Your name is your key message.

And that can be a bad thing.

Names don’t always stand the test of time. Consider the saga over Washington’s NFL team. The team’s name has long been racially offensive. Yet, franchise ownership has only recently considered a name change after facing serious financial ramifications.

The ongoing public dialogue has expanded to reveal a toxic work culture that preyed on female staff. No surprise that an organization unwilling to change an offensive name would turn a blind eye towards staff misconduct. Both signal an organization out of touch with the times.

Sports teams aren’t the only organizations that risk misguided messages. Times change. Products evolve. Campaigns emerge. Family names … well, they stay the same. Let’s take a look at a few recognizable names and the key messages they project.

Times change.

PBS and NPR launched back in 1969 and 1970 respectively. PBS is, of course, an acronym for Public Broadcasting Service while NPR is an acronym for National Public Radio. The two are often considered in tandem and both have grown to offer robust digital presences. However, PBS’ name positions the organization as an open-ended broadcast service while NPR’s name is tied to terrestrial radio. The current work-from-home status of so much of NPR’s audience has reduced their listenership putting a strain on ad revenue that funds their operations. A pivot might be inevitable, only the ‘R’ in NPR stands for ‘radio.’

Products evolve. 

Naming plays a critical role in how products are positioned. Take for example Nike and Under Armour. Nike is named after the Greek goddess of victory. While many consumers might not appreciate the name’s origin, all Nike products are tied to an aspiration. Under Armour, on the other hand, tied their name to their first product. This leaves consumers questioning every new product. Under Armour makes outerwear?

Campaigns emerge.

By and large, campaign names are actual key messages. But those messages can only go so far. The matter of fact #BlackLivesMatter presents an indisputable idea that isn’t tied to a specific political action. This approach plays well for most campaigns whose 501(c)(3) nonprofit status allows for tax-deductible donations. Stronger statements that drive direct political advocacy require a more stringent 501(c)(4) tax designation. You don’t want to run afoul of the IRS do you? 

Family names stay the same.

Think about the Disneys of the world. Who owns the family name? The business? The heirs? Both? The two aren’t always in sync. Roy’s granddaughter, Abigail Disney, has become very vocal in support of a wealth tax on the 1% and against the re-opening of Disney theme parks in the midst of a coronavirus crisis. These aren’t outrageous points of view, but they fly in the face of an entertainment conglomerate that shies away from having a public point of view on anything. Is Abigail the conscience of an entertainment legacy, or a reputational risk?

What message is your name sending?