A while ago the results of a poll on this website suggested that the RSPB should not change its name, but it was only a few hundred people and the reasons for not changing were varied and contradictory.
Then at the RSPB AGM there was a question about whether the RSPB was going to change its name where Mike Clarke’s answer was along the lines of ‘not at the moment but we wouldn’t rule anything out’. That seems to me to be the right answer informed by the right thinking.
Now, it isn’t the name that matters most – it’s what the RSPB does and how well it does it and what it stands for – I think. But once you have sorted all that out then you need a name that works.
In the current issue of BIRDS magazine (might that be SAVING NATURE magazine in a few years time?) Adrian Pitches interviews Mike Clarke about the RSPB’s ‘Saving Nature’ strategy. It’s well worth a read.
The RSPB needs ‘to build a wider understanding of our work’ and ‘look beyond our traditional supporters and reach out for more public support, beyond the environmental sector to the business community. We need to influence them.’. Does that mean get into bed with Tesco or does it mean campaigning for businesses to do better – is it their money or their actions that the RSPB wants? It really isn’t clear.
Is the RSPB working to protect nature or environmental services or to give people a better life. Maybe it’s all of these but the phrase ‘We need to build a wider understanding of our work – that we want to make people’s quality of life better’ is pulled out in large letters. That doesn’t sound quite the same as ‘Saving Nature’ to me, and the RSPB’s work with tropical rainforests and peatlands is ‘all about the carbon cycle: reducing emissions.’
The article is clear about whether the RSPB might ‘ditch the avocet logo, even change its name’ and the answer is that ‘these things are under consideration’.
I think that I am, perhaps, too keen on things being clear (and, yes, I know, I could be clearer myself at times). It seems that the RSPB is still thinking about where it’s going, why and with whom and that is obviously fine. I’ll almost certainly be going with it whatever is the answer.
What seems to emerge is that the RSPB is moving (has moved?) to an all-nature ticket but doesn’t want anyone to think that it has forgotten birds. It’s still going to do the whole range of conservation actions from practical conservation work to campaigning, and it’s still going to strive to increase the proportion of its money spent abroad on international conservation action.
If that’s what is happening then I am, as a member, very pleased. If you are an RSPB member is that how you understand pages 6 and 7 in the current BIRDS magazine? And are you happy too?
[registration_form]
So if the RSPB ditch the name and distinctive logo as you suggest it might do, what logo would replace the once rare Avocet?
In choosing a logo one would have to pick something which is both rare in the UK at the moment but also highlights the wilder nature coverage the RSPB is now engaged in.
The answer?
The wild boar of course. A rare breeding mammal at the moment but one which will extend its coverage if the landscape approach works in the long term.
Pete – that’s very amusing. If the RSPB ever did switch from the avocet (an aggressive (though beautiful) bird that makes a lot of noise) to being boarish, what would that signify? Anyway, it’s probably a good idea to avoid having a logo of a species that people want to kill – the grey partridge of the GWCT isn’t doing too well and even the badger is in for a tough time.
RSPB is a name known and respected worldwide. The Avocet logo, similarly is known worldwide. Rebranding would be a very expensive exercise and would confuse a great number of people, for what purpose? Why do we need another name to take on a wider purview? I have been an RSPB member for almost 40 years. I think that we do a great (and often thankless) job and I have always been proud to be a member. I hope that we do not waste any further energy on this rebranding idea. I cannot see the necessity and it would divert financial resources away from invaluable conservation work.
Rebranding and “brand-refreshing” are seen as essential in NGOs when they see their membership numbers stagnate or decline, missing the fact that us poor plebs have less and less left over to live on after paying the leccy bill now that we have to subsidise windmills and carbon capture and storage that no-one knows how to do yet but will cost squillions to develop, because they need their vanity projects to keep a grip on the slippery pole and keep the money rolling in so that they can go to Nagoya and Hyderabad every coupla years.
So – well said John Thatcher!
Windscale changed its name , a Jimmy Saville trust is curently changing its name 4Gs has operated under various names in the past.
Wez – welcome and thank you.
Although I would like to see the RSPB drop the “Royal” part of its name I think John Thatcher makes a good point.
Perhaps senior management at RSPB are concerned that a change in name might make it more difficult to replace the 10%(?) of members that do not renew each year and also might reduce the number of legacies it receives. I suspect that having the word “Birds” in the name helps to keep existing, and sell new memberships etc.
My Mother was a member until a couple of years before her death at 97 yr. and she loved looking at her garden birds and reading about them in a magazine called “Birds”. I doubt if she would have wanted to keep her membership going if the name changed and the focus obviously changed; I suspect there are many like her that provide a significant source of revenue for RSPB.
Tony – I agree. And I’m not that hung up on the name either way. But just as some are used to and like the name, some find it odd and not really describing their interests. One million members and 59+ million non-members, after all! It’s clear that the RSPB is vaguely considering a name change and that is in response to a change in emphasis on birds and wider wildlife/biodiversity.
I totally agree with John Thatcher, it’s something I said in the original post/poll. I understand why, the RSPB are broadening their targets. No point in focusing on enviromental/animal issues just in this country after all how many species of birds and other animals (whales/Basking sharks etc) migrate to these shores every spring. I have to worry about their willingness to jump so quickly into bed with large companies, but maybe it’s the only way the RSPB see in effecting a change of thinking of these large companies. After all Tesco has a lot of land in their portfolio, shrewd or naive? RSPB, have to change and evolve it’s natural progresss, do or die!
Douglas – quite right. TESCO is not one of the supermarkets to avoid selling milk from farms involved in the badger cull and isn’t the greenest supermarket of all according to what I know. But we all shop there – don’t we?
Well I don’t and you’ve mentioned shopping in Waitrose 🙂 However if the RSPB were to try and change the policy of business, then why not go for the biggest? Changing small companies=small changes. Tesco=Green, definately not. How many of their stores were/are built on green sites and as for their distrubution sites! Also working in logisitcs I can say their distrubution/logistics is definately wasteful.
We are fortunate in my part of Lincs not to have a TESCO nearby therefore avoiding the temptation of the great satan behemoth is not as difficult as it seems to be for most of the population. Cheap and nasty would be a good summary from my 5 or so unavoidable visits over the last 20 years and definitely not green at all. Promoting growing your own and buying local food from local sources should be at the heart of addressing concerns about green issues and climate change. For birds, other wildlife and our grandchildren.
I have to say that on the issue of RSPB I agree with Dennis Ames below. A successful organisation should be very cautious about appearing to distance itself from its roots.
A name change/re-branding exercise would risk provoking the loss of some existing members but might encourage some new people to join. Presumably a large corporate organisation such as the RSPB would be able to conduct the Market research necessary to enable it to predict reasonably accurately what the size of thes two opposing groups are and thus whether the exercise is worth proceeding with.
Mark, The RSPB exists by way of a Royal Charter ( a legal document). Would they have to tear that up and start again or is a name change permissible under that legal status.
Bob – no idea. Changing the Charter is a bit of a pain in the wotnot but it can (and has) been done.
How about the ‘Redoubtable Society for the Protection of Biodiversity’ ?
Thus dropping the Royal charter, reflecting the wider remit, massively reducing the costs of rebranding and keeping the brand-name intact. Many of the members would be none the wiser…simples.
Joe W – I like it.
Never thought I would but the past year makes me consider joining the 10% and I suspect it is harder to get that dissatisfied 10% back than pick up new 10% so that says everything to me about the way RSPB is acting.
Really what the RSPB needs to consider seriously in my opinion is concentrating on birds has served them very well for over 100 years(they have become massive landowners without any risk to their personal capital)something other large landowners as a rule cannot enjoy the same benefits.
Lots of members myself included belong for one or two fringe benefits from staff members.We can certainly manage without magazine and we can pay the small car parking fee and between us be £40 at least in pocket.
Why is the RSPB ever getting into Badgers in a serious way surely the Badger Trust does that job and needs members more than RSPB.
To my way of thinking lots of members stay with RSPB because they think they ought to and loyalty but Mike Clarke is testing those things.
Well I’m one of those 10% that did chuck their membership card in the bin, why?
A friend and I went to Minsmere last year and were lucky that on our visit there was a Montague Harrier, a french bird (tags on wings helped). As we were stood there photographing a memeber of staff walked up to us with a party of visitors. “Great to have a Monty on site” I quipped, “Yeah if only we could figure out how to get rid of it” RSPB woman, “You what, why?” me, “So far we’ve seen it steal Moorhen and Coot eggs, and we think it might have had a go at the eggs of the Bearded Tits”, RSBP lady. My mate just glaned at me (his code for cool it) and we walked off in disgust. I approached a more senior looking man who more or less said the same, never been back since and never will, the other reason was when I wrote an email about the incident and a query why no money was being spent in my region of the UK, the response was to deny what was said at Minsmere and it wasn’t possible to purchase land in certain areas due to cost…fair enough I suppose.
So for me, on one incident the RSPB was for ever tarnished.
I must admit that I read the article with an increasingly sinking heart. It was full of meaningless management jargon and the politician’s trick of appearing to answer the questions without actually telling us anything. No answers there.
However, one thing I did notice – three points in the interview where Mike Clarke hinted at something. “Halting biodiverslty loss is too big a task for one organisation”….. “Saving nature is simply too big a job for any one organisation”….. “Our voice can’t be heard unless we’re part of the wider conversation”. Hmmmm, is a merger on the cards?
Oh, and his waffly, roundabout answer to the question of whether the RSPB would change its name or logo – in plain English, he said “Yes”.
PS – really good to meet you at RSPB Conwy recently Mark! xx
Anne – it was good to meet you too. Would you like to see RSPB merge with any other organisation?
I would rather it merged with an organisation with similar aims (the Wildlife Trust for example, though I think that is unlikely) than went down the corporate sponsorship route, which is what I fear from the article. But I do like the RSPB’s focus on birds and don’t want that to be lost if there is any kind of merger.
I am a tad sceptical about the way the”envirnomental services” concept is being interpreted and promoted. In its original concept is was to be applied on a much wider scale than we will ever be able to achieve(just being realistic). My reading of the way our policy makers are looking at it is that that they see it as a way of diluting conservation. My experience of these folk is that as long as the “habitat” delivers the “service”, then issues such as protection, bidiversity and general condition are much less important. It shouldnt be a short-cut, but thats they way I see it going. Its not a band-waggon I am keen to jump on.
Everyone embraced “sustainable development”, but whose concept of SD is being implemented?
Reading some of these comments makes me think that the RSPB should not change its name but how it takes on staff. The present way seems to suggest that if you have a degree that makes all the difference but the majority of these same people when approaching the public have no knowledge what so ever how to speak to them. Some of my best wardens in the past came from a humble back ground from car thieves to football hooligans. No chance of a full time job then! One of them went to another reserve to work and was told he would not get a full time job as his accent was too strong and the members would not be able to understand him! A recent incident on an RSPB reserve was that a member of the public was told that they had disturbed a pair of Peregrines from nesting when in fact the next door shooting estate had shot the adult birds.
How I wish I had met you a few years back John, I might not have been such a grumpy bugger. When I left 18 months of rehabilitation in hospital, the staff plans for all long term patients was to get them to volunteer in some sort of work, just to get them “work ethic” and something to fill a gap in their CV’s. I tried with my local wildlife trust and the Forestry Commision, both seemed keen until they found out I had mental health issues (depression and PTSD).