For an org like Coefficient Giving, the name doesnât matter that much, beyond ensuring they are distinct from nearby organisations, and being memorable. They donât need to be easily understood from their name. The second youâve heard what they do, that matters to you much more than their name.
Kind of relevantlyâitâs a weird thing with even the most famous podcasts, that you generally canât guess what a podcast will be (will it be interviews, group discussions, narrative reporting) from its title. This implies that the name doesnât matter much, as long as itâs memorable enough for word of mouth spread.
Maybe the name doesnât matter that much, but it will still have some effect. If weâre still early on in the name change process then the cost to change to a better name is basically nothing. So the cost-effectiveness of getting it right is actually extremely high.
If weâre still early on in the name change process then the cost to change to a better name is basically nothing.
I think the point where the âcost to change to a better name is basically nothingâ has long past, at the point where they have published a brand new set of digital assets, done journalist interviews, etc. :)
(I am expecting the new name is going to stick around!)
My two cents:
For an org like Coefficient Giving, the name doesnât matter that much, beyond ensuring they are distinct from nearby organisations, and being memorable. They donât need to be easily understood from their name. The second youâve heard what they do, that matters to you much more than their name.
Kind of relevantlyâitâs a weird thing with even the most famous podcasts, that you generally canât guess what a podcast will be (will it be interviews, group discussions, narrative reporting) from its title. This implies that the name doesnât matter much, as long as itâs memorable enough for word of mouth spread.
Maybe the name doesnât matter that much, but it will still have some effect. If weâre still early on in the name change process then the cost to change to a better name is basically nothing. So the cost-effectiveness of getting it right is actually extremely high.
I think the point where the âcost to change to a better name is basically nothingâ has long past, at the point where they have published a brand new set of digital assets, done journalist interviews, etc. :)
(I am expecting the new name is going to stick around!)