The Brooklyn Community Foundation is rebranding as Brooklyn Org in an effort to attract a younger generation of donors, doing away with the term “foundation.”
The Brooklyn Community Foundation is rebranding itself as Brooklyn Org in an effort to attract a younger generation of donors by doing away with the term “foundation.”
The name change, according to Jocelynne Rainey, president of the 14-year-old grantmaker, is intended to communicate that the foundation supports Brooklyn residents and showcases the knowledge of its people, rather than allude to the occasionally “top-down” approach taken by grantmakers.
“The word ‘foundation’ has no inherent problems,” she asserted. Yet, the younger generation of donors is giving us the impression that “foundation” is a bit dated and overbearing.
Rainey wants the grantmaker, which gives out roughly $12 million annually to a variety of causes like housing, health, and justice reform, to become as well-known as the Brooklyn Museum or the Brooklyn Academy of Music in order to draw in new donors.
In order to finalize the name change, Brooklyn Org paid somewhat less than $50,000 for the Brooklyn.org domain name and obtained free branding advice from a Brooklyn-based company.
The shift occurs at a time when philanthropy is losing favor with more and more Americans. According to a poll this year by Independent Sector, a membership group of grantmakers and charities, and Edelman Data & Intelligence, 26% of respondents said they distrust philanthropy, up five percentage points from the previous year.
However, Sruthi Sadhujan, senior strategy director of Hyperakt, a branding company that has worked to recast the public image of various grantmakers, including the Ford Foundation, advised caution to philanthropies looking to completely abandon their former identities.
According to Sadhujan, foundations are under a lot of pressure to change their perception as entities that only issue large checks. Foundations should think about how to leverage their institutional weight as a force for good rather than downplaying its impact and power. Grantees may find it easier to get a place at the table with other elite organizations, such as professional groups and prestigious colleges, if they acknowledge their status and use their influence as a wealthy foundation.
Regarding the rebranding process, Sadhujan stated, “The goal is not to rid the landscape of any and all institutional artifacts.” “The goal is to reinterpret an organization and develop a fresh perspective on their mission, purpose, and target audience.”
Rainey argues that Brooklyn Organization is still a foundation regardless of what people call it, so he gets the argument. However, she claimed that the new name represents several procedures the foundation has implemented that allow the institution’s residents to direct its direction.
The foundation has around $40 million in donor-advised funds, which are administered by the organization but distributed at the donors’ request, and approximately $70 million in grantmaking assets that it may utilize as it sees fit.
According to Rainey, every discretionary grantmaking decision made by the foundation follows a participative methodology in which locals identify and evaluate potential grantee charities.
