Thanks for sharing your groups’ experience Koen. I’m sympathetic to the idea that “Effective Altruism” wasn’t the best choice of name, and I agree it is very important for any translations of the name to be done thoughtfully as the most obvious translation isn’t always going to work well.
My own belief (I’m not speaking for CEA) is that there is a big advantage of having a consistent brand and worldwide recognisable network, so even if “effective altruism” wasn’t the best choice initially, since it is the name we use now there is a cost to deviating from it that we shouldn’t ignore. The ideal in my mind would be if in each language had a carefully selected agreed upon name that EA groups operating in that language use. My guess is that it is probably better to have a not-perfect name that everyone uses, than a whole variety of different names. (I don’t think “effective altruism” is bad enough for us to want to change the English speaking groups’ names, but evidence could well change my mind on that).
You mentioned one possible cost to not having this consistent brand (folks interested in EA not finding you). Another is if people google “PISE” or “Positive Impact Society” after seeing or hearing something about your group, they won’t find the ideas and network that the group is based on, making the group appear less substantial and valuable than it actually is. The subtitle idea would help a bit if “effective altruism” was written in full and was obvious enough that folks would notice it and google that too. Another cost is that there are people who hear “effective altruism” several times in several places before deciding to learn more/ get involved, so each exposure of that name (as long as it is positive!) helps.
Some years back we did have several different names for EA groups: “effective altruism”, “80,000 Hours”, “Giving What We Can” (and “The Life You Can Save” however they were just global poverty focused). These groups did very similar things to each other, but had different names it felt messy and confusing, so I was pleased when these became more consistent.
I’m not sure how much my preferences here are because of the usefulness of a consistent brand, a personal aesthetic preference, or due to the fact that I explain the EA ecosystem to a lot of newcomers and the more names there are the more complex this explanation becomes!
My experience in business matches two of the points that Catherine makes above:
My guess is that it is probably better to have a not-perfect name that everyone uses, than a whole variety of different names.
and
Another cost is that there are people who hear “effective altruism” several times in several places before deciding to learn more/ get involved, so each exposure of that name (as long as it is positive!) helps.
My current view is that:
Consistent usage can be much more relevent for a brand’s success than its intrinsic characteristics. I can imagine the team at early-days Google discussing whether they should rebrand to something easier to write for X-language-speakers and more understandable for the average user.
It is easy to overestimate the potential of an imaginary, shiny new brand and underestimate the value of your current imperfect brand. This may be one of those things that you only notice when it is no longer there (e.g. people leave a company believing that it was “just and empty shell”and that they were what made it valuable… only to find out that it is much harder to get clients when that well-known logo is no longer on your slides).
If anything, I would say that one of the weaknesses of Effective Altruism (purely from a branding perspective) is that its brand landscape is already super-diverse (e.g. there is GiveWell, ACE, Open Phil, Founders Pledge, GWWC, 80,000 Hours, etc., etc. each pushing their own brand). This does make sense since each of the organizations I mention is applying effective altruism to a particular space or situation. However, when it comes to local groups, I tend to think that the EA movement as a whole has much more to gain from consistency.
Ben mentions in his comment how independent brands can reduce brand risk for EA, which is true. However, I think they can also reduce brand potential for EA (this is more of a side note, but I think that whenever we consider minimizing reputational risks we should also consider the opportunity costs of not doing something or doing it in the cautious-but-probably-less-impactful version).
I think that if we want to make the EA brand better (more meaningful, attractive, easily recognizable, etc.), simply using it consistently will go a long way.
Thanks for sharing your groups’ experience Koen. I’m sympathetic to the idea that “Effective Altruism” wasn’t the best choice of name, and I agree it is very important for any translations of the name to be done thoughtfully as the most obvious translation isn’t always going to work well.
My own belief (I’m not speaking for CEA) is that there is a big advantage of having a consistent brand and worldwide recognisable network, so even if “effective altruism” wasn’t the best choice initially, since it is the name we use now there is a cost to deviating from it that we shouldn’t ignore. The ideal in my mind would be if in each language had a carefully selected agreed upon name that EA groups operating in that language use. My guess is that it is probably better to have a not-perfect name that everyone uses, than a whole variety of different names. (I don’t think “effective altruism” is bad enough for us to want to change the English speaking groups’ names, but evidence could well change my mind on that).
You mentioned one possible cost to not having this consistent brand (folks interested in EA not finding you). Another is if people google “PISE” or “Positive Impact Society” after seeing or hearing something about your group, they won’t find the ideas and network that the group is based on, making the group appear less substantial and valuable than it actually is. The subtitle idea would help a bit if “effective altruism” was written in full and was obvious enough that folks would notice it and google that too. Another cost is that there are people who hear “effective altruism” several times in several places before deciding to learn more/ get involved, so each exposure of that name (as long as it is positive!) helps.
Some years back we did have several different names for EA groups: “effective altruism”, “80,000 Hours”, “Giving What We Can” (and “The Life You Can Save” however they were just global poverty focused). These groups did very similar things to each other, but had different names it felt messy and confusing, so I was pleased when these became more consistent.
I’m not sure how much my preferences here are because of the usefulness of a consistent brand, a personal aesthetic preference, or due to the fact that I explain the EA ecosystem to a lot of newcomers and the more names there are the more complex this explanation becomes!
My experience in business matches two of the points that Catherine makes above:
and
My current view is that:
Consistent usage can be much more relevent for a brand’s success than its intrinsic characteristics. I can imagine the team at early-days Google discussing whether they should rebrand to something easier to write for X-language-speakers and more understandable for the average user.
It is easy to overestimate the potential of an imaginary, shiny new brand and underestimate the value of your current imperfect brand. This may be one of those things that you only notice when it is no longer there (e.g. people leave a company believing that it was “just and empty shell”and that they were what made it valuable… only to find out that it is much harder to get clients when that well-known logo is no longer on your slides).
If anything, I would say that one of the weaknesses of Effective Altruism (purely from a branding perspective) is that its brand landscape is already super-diverse (e.g. there is GiveWell, ACE, Open Phil, Founders Pledge, GWWC, 80,000 Hours, etc., etc. each pushing their own brand). This does make sense since each of the organizations I mention is applying effective altruism to a particular space or situation. However, when it comes to local groups, I tend to think that the EA movement as a whole has much more to gain from consistency.
Ben mentions in his comment how independent brands can reduce brand risk for EA, which is true. However, I think they can also reduce brand potential for EA (this is more of a side note, but I think that whenever we consider minimizing reputational risks we should also consider the opportunity costs of not doing something or doing it in the cautious-but-probably-less-impactful version).
I think that if we want to make the EA brand better (more meaningful, attractive, easily recognizable, etc.), simply using it consistently will go a long way.