NSPCC Brand Review

Where are we?

The NSPCC is now a year into a newstrategy post-FULL STOP Campaign.

Purpose of the NSPCC Brand review:

To take stock of the NSPCC brand and work out whether it is fit for the future.

Top things to get right in a rebrand

1.!Solve the consumers problemThe most successful rebrands are ones that solve the problem that the consumer has with the brand, (be it issues around clarity, or experience etc).

2.!ConsistencyGet the visual brand and the brand communications in alignment. Transparency (controlled transparency? ie, nuggets of info/strategically planned messages free of dishonesty!) with staff about the stages of development/reasons why the rebrand is happening and training is of ultra importance.

Professional opinion

Graham Hales, chief marketing officer at Interbrand says: “Ultimately, any brand is enacted by its people. You need to consult them and keep them onside to lift it. A brand is only as good as its tangible delivery.”

Tom Greenwood, co-founder of ethical branding consultancy Scamper, agrees that getting staff onside is vital. '”They are powerful ambassadors for any brand, and if they do not buy into it - or, worse still, they resent it - they will pass this message on to customers”.

3. Implementation The brand needs to work on a physical level and needs the Brand Director to know the real cost of implementation. A full view is needed of where the brand changes will need to be (buildings/properties) internal systems and the probable scale of the changes need careful planning.

4. Approach If money is an issue, a gradual restage has a much lower overall marketing investment. The re-branding can be done with a lower budget but requires a significant amount of time to execute gradually over several design/ communications phases. (LOW IMPACT)

If thereʼs a significant budget to execute an intensive rebrand in a short amount of time, then the announcement and execution need to be handled right – first with internal staff.

Lessons from failed rebrands

Go slowly: Rebranding means making changes to the heart of the company and shouldnʼt be taken lightly.

Evolution, not desperate revolution. Itʼs all about getting the balance right – enough to change perception without alienating people.

Online questionnaire for all staff

Action for Children4

Save the Children6

NSPCC6 Barnardo’s

8

Red Cross10

CRUK12

Amnesty13

Macmillan14

Oxfam19

Q 1: Which charity brand (or brands) do you like and trust? (in number of mentions)

What NSPCC staff said about the top four charity brands...

“is innovative and engaging.”

“It portrays people positively and aims to keep the focus of control with those whom it is helping. They also seem to make money go a long way and I appreciate this as donating feels like its good value.”

“long standing presence and clear remit.”

“modern, funky, challenges public perceptions”

“consistently innovative (eg, buy a goat - not afraid to introduce humour to a serious subject area) yet never losing their grip on their actual reason for existing.”

“for moving into new related issues like climate change without causing confusion for their supporters.”

“know exactly what they do and I think they have built their brand well to engage with a younger audience with arms to it such as the Oxjam and the 'be humankind' brands.”

“steeped in history, well respected but forward thinking, innovative, multi-faceted to wide audience.”

“impartial, clear about what they do.”

“strong, you know what they do, and where your donation is going.”

“warm and caring.”

“very clear, family approach, feel part of something, consistent messages.”

“Worlds biggest coffee morning - inspired!”

“I assume that my money will be going to pay for a nurse to care for someone with cancer.”

“interactive and innovative.”

“I feel like I understand what it is that they actually do - what their frontline services are.”

“they are no afraid to say what they believe in and stand up for it.”

“for their brave approach, I was a supporter when I was a student.”

“clear on what their role is, even if its unpopular at times, and they stick to it - they do not try to expand into new areas of work which take them away from main task but seek new ways to fulfil their purpose.”

“they appear at the forefront of their field.”

“it's a worthy cause as it is something that could potentially impact on all of us.”

“work behind the brand, reputation, leading charity, trustworthy.”

“have clear and achievable goals.”

“highly respected and trusted brand as results they achieve through funding are visible. They are user-friendly, interactive and responsive to donors. Their knowledge and expertise provide really valuable information for people affected by cancer.”

BBC4Innocent

4 Nike4

Virgin 4

Cooperative5

Apple7

Waitrose9

M&S10

John Lewis18

Q 2: Which private sector brand (or brands) do you like and trust? (in number of mentions)

What NSPCC staff said about the top four private sector brands...

“Feel they value staff, partnership element. Quality products, good customer services, agin feel they live up to their advertisement.”

“because their quality is reliable, they are knowledgeable about their products and they are democratic - not overly hierarchical and top-down.”

“straightforward, do exactly what they say they will.”

“reliable, consistent, good customer service.”

“Because I have had good and straightforward honest service from them over many years.”

“always good quality, environmentally conscious.”

“where to start, I just love them! They are friendly yet don't try too hard. They are aspirational yet their products are achievable. They are helpful, great customer service and their employees are valued which is really important.”

“they look after their own staff and they have a quality about their products and the services that they provide that leads you to a level of brand trust.”

“all parts of service delivery etc contribute to positive brand image”

“quality, excellent customer service and consistency”

“associate it with simplicity and good quality”

“this brand identity is about quality, simplicity, and customer service. I know that I may be paying more, but I also know that what I am buying will be the best of its type, and I will be looked after as a customer.”

“they have recently rebranded a number of food products to suit current market trends.”

“reliable, high quality, fairly priced, support local producers/farmers.”

“advertise as quality and feel live up to this.”

“Good quality and a good price.”

“they're an older brand that have managed to attract new younger customers because their quality and customer service. They have managed to rebrand themselves (clothing range and food) without sacrificing quality.”

“good quality, trusted feel.”

“history, good quality (particularly the food), environmentally aware.”

“because it does what it says it does and I enjoy using their products.”

“I have become part of the apple revolution!! I like this brand because it thinks of it's customers. It's products are really useful and fun as well as being innovative. It's service is great (eg at apple store- genius bar).”

“reflects a positive fresh, young image”

“Intuitive products that suit a modern lifestyle.”

“Apple = innovation”

“interesting, subtle and represents cutting edge technology - feels clever”

“innovation, leaders in design, quality”

“for their incredible products, at the forefront of their market.”

“Style, innovation”

In feedback from staff, the top-rated charities and private sector brands scored highly on issues around:

*being clear (and consistent)*being honest*being innovative*being brave*being relevant.

*So what did staff say about the NSPCC?

Positive

Negative

clearly identifiable

trustedAspirational

bold

clear

emphatic

ProtectionAction well-known

well meaning

Good

“established”Authoritative

reliable

Trustworthy

well established

“respected”

clear to understand

dignified

clear messages

inspiring

strong heritage

protective child-centered

simple

caring

leader

Familiarfriendly

visible

preventing cruelty

experienced

protector

strong

moralistic

stuffy

matronly

dictatorial

corporate

old fashioned

inflexiblecold

doesnʼt stand out

not catchyoverlooked

blandboring

outdated

formal

opaque (like frosted glass)

sluggish aged

monolithicconfused

datedserious

old

poorly understood

confusingcomplicated

Idealistic

Smug

ConservativeImposing

Big

“national institution”GreenHistorical

Traditionalnational

safe

recognised

sensible

cautiousto the point

Q 3: What word (or words) do you feel best describe the NSPCC brand?

NB: Fairly equal weighting of positive and negative words.

Most of these words were repeated frequently. Markedly, only one member of staff described the NSPCC as “caring”.

Q 4: What are the NSPCC's main brand strengths?

recognisable - as long as the initials NSPCC are prominent

The green colour is very recognisable, strong images of children.

It's to be taken seriously. It's non offensive and safe, and I guess this is how families need to be, so this is important, but the brand could mean more. Also the NSPCC 'Corporate Green' is v well recognised.

The abbreviation 'NSPCC' is well known, even if people cannot recite all the words in it. The green dot is well associated with the NSPCC now.

Well recognised. Symbol of protection. over 100 years old, hardly changed.

Full stop 'dot' easily recognisable doesn't need explanationChildLine brand - good coverage and recognition with adults and children

Green full stop is iconic and easily recognisable. Strapline is ambitious and sets out a vision that is clear and easy to understand. People don't need to know what we do to sign up to that vision.

very recognisable logo, clear purpose in publics mind and the ChildLine number which is widely known by children.

People have lived with the NSPCC brand and see it as somewhere that they can go to seek change to children's lives, or to ask what involvement we have to stop high profile cases of abuse.

credibility and good track record, expertise

The colour. It's long history - most people have heard of it even if they don't know what we do.

RecognitionNationwide reach/relevanceThe size of the charity - makes the brand more powerful

Recognition. Gravitas.

That it's been around for years. It is well regarded by the public.

Its connections the way it is considered a key part of the architecture of child protectionIts institutional solidity

The logo

Easily recognisable, unique

recognition, trust, belief in what we stand for

I was a supporter long before I worked here and was always impressed by the innovative way NSPCC corresponded and contacted supporters.

People are used to it as it has been in place for so long

Q 5: What are the NSPCC's main brand weaknesses?

I feel the lettering may be old fashioned or boring. But at the same time it is respectable and strong.

A bit dated and austere

Publicity misrepresents what we actually do.Recent changes are fundamental and make it a new organisation. Outdated

I feel the lettering may be old fashioned or boring. But at the same time it is respectable and strong.

not always clear about what we do, fails to acknowledge the essential working in partnership with statutory providers.

Nobody knows what we do - they still think we take away poor abused children.

Too easily confused with other acronyms - NCP car parks, RSPCAStrapline - no one remembers this. Doesn't mean anything to children/young people. Nothing visual that communicates what we do (unlike former ChildLine logo, for example).

too inflexible, not accessible to those with special needs, not child friendly, doesn't reflect what we do - just our aspiration, does not include an active verb for action (e.g. it's your responsibility to stop it)

Not very strong visually, doesn't make attractive merchandise, not very representative of children

The knowledge of what lies behind the brand is poor. The general public know that we look out for children and young people but they do not, on the whole, know how we do this.

Not seen as dynamic, public confusion re: Children First/Childline/Helpline, not enough understanding of what the Society does, dated logo.

I think the NSPCC brand is quite confused. A lot of the adverts on TV focus on work that the NSPCC does not do ie front line child protection. People are giving money to help the NSPCC do work it does not do, this is a very confused brand message.

Lack of flexibility

Brand is not understood by the organisation. As staff the things we say and do are part of the brand. Lack of respect between functions undermines the brand. We spend most of our money saying things that are not true.

Its perceived arrogance, lack of willingness to be questioned (like a fierce but well meaning old aunt) and fustiness.

public apathy/weariness/lack of a fresh image. lack of transparency over what the charity achieves.

Nobody knows what we actually do! Therefore people's commitment is often quite vague and if people want more detail then they support smaller charities or those with tangible projects

Senior level staff say:

Lower level staff say:

“A lot of people for a long time believe in the NSPCC because they think weʼre doing something weʼre not”

“Very good at selling a story, but thereʼs a disconnect between the perception of us and what we actually do”

“One tool we need is the ability to say that whatʼs difficult to say and not apologise for it… To agree that to further our aims you have to say something quite unpopular.”

“Itʼs fundamental deception of the public.”

“The organisation is scared about debating.”

“Rolls Royce in ambition, Ford Escort in delivery.”

“To appear not to have an opinion or be stirred up by things is not helpful for us.”

“We have very much focused on the design as opposed to the personality, therefore I think weʼve sent out mixed messages”

“In terms of brand and accessibility and audience coming to us, the feedback and general perception is that itʼs quite chaotic and hard to find a way to what you want…Weʼve created different brands – a good example is Inform, weʼve created another thing – why? Why do we want to promote something else?”

“public apathy/weariness/lack of a fresh image. lack of transparency over what the charity achieves.”

Nobody knows what we do - they still think we take away poor abused children.

Not seen as dynamic, public confusion re: Children First/Childline/Helpline, not enough understanding of what the Society does, dated logo.

“recognition, trust, belief in what we stand for” “Public believe that NSPCC are the key charity for protecting children, long standing positive reputation, respected and regarded by public in terms of what we deliver and as someone to give donations to.”

“it's been around for years. It is well regarded by the public.”

credibility and good track record, expertise

Q 6: Does the current brand reflect our strategy to 2016 and why/why not?

Donʼt know/undecidedYes No

“Difficult to tell”“no- there a mismatch between messages to donors , and what services do”

“No, I feel it needs to be more inclusive of all the areas we intend to cover and reflect the support we offer.”

“I think the brand would benefit from refreshing to better convey our strategy to 2016 , to demonstrate that we have learnt from the strategy so far but that we are now implementing new lessons and a new phase of focus. I think this would also let the public know that we are developing and moving forward with our campaigns.”

“Yes, in the sense that it is about ending cruelty to children but I think we need a much clearer articulation of how we are going to get there.”

“yes and no”

“Yes because our mission to end cruelty to children remains the same.”

“Partly, think brand is associated with particular vulnerable groups such as under 1 etc. Think we could better reflect the broadness of strategy, better emphasis on work in schools, promotion of helplines etc”

“It does, but maybe needs to demonstrate more what our objectives are and how we are actually helping children.”

“yes - the public don't need to know the strategy in detail as long as they buy into the overall aim.”

“Not sure yet. Not good feeling from supporters, volunteers and staff managing this.”

“Possibly not. However i strongly feel that the strapline and the green dot is so strong that it covers our whole mission.”

“No. We need something that reflects our wish to be pioneering and innovative and through this, have a positive greater impact on the lives of children. Different colour would help (lovely shade of green but does research on colour show that this is associated with innovation and the energy of ending cruelty to children?”“Yes. Because the strategy

goes back to the basics of the NSPCC's aim.”

“Its doesn't suggest we will challenge anyone, nor innovate. There is little to suggest bold and courageous campaigning. There is no radical edge, no anger.”

“Yes- though if anything isn't relevant, it would be the strapline.”

“In some respects but word 'cruelty' seems an outdated word.”

Green FULL STOP15

Strapline 18

“NSPCC”58

Q 7: Please pick the one element that you feel is most important to the brand.

Despite staff saying the “FULL STOP” is strongly associated with the NSPCC in Q4 (brand strengths), staff identified little difference in importance between the FULL STOP and the strapline.

Number of mentions

BBRBuddyC&G

CPSUCTAIL

CVAChildLineCL RocksFreshStart

LFSListen Ere

NSPCC HelplineInform

Training & ConsultancyNumber Day

Pedal PushSafe Network

SILSStop for tea

Stop organised abuseTeam Go

Safe Place Appeal

0 45 90

1332

920

02127

1620

065

1038

1615

8640

2131

1414

37

Q8: Which of these do you think are brands?

Of the number of staff that responded, almost a third did not view the NSPCC Helpline as a brand.

Staff also said:

“the £2 a month adverts are now an object of parody and perhaps a fresh look needs to be taken at our advertising and media strategy to make it more contemporary and relevant which would in turn make it more successful given the difficult economic times in which we currently live.”

“I personally feel that whilst 'Cruelty to children must stop. FULL STOP' is a worthy sentiment and one to which society should aspire, it is however wholly unattainable, I can foresee no situation in which every child in the UK will ever be safe from cruelty.”

“I think the NSPCC brand is extremely important and am proud to be part of an organisation that recognises that importance. However, it shouldn't become a 'barrier to fundraising' which I feel it has in recent months.”

“Through experience in my roles within ChildLine I have received feedback from members of the public that the isolated emphasis on fundraising has led people to become 'unaware about what the NSPCC actually does', 'not trusting the service', 'language used is patronising' - leaving them feeling reluctant to donate money.”

“I started this survey thinking 'why change' but now I think that only 'NSPCC' should remain, given the link of the strapline and the Full Stop to the previous strategy. I do think the strapline should include 'cruelty' though. Perhaps having 'NSPCC' with a strapline of 'Ending cruelty to children'”

“I think this is a great time to be revamping the brand.”

“I donʼt think people really understand brand and whether it is the same as our values and behaviours. We need to make the link between what happens internally, and the brand as we want the external world to experience us (though surely the internal and external experience should link up and be broadly the same?)”

“The strategy to 2016 gives us new energy and direction: Not convinced everyone agrees we are going in the right direction. Making the strategy happen seems to be draining the organisation, with high profile departures, depleting energy rather than feeding it.”

Senior staff said:

“I really think we canʼt make ourselves blander. I donʼt think we should be raucous, but we canʼt go blander - donʼt dumb it down”

“When I see gurgling children on the cover of an annual report or deliberately different ethnic groups I think more of a Benetton advert”

“The heart and the soul has to be there. If we havenʼt got that, then weʼre just seen as corporate.”

“There is a thin line between arrogant and proud, and I think we ought to be proud and robust in saying back to people, ʻBring it on!ʼ Because so what, we have created an agenda which is different now to what it was 10 or 11 years ago, it is completely different as a result of that. Weʼve led that. We havenʼt got it all right, but we have led it. And we still havenʼt solved it. But are we further forward – yes!”

“Some people are bought into ending cruelty to children and donʼt need anything deeper than that.”

Opposing views

While all levels of staff agree on some issues (public awareness = high v understanding of our work = low), there is confusion and polarisation at all levels over:

*what our brand is (brand v branding, or culture v logo)*what our audience thinks.

Itʼs the last point that is fundamental to getting the rebrand right. Understanding our audience and communicating this to staff will help us to overcome internal opposition to change. But we have to do this slowly and carefully.

* “(staff) are powerful ambassadors for any brand, and if they do not buy into it - or, worse still, they resent it - they will pass this message on to customers.”