An overwhelming proportion of the respondents to the poll on this website do not approve of the planned change of the name of BIRDS magazine to ‘Nature’s Home’.
The final results were 66 (12%) in favour and 497 (88%) against the change .
When the poll started, the first 13 votes were ‘no’, and I wondered whether the ‘yes’ button was working. 563 votes were cast. Although votes are still coming in, the percentages haven’t changed much for the last 250 votes, so it seemed sensible to give feedback as quickly as possible.
I have been surprised, as others have said too, at the vehemence of the response to this proposed change – it’s just the name on a magazine. The discussion, and indeed the previous poll, about the RSPB’s TV advert was a much milder discussion.
It would take a lot more than a magazine name-change to put me off the RSPB, which is still, at the moment, the best nature conservation organisation in the UK. However, I think that many loyal members, and keen conservationists, will watch the RSPB very closely over the next year or so hoping that it does not lose its way or lose its voice.
[registration_form]
Mark, my instinct if I were in a senior role at RSPB would be to stick with a strong & solid brand that ‘does what it says on the tin’ and keep ‘Birds’, but the readers of your Blog are probably by and large a) birders b) committed to conservation in some way and c) probably all of a certain age & background. If the RSPB rebrand is a well thought trough and effective strategy for broadening awareness and engagement then it needs a degree of support, but my hunch is it’s probably a step too far and experience shows this sort of change is often reversed.
Jim
Mark, the RSPB could be stuck in a ‘no man’s land’, between going too far or not far enough. It may depend upon whether, to borrow another war-laden phrase, this is merely the end of the beginning. Change is inevitable, a successful result is less so.
Graeme – change is inevitable, I agree
I have been involved in PR and marketing for 25 years, and was part of the team that led the BTO recent rebrand. In business if you have to do change it’s sometimes better to do it all at once and get past it, but although this is a business, its stakeholders are very sensitive to change.
The smart move, in my opinion would be to change it to BIRDS AND NATURE, to reflect the inclusion of other material.
Keith – thanks, interesting suggestion
Perhaps it reflects the bird centric view of many Rspb members. Or perhaps it’s just a rubbish name….
I voted early and, instinctively, no. I stand by my vote but it’s about the name which is too bland and doesn’t represent the true objectives of the RSPB.
Reading Sir John Lawton’s guest blog for Martin Harper today gives an excellent oversight of what the RSPB is really about. His review of the scientific work of the RSPB concerning many aspects of conservation is illuminating and very positive.
What I can’t come up with is a specific name and I haven’t seen any that I would support so far! But I think change is inevitable and the way that RSPB is moving is the right way and I agree with Mark that it is ‘the best wildlife nature conservation in the UK’ and this is a way for the RSPB not to lose it’s voice.
Richard – thanks. I notice, thanks to you, that I missed out the word ‘organisation’ in what i wrote, and what you quoted, so I’ve now added it! I can’t come up with a great name either but that doesn’t mean we should accept a poor one.
ps perhaps ‘Nature’s Voice’ is better, but has it already been taken?
Richard – I’d like Nature’s Voice. It harks back to the ‘old’ RSPB strapline though, so might be thought to be a step backwards. And it has the danger of sounding a bit like it is the RSPB taking over the world – so might be seen as insensitive. Even with those provisos it seems a better choice to me than Nature’s Home.
Mark, I am one of the multitude of “No” voters. If the name has to change and omit any express reference to “Birds”, I would also prefer “Nature’s Voice”, however, I think that Keith Betton’s suggestion of “Birds and Nature” would be better. “Birds” magazine is primarily a magazine for the RSPB’s members, the vast majority of whom, like me, probably joined first and foremost because they are birdwatchers. Did the RSPB sound out its members before deciding to make the change? Given the overwhelming result of your poll I find it hard to believe that the members were consulted, or if they were, that their views were given sufficient weight.
Simon – many thanks.
With the majority of the membership buying the Telegraph and voting Conservative it seems ‘actions should speak louder than words’ but with the first £million fine + costs for damaging an SSSI you would ask the question ‘Do they really care?’ because if the land owner had damaged moorland he would have got away with it!
Having slept on this one, I still feel that this is a big mistake. Why did I join the RSPB? Because I am an avid birder and bird lover who valued the society’s aims of conservation, which went beyond just birds. The protection of vulnerable habitats, research and worldwide education programmes are all admirable. I now wonder what it is that the RSPB feels it needs to change?
The new magazine name is not a passionate statement as ‘Birds’ was. Is it a precursor of a name change and new direction for the society? I ask that because it surely makes it more difficult to sustain the RSPB as a charity with birds at its heart if our members’ publication is a different ‘beast’ altogether.
One thing that bothers me is that it does not seem to matter what we think. Your poll simply asked whether we like the name and my response is a resounding ‘no’. However, it did not ask whether we supported the idea of a name change (at least that was my interpretation) generally. If the first answer prompted a resounding ‘no’ then the second would prompt a resounding ‘yes’. I like Keith’s suggestion very much ‘Birds and Nature’ pays homage to tradition although a small thought, does it imply ‘Birds’ and ‘Nature’ have amalgamated? My suggestion to fit in with the re-branding would be ‘Your World of Wildlife’. What concerns me was the reaction from RSPB staff elsewhere and whilst it may not have been intended that way the praise for someone advocating support seemed like a ‘yah boo sucks!’ reaction to anyone who expressed doubt. I am sorry to be critical because they will doubtless recognise themselves but this is an attitude perception that has plagued the RSPB on and off for years.
Back in my student days over 20 years ago I remember one of my fellow students heavily criticising the RSPB (in a lunchtime chat) for culling gulls and ‘playing God’. From the reaction of others in the group, it seemed many shared a similar impression irrespective of whether it is correct or not. To be honest, I had and still have an open mind, which having worked at The Lodge is exactly the right way to be. Yet, most of the public will never have this luxury and to be treated like our opinions do not count is a bit off-putting. OK, the swing side is that the public also think they should dictate policy too and that is clearly not practical either. Despite the fact that quite a few people are involved in policy-making, the RSPB does get things wrong although this is admittedly rare. It is only fair to examine this in a bit more detail and I suppose the classic example is wind farms. I know what the policy is and it has only slightly changed in its finer details but a look at Facebook and various forums suggests most people are not at all familiar what the society position is. Indeed, I have talked to many volunteers and they are equally in the dark to the point that I have heard open criticism of the policy. I know of examples where the RSPB quietly changed its position – fair enough, in the light of new information – yet failed completely to acknowledge that their original position was wrong. I am sorry everyone but even though I know what is behind the processes this is the one thing that drives the public mad because it really does seem arrogant from the outside.
OK, let’s end on a song so to speak. We should be clear that the RSPB is arguably THE best of the conservation NGOs in the UK. I say this merely because others like WWT and Butterfly Conservation have a more limited remit and not as a reflection of their excellent work. Perhaps the Wildlife Trusts should be pushing for this accolade but I am not sure the regional aspect works quite as well as it should do and some areas/counties are inevitably better served and supported than others. Membership figures pretty much prove this idea anyway and that includes in difficult times for everyone yet I want to advance an idea that occurred to me when I was still working at the RSPB. The Football Association has been around for more than a century now and given the game’s popularity, we would be forgiven for thinking it will be around forever. The RSPB is only marginally younger and within the lifetime of most people, it has been the premier conservation organisation in the UK in terms of membership. Yet, it is a little over two generations since the RSPB emerged into a class of its own and I began to have niggling fears that a trend in public sympathies could be disastrous. Believe it or not, I am sure there will come a day when football will cease to be as relevant to everyone and it is ill-equipped to deal with that idea. The RSPB is much more flexible and there is no reason why it cannot change. As I have pointed out elsewhere and on this blog, it is no accident that Springwatch is attracting audiences far in excess of the RSPB’s membership. Therefore, the re-branding change is a fantastic idea and we should all wish them luck. I am sure Mark Ward will continue to produce a great magazine after only relatively recently stepping into the very big shoes of Rob Hume and I am sure I will enjoy the content on a different level than I have in the past. Like several others on this blog, it is just the name I do not like – sorry!
I didn’t vote but keep up-to-date with the blog via Richard. My objection to ‘Nature’s Home’ is that it sounds bland and twee – it reminds me of my late grandmother’s favourite magazine ‘People’s Friend’. I want an organisation fighting for nature to show its teeth, not knit a tea cosy.
Lyn – I like the cut of your jib!
I think the problem is that on this occasion the rspb is reflecting a change in strapline rather than reflecting the organisation. As Alan Cranston indicated the other day the straplines quite rightly change on a regular basis and if in 2 years time there is a need to change that approach the organisation will still be there. ‘Birds’ reflects that organisation. The Magazine didn’t change its title to RSPB’s Voice or going back further Birds and People. Pick up Birds and it tells you one thing, it is a magazine of the RSPB. Pick up Nature’s Home and I am not sure what it says. My wife thought it was a Bird Food advertising magazine. I started off being slightly ambivalent about the name but, whilst accepting Keith Betton’s view, do seem to be coming to the conclusion they might have got this wrong. Nature’s Voice does make more sense but it still lacks that immediate association.
Yes, yes, yes! Well put Bob.
I think we are dealing with a much deeper problem, here, than merely the name of the magazine, though I do think “Nature’s Home” is rather old-fashioned and feeble. I agree with Lyn Ebbs, the suggested new name does seem redolent of hand-knitted tea cosies, rather than an organisation which is prepared to defend birds and their habitats from the forces of destruction.
The trouble seems to be that because it is the biggest and richest of our wildlife NGOs, the RSPB is having an attack of hubris, and appears to wish to elbow all the others out of the way. It doesn’t matter if this is at least partially an exaggeration, this is how it appears. I know from personal experience that the Wildlife Trusts, Butterfly Conservation and many other smaller groups have many very knowledgeable and enthusiastic members and staff. If the RSPB can employ more scientists and paid Conservation Officers than these, it should be seeking partnerships and cooperation, not lording it over its smaller brethren. As well as the hundreds of thousands of people who feed birds in their garden (as I do), we also need those with a passion for saproxylic beetles or identifying difficult microspecies of hawkweed. The latter find a home in the smaller NGOs and contribute greatly to our knowledge of the UK’s ecosystems. I am sure that all these specialists also care greatly for nature at large, just as the RSPB does, but each organisation should focus primarily on its own field, and then work together to defend whole ecosystems on a local or landscape scale.
I hope the RSPB will remember that hubris is usually followed by nemesis, return to its primary concern with birds, and be a friend and guide to smaller NGOs, not a threat. I am sure that our wildlife will benefit from having many specialised voices when the needs arise. Oh – and please continue to call the magazine “Birds”.
How about: “Birds & Beyond” or “Birds without Borders” to reflect the wider scope of the RSPB? I’d like “RSPB Wildlife” magazine, but perhaps this treads on too many toes. The PR folk seem to like Nature as a word, but “Nature’s Home” is twee as Lyn says. “Nature’s Guardian” maybe? I know, “The Raptor”! Now that’s a magazine kids will pick up and it sounds hawkish alright…
The Raptor is a nice name but I fear it would play into the hands of those who – incorrectly – claim the RSPB only cares about birds of prey. The tweed and twelve-bore fraternity would doubtless try and use such a naming decision by the rspb to peddle the notion (as they already do) that the organisation doesn’t have a balanced view of nature and is misguided in opposing culls (‘legal’ or otherwise) of sparrow hawks, buzzards, etc.
Jonathan – it does have a bite to it, at least.
I am really disturbed by the RSPB’s recent loss of focus.
They are presenting themselves as a generic “nature” group, all fluff and cuteness, no hard science.
The recent “Homes” campaign is the most visible symptom, and a magazine name-change would be another bad move, but the change has been happening more subtly for some time.
My local reserve is Minsmere, flagship of the organisation, which has recently had a major make-over. The result is impressive at a casual glance, but more worrying on reflection:
The shop now sells a tiny fraction of the birding books that it used to. The shop is much larger, but sells lots of ornaments with bugs on, pretty gardening tools etc.
They have hired an educationalist, but I’ve ear-wigged on several visiting school groups, and they are always talking about, or looking for, invertebrates and mammals. I did encounter a group of primary school children in a hide, but the teacher with them told me they were just “filling time until they got onto the proper activities at the pond”, and the chap with them with an RSPB logo on his shirt just nodded!
Spread changes like this across the organisation, across the country, and you end up with an entity thst doesn’t really know what it is, overlapping its activities with other groups that have been established in the public perceptions in those other areas for decades.
If they keep on like this, I for one will be cancelling my membership, and focussing on organisations where I *know* that my money and efforts will actually benefit birds, like the BTO.
Kiteman, I hope you have read John Lawton’s blog today and also ‘State of Nature 2013’ to understand the broader activities of the rspb and how they work with other organizations
Children love getting out in the countryside but my experience with groups of youngsters under 10 or so is that they enjoy pond dipping and sweep netting because they can see animals close up. An interest in birds comes later. Get involved, become a volunteer and then you can make a positive contribution!
Kiteman – which RSPB are you referring to as “all fluff and cuteness, no hard science?” Presumably not the same RSPB that is, for example, taking the UK government to the European Court over Walshaw Moor, helped secure the conviction of a gamekeeper for beating two buzzards to death with a stick, is helping save vultures on the Indian subcontinent from certain extinction and is with its partners fighting to reverse the catastrophic decline in the many threatened species of albatross resulting from long line fishing?
All of which incidentally I learnt about, as an RSPB member, from reading Birds magazine.
there are 2 underlying problems here.
one is that people don’t like change, no matter what the change is if you make one then a large proportion of the population will run round crying the sky is falling down and the earth is about to end.
the second one is people who aren’t directly involved in conservation, don’t actually understand, that in order to keep a bird alive you have to conserve it’s ecosystem in it’s entirety, so are incapable of making the intellectual leap between helping birds and looking after a woodlouse
Jason – thanks for your comment.
“shop is much larger, but sells lots of ornaments with bugs on, pretty gardening tools etc.”
They’ve had the Disneyfiers in
What I dislike is the rspb concentrating on the stupid thing like changing the mag name whichever name they came up with was a unnecessary distraction as is all the other nature things they just want to publicise to get more subs(we all know and understand they have been doing things and they are all connected)while we have birds such as Hen Harriers and Turtle Doves plus many more they could have spent that time and money on to better effect.The bottom line about the high average age of members is we all have more time when we retire to do things we missed out on.Surely the high intellectuals at rspb should have realised this along time ago.
The onlooker sees all?
Surely Shirley – Mark’s poll says more about HIM and his FOLLOWERS than it does about the RSPB – however –
Right or wrong I thought the TV ad very professional – and the RSPB undeserving of the quality – ie it projected the RSPB as better than it really is – but nothing wrong with that!
This of course hides the (hidden?) ambition of the RSPB / Nature (finance-driven – not mission-driven) organisation that you are all members of and are supportive of (?)
STRATEGY comes before logos, title, straplines adverts etc
Somebody appears to have left somebody else behind in the whole process! Why not take the old Conservation Director with you?
When ‘BFSS’ moved to ‘Countryside Alliance’ it was simpler and obvious – RSPB? No so!
The RSPB follows the money – raptors and the like – this is no different!
Ahem!
Well I pressed the “no” button despite not even being a member. Why? Wel unlike what is refered to in Jason second part of his comment, even though I’m not directly or even indirectly involved in conservation I DO understand for a bird to survive it has to have a complete eco-system but my “issue” with both the advert and the title change of the magazine is the cost involved. Already it has been remarked on here, by yourself Mark rumour has the advert cost £2 million pounds, what the simple change of title for the magazine, cost for that would be no doubt a focus group/market research, changes at the print etc. This has come from members donations so when members question the changes they have a right (if though some on here seem to think they don’t) to do so. HOW MUCH OF A HOME CAN YOU BUILD FOR £2 MILLION POUNDS?
But no-one on the comments has pointed the negative effect of increased membership. Some of those “new” members will want to visit the many nature reserves the RSPB have. For those who live near one of the RSPB’s reserves thats not a problem but many will not live within walking disatnce and have to travel by car to visit and isn’t that just a bit daft to encourage people to jump into a car, burn some eco-friendly petrol just to visit a nature reserve? Dare I say a bit hypocritical?
I voted No, but I guess I am pretty conservative: after all, I read the Telegraph, wear tweed and use a 12 bore…
In all seriousness, I hope this topic is raised at the AGM later this year; the strength of feeling revealed by your poll certainly suggests that the powers that be should be challenged about it. Indeed, however well choreographed the meeting is, I wonder whether the proposal in the Agenda to amend the Royal Charter to reflect the RSPB’s new broader approach will be a complete shoo-in.
Lazywell – I guess you are pretty conservative really. I’ve always felt bad that I can’t usually do the Telegraph crossword, as Evelyn Waugh, I seem to remember, described it as the last refuge of a lazy mind. But since I can’t find that quote on t’internet maybe I shouldn’t feel so bad after all. What do you think?
I think you can reassure yourself – as if you were in any doubt – that you don’t have a lazy mind.
Intrigued as to what Evelyn Waugh would have made of you otherwise; and vice versa. And I dare say PG Wodehouse would have found an entertaining role for you too.
You can build a very big home for £2 million pounds.
But the idea is that you can build an even bigger one if you invest the £2 million in gaining even more support.
The figures may be slightly wrong but Macmillan Cancer spent not far short of £20 million on their rebrand and major campaign. The result? They brought in around £80 million.
Charities need to be allowed to spend money on generating money. We are obsessed with them spending purely on “charitable aims”.
On the same scale as above, Let’s hope that the £2 million that wasn’t spent on that home for nature provides at least £8 million for an even bigger one.
And by the way, I voted yes for the magazine change. But I also hope to god they change the content too!
Mapper – welcome and thank you.
“An uncomfortable result for the RSPB”? Oh no it isn’t!!
A poll consisting of 563 votes from mainly Telegraph reading Conservative voting Bird centric people (your readers comments) regarding the name of a magazine that is only available to the membership merely provides an indication of how hopelessly ineffectual this miniscule group is with regard to generating debate around the real issues.
I applaud the RSPB for recent changes, esp. the TV AD. I’ll resume funding if they keep it up especially if they can act as the catalyst for TV programs similar to Bill Turnbull’s 9 O’Clock slot Horizon – “What is happening to our Bees” – last night.
Jonathon Porritt suggested the demise of Bees would be one of the single issues that would provide the wake up call for humanity in his marvellous book “Capitalism as if the World Matters” and Bill’s depiction of what breakfast would look like without bees was worth 10 billion words.
Therein lies my hope for the future! I’ll leave this blog now, taking IMA’s advice elsewhere, you can chat amongst yourselves!!
“mainly Telegraph reading”
Laughter being the best medicine, I usually read the Gaianurd
I must say as a long term member and active with RSPB encouragement in what I have termed before ” the Persecution Wars” I hate the proposed new name, its just too bloody twee and smacks of appalling middle class PR nonesense. Then it is probably part of the broad appeal of RSPB that it is seen by many members as comfortable and that is why they join. We need those people and need to cater for them and the magazine does just that, but oh but why change a good brand name. We all or almost all understand that to serve birds RSPB needs to look at the big picture and if that needs spelling out, which I doubt “Natures Home” is just too too bloody naff with no punch, bite or impression of work based on science or knowledge.
Then we may all be getting our knickers in a twist over a magazine name when it is what RSPB does that is important!
As a former employee and now an RSPB pensioner, I tend to keep out of controversial internal RSPB matters. So I make only one oblique comment – I keep seeing repeated here the statement that “change is inevitable” – it is not. That is precisely the same statement made by developers/exploiters of our countryside and nature in general, which has lead to the RSPB fighting so many battles. I would class such a crass statement along with “the economy must grow for survival” – which also leads to unnecessary development and destruction…
If it aint broke, dont fix it…
Looking at the results it seems to matter to a good majority it is only magazine name but it’s the RSPB heritage it just seems that they are trying to muscle in on the available money. I’m not happy at the changes but with any business, and RSPB, are a business primarily, they want to make money. It would be nice to know how much of my membership fees actually go toward actual conservation and how much to pay the large salaries of the directors?
I’m looking at moving my membership to local WT’s rather than RSPB as my county has very little RSPB involvement
It’s a shame they don’t listen to members to the extent that my nearest reserve have stop following all none media tweeters. Ie members, visitors, or those just interested in being involved with their local reserve, that’s all stopped now and they don’t want to get into conversations about it? Shame really.
Moan over but then so well my patronage of RSPB at the end of my year because I won’t be renewing after almost 40 years as a member.
Mark – thank you.
Nice new magazine, but what a dreadful title. Sounds like a children’s magazine
What a dreadfully twee name. Are we ashamed of our “birdy” heritage? It was a bold step taken years ago by a group of people wishing to preserve birds from destruction and with that desire went the preservation of the habitat in with they and all the other creatures live. On one species depends the life of millions of others – law of nature! Nature’s world-wide web. “Buglife” hasn’t changed its name to “Nature’s Home” thought it could legitimately do so nor has Butterfly Conservation and how about WDC and WWT (“Waterlife”) – they are equally involved in “Giving Nature A Home”. You’d think that the RSPB were the only group ever to have tried to do anything! Let’s be proud of our origins and not try to be all things to all people by adhering to a PC code. As for re-branding, this is typical of big business marketing departments – like No 52 buses, another one will come along soon and we’ll all have to wait for new logos, to say nothing of yet more new outfits for volunteers!