Having a brand is crucial for a nonprofit because it lends credibility and relatability to your work, allowing the organization to have a larger reach as well as fundraise more effectively. In the article by Kylander and Stone, they talk about how a brand is more than simply the symbolism of an organization’s logo or visual identity; a brand is the actual way that stakeholders, funders, and the public view and think about the organization. Ensuring that when people think of your brand they have positive associations of mission integrity and social good helps to develop the trust that is essential to operating in public service. Developing that sense in the public requires not only actually carrying out your mission, but having an organization-wide strategy to communicate your work in personalized ways (“brand democracy”).

Susan B. Komen provides a great cautionary tale of how a brand can be diluted and the consequences that entails. The case studies seem to indicate that the underlying hit that Komen took was not necessary because it waded into political and ethical debates around abortion, but because cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood seemed antithetical to Komen’s core mission to advancing women’s health. That straying caused people on both sides of the debate to lose trust in Komen as a brand that is consistent with the ethics of its own mission. Instead of a neutral party promoting women’s holistic health with trust and support across the ideological spectrum, with one action Komen’s brand lost Simon Sinek’s “why” in the eyes of the public. The drive behind the mission was put into question.