Stop F***ing About With Your Logo: What the Research Shows About Nonprofit Rebranding and Fundraising
A note from Laurence A. Pagnoni, MPA: Author, The Nonprofit Fundraising Solution | Former Faculty, NYU Heyman Center for Philanthropy, School of Professional Studies
Mark Phillips is one of the most evidence-driven voices in fundraising practice on either side of the Atlantic. He founded Bluefrog Fundraising in London in 1997 and has spent nearly four decades studying what donors actually want from the charities they support. In 2025 he established Mark Phillips Fundraising Associates to continue that work. The piece below originated as a lecture for Rogare — the fundraising think tank known for its critical, research-based approach to the profession — and it contains findings that every executive director and development director considering a rebrand should read before making any decisions. I am grateful to Mark for his permission to share it here.
A few weeks ago, I presented Rogare's inaugural Critical Fundraising lecture at Kingston University in London. Rogare is a fundraising think tank that applies rigorous, evidence-based analysis to the assumptions and practices of the fundraising profession — and the questions it raises tend to be the ones the sector would rather not answer.
My topic was charity rebranding. It is an area I have long been interested in, and over the years I have tracked what happens to charitable income after a rebrand by following the numbers in annual reports. What I found surprised even me, and I think it will surprise you.
Here is the core finding, stated plainly:
If a rebrand is a tweak — a change of visual identity, typeface, or logo — it does not have much impact on the bottom line. There may be a modest, temporary reduction in income, but nothing substantial. However, when a charity goes the whole way and changes its name as well, there is often a significant negative impact on income that can only be addressed through considerable increases in fundraising expenditure. Sometimes those increases are very large indeed.
It is not hard to understand why. Years of recognition and donor loyalty can be lost almost immediately, as what appears to be a new charity emerges in place of the familiar one, leaving supporters wondering what happened to the organization they had been giving to for years.
What continues to surprise me is that when rebrands go ahead, it is almost always what the organization looks like or how it describes itself that dominates the process — and very little time is spent trying to understand what would actually bring donors closer to the organization. The benefits that could be gained by incorporating donor needs into a new brand are regularly missed.
Part of the reason, as many fundraisers have told me, is that the development team is often kept at arm's length during a rebrand. A cloud of secrecy can surround the process, only lifting once the final brand is presented — and by that point, changes are rarely welcome. After my lecture, I received a number of messages from frustrated fundraisers who had battled, begged, and pleaded for sensible adjustments — better legibility in direct mail, more authentic photographs, increased opportunities for personalization — only to be told the brand was already finalized.
The Three Questions the Lecture Addresses
The recorded lecture covers three areas that any nonprofit leader considering a rebrand should think through carefully.
First: When and why did charities become so enamored with commercial marketing practices — and what has that cost them in donor relationships? The history here is instructive, and understanding it helps explain why so many rebrands are driven by concerns that have more to do with how the organization wants to see itself than with how donors experience it.
Second: What actually happens to income when charities rebrand? The data here is specific, documented, and sobering — and it is the part of the lecture that most development directors will want their executive directors and board chairs to sit with before any rebrand decision is made.
Third: What actually matters in a rebrand, when a rebrand is genuinely needed, what should be the focus, and what should be left alone? If your organization has recently rebranded with negative consequences, this section — which begins at 16 minutes and 20 seconds into the recording — offers specific, actionable guidance on how to begin recovering. And if you are in the midst of a rebrand right now, it describes the mistakes that are still avoidable.
The bottom line is this: if a rebrand is being considered as a way to increase income, it is worth speaking with a fundraising consultant first, because the evidence suggests that investment in fundraising itself is far more likely to produce the outcome the rebrand was hoped to deliver.
I worked hard to make the lecture engaging, including relevant film clips that required me to raise my video editing capabilities considerably. I hope you find it worthwhile.
— Mark Phillips
You can watch Mark's lecture below and read the original piece at queerideas.co.uk. We are grateful to Mark for his permission to share it here.
Watch the lecture here: https://player.vimeo.com/video/718598684?h=89fbc27c66
Books referenced in the lecture:
The Money-Raising Non-Profit Brand by Jeff Brooks (jeff-brooks.com/money-raising-nonprofit-brand)
Don't Mess With the Logo by Jon Edge and Andy Milligan
On Brand by Wally Olins
What has your experience been with rebranding at your organization — and how did it affect your donor relationships? Share your experience in the comments section of the website.
This post is shared with the author's permission for educational purposes. The views expressed are those of Mark Phillips. Please credit Mark Phillips and Laurence A. Pagnoni, MPA if sharing or reproducing this content.
