at what elements of rebrands most influence donor attitudes and giving behaviour – either positively or negatively, and we’d love to explore a true success story. So far, most of the data we’re seeing suggests that increasing income through a traditional rebrand of an established charity is about as effective as cold calling Bill Gates.

If you’ve got insights or experiences to share, I’d love to hear from you.