Are there advantages for charities with well-known names in changing them to completely different modern ones?

The Earl Haig Fund's primary communication vehicle, the poppy, was better known than the charity itself. Capitalising on this familiarity by rebranding Poppyscotland was a wise decision as the charity will no longer be competing against itself but can harness the combined strength of both brands.

Leonard Cheshire, on the other hand, should not lose its name as its only emotive image is that of its enigmatic founder. Instead, it should focus communications on bridging the all-too-common gap between awareness and understanding by bringing the visions of its founder to life. It could, however, adapt its name to Leonard Cheshire Disability Care (LCDC), for example, as this would increase brand understanding without alienating its heritage and existing supporters.

Non-descriptive names, like those of individuals, aren't obstacles to understanding a brand's values; poor communication is. What does Laura Ashley represent? Or Mr. Kipling? Or Johnnie Walker? Yes, there are advantages to changing a name. But no, it's never the solution by itself.