Yes this is a blog about Cancer Research UK’s re-brand... but it’s not a typical analysis. Others have done this already and there’s not much I can add to what’s already been shared (a quick Google search will show you what I mean).
Instead I want to focus on the absence of outrage which I find hugely interesting. Previous high profile charity rebranding exercises have come under criticism from the sector and donors alike as being at best a vanity exercise and at worst a waste of donors’ funds.
I was reading the tweets from the very useful @marketingdonut team and was pleased to see them share renowned marketing expert Drayton Bird’s “35 things I have found to be almost always true”. I was pleased to see it again as I didn’t get the chance to add to the list from a not-for-profit perspective... something I aim to put right below for the most impactful of Mr Bird’s points:
Relevance matters more than originality – 100% agree but originality tends to get more cut-through than cliché
The most important element in any creative endeavour is the brief – ie; the robust thinking that went into it and how the organisation can articulate that to an outsider
The urgent takes precedence over the important – but a mixture of both is likely to be the right thing to do (if your plans are robust, that is)
The customer you want is like the customer you’ve got – so true... but as well as the new types of donor, volunteer or supporter, not instead of!
The internet is just accelerated direct marketing – I think it's more than DM these days. Perhaps it’s just a hugely powerful means to achieving a whole raft of objectives (including traditional direct marketing)?
Inspired by many disappointing purchases, umpteen instances of terrible customer service plus a plethora of generally weird and/or wonderful occurrences, I thought it would be cathartic for me, and
much I can add to what’s already been shared (a 
