Look up “name change” in news archives, and two types of stories dominate. First, you’ll find thinly disguised press releases announcing the renaming of a product, stadium, college or company, with an upbeat rationale for the change. Second, you’ll find reporting of complaints and controversy about a renaming, because people loved the old name so much or are heaping scorn on the new name.

The other day, a front-page article in my local paper fell into the latter category. Alumni of the Clarke School for the Deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts, which dates back to 1867 and counts Alexander Graham Bell and Calvin Coolidge as former trustees, were voicing criticisms of its renaming as “Clarke Schools for Hearing and Speech.”

Two issues stood out in the comments from upset alumni. First, they felt removing the word “deaf” from the school’s name cheats graduates of a key element in their identity and may even imply that deafness no longer exists. And second, they complained that alumni had not been adequately included in the renaming deliberations.

Without getting into the pros and cons (and identity politics) of the new name, I’d like to highlight the second complaint.

In renaming projects, emotions can run high, with intense reactions coming from parties far removed from those responsible for the decision. During planning and execution of a name change, always ask, “Who else might care about our new name?” Think about their concerns (legitimate or not in your eyes), and be prepared to address their feelings and objections head on.

For example, besides the owners of a downtown cafe, whose livelihood directly rises and falls with the fortunes of the shop, customers may have strong feelings about its name. They might feel affirmed or snubbed with certain new names. And other downtown merchants may feel a stake in the name insofar as it helps attract elements they regard as either desirable or unwanted.

Among the most easily accepted reasons for a name change are that the new name corrects misunderstandings and that it enables the organization to garner greater support for its core mission. Similarly, when the new name appears to be a minor linguistic shift, as when Federal Express rebranded itself as FedEx or the American Association of Retired Persons shifted its official name to the acronym AARP, the name change generally goes well. However, when an organization’s mission has gradually evolved over the years, or the renaming is part of a major shift in emphasis, a name change is more likely to stir up controversy.

If it’s feasible and appropriate, include in the renaming process representatives from groups who feel involved. Set up a process for input from interested parties, but don’t run a contest or subject renaming to a popular vote.

Even more important, prior to or alongside public announcements of the new name, communicate the name change and the reasons for it to all the stakeholders. Do that not with just rosy cheering but with acknowledgements of their concerns. Show how the new name both relates to the past and makes possible a better future.

Although articles about warmly accepted name changes rarely hit newspaper front pages, that would definitely be the preferable story line!

Author Bio: Marcia Yudkin is Head Stork of Named At Last, which brainstorms catchy tag lines, company names and product names for clients. For a systematic process of coming up with a compelling new name, download “19 Steps to the Perfect Company Name, Product Name or Tag Line”: http://www.namedatlast.com/19steps.htm

Category: Business
Keywords: name,naming,business,company,product,branding,creation,generation,generating,nonprofits,organization