Thanks for the update, and the reasons for the name change make s lot of sense
Instinctively i don’t love the new name. The word “coefficient” sounds mathsy/nerdy/complicated, while most people don’t know what the word coefficient actually means. The reasoning behind the name does resonate through and i can understand the appeal.
But my instincts are probably wrong though if you’ve been working with an agency and the team likes it too.
I feel the same. I’m also generally wary when a name (or design) needs extensive reasoning to justify it. Most people will never hear the reasoning, so their gut reaction/ ability to remember it matters more. I’m not sure how the name agency worked, but I’d be more optimistic if I knew the name had been tested with your target audience vs. had a background story that made sense?
Fwiw, I also think the name is a bit complicated, and less memorable than Open Philanthropy. Here the reasoning from the Vox interview:
> Why “coefficient”? As CEO, Alexander Berger, puts it in my conversation with him, “coefficient is a multiplier”: the “co-” nods to collaboration with other givers; the “efficient” is a reminder of the north star of effectiveness.
While we still prioritize openness and sharing our reasoning, these are now part of a broader set of values rather than the centerpiece of our identity.
A coefficient multiplies the value of whatever it’s paired with, just as we aim to amplify impact through our research, grantmaking, and partnerships. “Co” nods to our collaboration with donors and grantees, while “efficient” reflects our unusual focus on cost-effectiveness.
yes i think the name is clever and i like the reasoning that led to it, but the end product “coefficient giving” feels a bit nerdy and clunky and I’m not sure it will have broad appeal.
I don’t think broad appeal is the most important thing, but i think multi millionaire donors would be more likely to join up if public branding and appreciation is good.
As someone who just participated in a name change recently I can assure you the pros and cons of this name with other contenders was probably discussed ad nauseam by the team involved, and they decided on this name despite the nerdy and clunky vibe.
For an org like Coefficient Giving, the name doesn’t matter that much, beyond ensuring they are distinct from nearby organisations, and being memorable. They don’t need to be easily understood from their name. The second you’ve heard what they do, that matters to you much more than their name.
Kind of relevantly—it’s a weird thing with even the most famous podcasts, that you generally can’t guess what a podcast will be (will it be interviews, group discussions, narrative reporting) from its title. This implies that the name doesn’t matter much, as long as it’s memorable enough for word of mouth spread.
Maybe the name doesn’t matter that much, but it will still have some effect. If we’re 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 we’re 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 “cost to change to a better name is basically nothing” 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!)
Totally agree. But I am bothered by a broader trend in startup/organization naming where it’s one nerdy dictionary word: Constellation, Conjecture, Cohere, Covariant, and that’s just the C’s.
They should call it something like, I don’t know, The Dharma Initiative… wait… no…
Thanks for the update, and the reasons for the name change make s lot of sense
Instinctively i don’t love the new name. The word “coefficient” sounds mathsy/nerdy/complicated, while most people don’t know what the word coefficient actually means. The reasoning behind the name does resonate through and i can understand the appeal.
But my instincts are probably wrong though if you’ve been working with an agency and the team likes it too.
All the best for the future Coefficient Giving!
I feel the same. I’m also generally wary when a name (or design) needs extensive reasoning to justify it. Most people will never hear the reasoning, so their gut reaction/ ability to remember it matters more. I’m not sure how the name agency worked, but I’d be more optimistic if I knew the name had been tested with your target audience vs. had a background story that made sense?
Fwiw, I also think the name is a bit complicated, and less memorable than Open Philanthropy. Here the reasoning from the Vox interview:
There are some more details from cG here (also linked in Aaron’s post):
yes i think the name is clever and i like the reasoning that led to it, but the end product “coefficient giving” feels a bit nerdy and clunky and I’m not sure it will have broad appeal.
Do you think CoGi need broad appeal if they’re mainly looking for multi millionaire donors?
The broad appeal applies to multi-millionaires as well. Most multi-millionaires are not into clunky nerd stuff.
I don’t think broad appeal is the most important thing, but i think multi millionaire donors would be more likely to join up if public branding and appreciation is good.
I would think it’s more peer appreciation than public appreciation that matters.
Expecting “cogi ergo multiply” merch now...
I like CoGi...
As someone who just participated in a name change recently I can assure you the pros and cons of this name with other contenders was probably discussed ad nauseam by the team involved, and they decided on this name despite the nerdy and clunky vibe.
Agreed!
My two cents:
For an org like Coefficient Giving, the name doesn’t matter that much, beyond ensuring they are distinct from nearby organisations, and being memorable. They don’t need to be easily understood from their name. The second you’ve heard what they do, that matters to you much more than their name.
Kind of relevantly—it’s a weird thing with even the most famous podcasts, that you generally can’t guess what a podcast will be (will it be interviews, group discussions, narrative reporting) from its title. This implies that the name doesn’t matter much, as long as it’s memorable enough for word of mouth spread.
Maybe the name doesn’t matter that much, but it will still have some effect. If we’re 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 “cost to change to a better name is basically nothing” 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!)
Totally agree. But I am bothered by a broader trend in startup/organization naming where it’s one nerdy dictionary word: Constellation, Conjecture, Cohere, Covariant, and that’s just the C’s.
They should call it something like, I don’t know, The Dharma Initiative… wait… no…