*In answering your questions, we have included in this document quotes from various experts who are able to speak knowledgably about specific requested information. These quotes have been approved by the individual for your publication, and we have included their full name, title, and contact information. Should you wish to contact the individual, we simply ask that you provide us the courtesy of informing us in advance, so we can ensure that the individual is available. We ask that the quotes are not manipulated, not taken out of context and always used in full. About the WE Brand(s) Jaren Kerr asked:
Your charity began as Kids Can Free The Children, then became Free the Children, then WE Charity. Your social enterprise is called Me to We. As mentioned above,
you also use the umbrella terms “WE,” “We,” and “WE Movement,”
which encompass both your charity and your social enterprise. If the distinction between your charity and your social enterprise is important, then why use so many names and choose such similar-sounding names? On We.org the following explanation is provided:
“WE is made up of WE Charity and ME to WE. Both are part of the WE Movement, also known as ‘WE’ and ‘We.’”
Do you
ever use the branding “WE,” “We,” or “WE Movement” within schools?
What specific steps do you take to make sure children understand the distinction between WE Charity and Me to We?
History of
WE and WE Charity’s Name
Founded in 1995 by 12-year-old Craig Kielburger as
“
the Group of 12 12-year-olds,
” the
name
“
Kids Can Free the Children”
was adopted when the organization became a registered charity in Canada. It was always informally known as
Free The Children
. Given the global nature of the
charity’s
work, Free the Children encountered a number of challenges with its name, including:
•
Brand confusion
•
The name was similar to other international development non-profits such as
Feed The Children
and
Save The Children
•
It was difficult to translate the name
Free The Children
into other languages
•
In some countries, authoritarian governments stone-walled or forbid our efforts to legally incorporate the name As we approached our 20-year anniversary in 2015, we reflected on how to set ourselves up for success for the next 20 years.
The project was given to Stanley Hainsworth and his team at Tether (which provided extensive pro bono assistance), world-class branding experts for some of the most recognizable North American brands, including Nike, Lego and Starbucks. Stanley and his team were part of the large group of experts who supported the brand evolution, including Leo Burnett, The Brand Project, as well as hundreds of others via stakeholder focus groups. The original members of Free The Children were
inspired by the issue of “freeing
children,
”
but within less than a year, the mission expanded to helping empower people to better the world more generally. As a group of kids, they felt powerless to create change, but
“W
e come together & We
can change the world” became a slogan of the
organization. The fundamental belief was that ordinary individuals can create goodness
together. The core philosophy of ‘WE’ was embedded within any programs created by the
founders and the senior staff of the organization. When we looked towards continued global expansion and evolution, we sought a more universally-recognised brand and name that would serve to strengthen our programs and impact around the globe. At this time,
Free The Children’s
WE Day, with its TV broadcast and strong social media
presence, had eclipsed the name “Free The Children
.
”
Given the success of WE Day, it
was decided that the charity would continue with the name “WE”.
The experts from Tether were given the clear task to create a brand structure that was transparent as possible in the differences between the newly-named charity and the social enterprise, ME to WE Social Enterprises Inc. The brand experts at Tether accomplished t
his task by embedding the word “charity” in the evolving brand to be “WE
Charity.
”
Both entities “WE Charity” and “
ME to WE Social Enterprises Inc.
” literally have
their purpose and structure in their name. One is a charity. The other is a social enterprise. The professionals said that they had never seen a clearer brand distinction. Based on your questions, we respect that a small minority of individuals may have a different opinion, but an esteemed branding agency, using rigorous user testing, multiple focus groups and survey data, determined that this brand structure was the best and clearest approach. If you are approaching your article with the spirit of facts, any commentary about the opinion of a few individuals should be given context that a professional agency and the vast majority of people experience a very high degree of brand distinction and clarity. Furthermore, if there was the slightest of confusion, any person would quickly understand the distinction prior to a financial interaction. At times of donation, WE Charity clearly states its CRA and IRS registration numbers, and information specifying that donations receive tax receipts. At times of purchase, ME to WE Social Enterprisesclearly states on all packaging and points of interaction that it is a social enterprise, and that a minimum of
half of proceeds are donated to WE Charity, while the balance is re-invested to grow the social mission. Multiple systems are in place to ensure legal, financial, and brand clarity. There has been a great deal of care to ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the distinct and different functions of WE Charity and ME to WE. Quote from Stanley Hainsworth, CEO Tether, on the WE and WE Charity brands
:
“I have dedicated the last 30 years to building some of the
wo
rld’s most successful brands,
including Lego, Nike and Starbucks. The WE brand was designed to ensure absolute clarity between entities in a way that consumers would easily understand. We conducted multiple focus groups and consumer research studies. We worked hard to develop robust brand guidelines for both WE Charity and ME to WE. Great care was taken to ensure distinction
—the word “charity” is even in the name of WE Charity—
this is almost unheard of in the charity sector. We took great pains to make sure that there was a clear distinction between the WE Charity side and the ME to WE Social Enterprises side to ensure clarity for regulatory purposes, for our own employees and for potential donors, participants and consumers. The absolute attention to clarity is the clearest example of transparency
—
to imply otherwise would not only be factually incorrect, but bewildering, as to how someone could arrive at that conclusion once they have done their most basic homework.
” –
Stanley Hainsworth, founder & CEO, Tether Inc. and WE Charity Board Member. stanley@tetherinc.com
WE Leading voices such as the Dalai Lama and Elie Wiesel have often stated that the single greatest challenge facing our global community is to shift t
o ‘we’. Inspired by these
visionaries of compassion and social justice, we have long called for a WE movement. We are seeking a more globally connected, compassionate, and socially-responsible
world. Our mission to make ‘doing good, doable
.
’
We do this through two legal entities: WE Charity and ME to WE Social Enterprisess. It is important to note that WE Charity and ME to WE Social Enterprisesexist for the same purpose. If these entities were created in almost any other nation, they would legally be one entity. Due to the archaic laws governing the charitable sector in Canada, ME to WE Social Enterprisesand WE Charity need to operate as two separate entities but share a common mission. Please note this structure would be significantly different if the organizations were headquartered in countries such as the UK, or in almost 40 U.S. states, or various Scandinavian nations that have fully embraced Social Enterprise in the charitable sector as a means for charities to create a sustainable income source through for-profit business.