A History of Campaign Names

Aligning on a name is arguably the most challenging aspect of a campaign–causing even more stress and anxiety than raising the money to reach an ambitious campaign goal. It’s like naming your firstborn child by committee where half the members want to be bold and the other half want to play it safe, and everyone is very attached to their particular point of view. When you name a baby, you can choose not to disclose the name until after it’s inked on the birth certificate. When you name a campaign, you need no less than a dozen (and often many more) people with wildly diverse opinions to agree.

So, can you bypass this step and still raise money under a generic banner? If Harvard can raise $9.6 billion with “The Harvard Campaign,” are we putting too much pressure on ourselves to come up with campaign names that are unique and authentic? Harvard aside, the answer is no.

The name won’t be the reason a donor contributes, but the campaign name is an essential signal to your donors. It’s a galvanizer both internally and externally. A campaign name sets the fundraising effort apart and suggests that this is not just an everyday appeal. The name gives the campaign meaning and purpose, and at its best, it’s an enticing rally cry. It puts a stake in the ground that says, “we’re doing something important that will create meaningful impact”.

So, when and why did campaign names become a “thing”? Churches, hospitals, colleges, and YMCAs were the early pioneers of organized fundraising. Campaign were primarily volunteer-led efforts to build facilities or endow programs. Yale University’s (1890s) and Harvard University’s “Million Dollar Campaign” (1919) are among the earliest large campaigns in higher education.

In these early days of campaigns (1900-mid-1960s), the names were functional and described what the money would be used for (“The Building Fund”) or financial objective (“Million Dollar Campaign”). This aligns with how non-profits talked about themselves and their fundraising at that time. They practiced institution-centered fundraising, and campaigns were designed to communicate the goal, not to create an emotional appeal. Harold Seymour’s classic history of fundraising describes these early campaigns as highly transactional, focusing on tangible projects, financial goals, and civic duty.

As universities and hospitals began running larger campaigns in the 1960s and 70s, campaigns were no longer focused on one specific initiative, and the names shifted to being centered around the institution. Names like “Campaign for the Future” and “Centennial Campaign” aren’t especially impassioned, but they reference a larger picture the organization is part of or trying to create.

Philip Kotler’s work applying marketing principles to nonprofits accelerated this transition in the late 1970s and 1980s. Before this time, marketing as we know it barely existed in this realm, but by the late 1980s and early 200s, the branding era had begun. Instead of describing projects, campaign names began to express aspirations. An excerpt from “Name That Campaign,” by Bernice A. Thieblot was republished in Harvard Magazine in 2000 and satirized some overused campaign name components of that time.

Notice that there are three columns. Begin by reading down Column A until you find the participle or infinitive that seems most appropriate. Next, choose the phrase from Column B that feels just right. All you need is a noun from Column C and, presto, your campaign has the perfect name. (For example, if you had chosen #30 in Column A, #18 in Column B, and #42 in Column C, you would have “Mandate for an Extraordinary Personal Sacrifice.” Now what could describe the objectives of a capital campaign better than that?)

The shift to focusing on aspirations coincided with the treatment of campaigns as marketing programs. Campaigns became invitations to join a movement. That trend continues today, as campaigns now often resemble consumer brands more than fundraising appeals. Most campaign names don’t have the word “campaign” in them at all. What used to be a campaign name is now more likely a strap line after the name (“Far Above. . . the Campaign for Cornell” and “Honor the Future: The Campaign for the University of Virginia”).

As fundraising campaign branding experts, we at Parisleaf are huge fans of this shift. Giving a campaign its own identity–not just a name, but specific messaging and a connected but unique logo and visual identity system–sends a message of credibility and importance to donors. Campaigns are an opportunity to build momentum around an organization and its vision for the future. Let’s give it a name worthy of your biggest aspirations.