This one is near and dear to my heart, as I am a communications professional AND an association guy at heart. You see, an association to which I belong, by which I have been employed, and with whom I now partner (through my employer) has been wrestling with a movement to change its name for over 20 years now. I won't get on my soapbox about the how and why here. What I would like to do is share my thoughts on the RIGHT WAY to go through a name change for an association, no matter how opinionated or vocal its membership is.
Members of associations seemingly care a lot about the name of the organizations they belong to. And in many, many cases, that makes sense: AARP used to be called by its full name; now it's just AARP. But you know what that stands for, right? The Cellular Telecommunications Industry of America is now CTIA: The Wireless Association. Makes sense. They kept their acronym but added a new name (sort of) to reflect the modern nature of their industry.
But what of associations that choose to refocus on the markets they serve? What if you represent the people who make widgets, but your most invested members are telling you that the industry is evolving in radical ways; that new companies are popping up everywhere, making widgets using new processes, with different materials. And the people leading those companies don't identify with traditional widget makers. What then? How do you position your association in order to attract a broader audience?
The law of association membership (according to John Crosby) is that any radical change to an association's DNA will yield an equal but opposite reaction from the rank-and-file membership. It is what it is. There's not much you can do about it except know your stuff and develop a methodical plan for change.
That process requires research, dialogue with members, more research, and development of a compelling set of strategies that make it clear the rest of the world expects change. To borrow one of my fave quotes from US Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki, "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less."
One thing radical efforts like a name change need is objectivity. Another is sound science. Yet another is expression of a vision - something that rarely comes from groupthink. Are you getting where I'm headed with this? Anything relating to marketing, market strategy, branding, positioning and - dare I say it - name change has subjectivity written all over it. You and I can argue until the cows come home about the right word usage in a name. What we have to rely on is as much objective research and data as we can muster. Then, after all the work is done, a set of filters have to be placed on the process. Legal review, trademarking, market differentiation analysis (i.e., how does this separate us from the rest of the pack?), language review (ask Chevrolet about the Nova)... and many other processes must be completed. And then, you go with your gut and make a decision.
In the case of the association I mentioned at the start of this rant, the membership has to vote for the new name. Their choice is more dramatic than they think. Their vote is not a vote on whether or not they LIKE the new name. Their vote is a referendum on the future of their association. Stay in the past and hope for the best, or grow with the times and adapt like healthy organizations do. "Liking" a new name has nothing to do with it. Wanting to see an association remain a major player in the industry it serves has everything to do with it.
"Relevance is a losing argument," said a dear friend of mine (who also happens to be very smart). No one should ever fight for naming an association so that it remains "relevant." If you want to fight for something, fight for your association to do more to make your future sustainable and healthy - be it a career or a business. At some point, you have to put your trust in the people doing the due diligence and go for it.
