What's in a name?

We've been giving some thought to the names that are used by some of the societies promoting science to the public in the UK. Why do so few of them use the words 'science' or 'technology' in their titles. Are they ashamed of the science connection? Do they think that using the word science will be off-putting to the public?.....and is there any evidence for this?

The Royal Society- yes, we know it's steeped in history and has had this name since the begining of time, but to the average punter it probably sounds like an organisation that promotes the activities of the Royal family, the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh etc. Couldn't they change the name to reflect what it actually does...it's not as though it's that well an established a name outside of the scientific community.

The BA (The British Association) - to those not in the know (and there are lots of them out there), it probably sounds either like an organisation that promotes British tourism abroad or a far right organisation full of racist skinheads. The BA was originally known as the British Association for the Advancement of Science but they dropped the science epithet some time back......why? Again, the BA /BAAS brand isn't that well known (even amongst scientists)........can't they think of something a bit more descriptive - especially as they are supposed to be an interface between science and the public.

Most brand managers will tell you that the ideal names are either those that have no meanings whatsoever.......and as such are free of any sort of connotations (...such as Accenture) or those that accurately describe the product/service such as the University of Wherever, British Petroleum etc.

Well done to the Institute of Physics, Institute of Biology etc......at least they do exactly 'what they say on the tin'!