What should zoos be called? How might an organisation’s titles subtly affect external image and funding potential?
The word ‘zoo’ is a great word! It is short, exciting (makes you think of ‘zoom’…), visually and typographically distinct.
If an advertising copywriter were tasked to come up with a name for some new product from scratch ( …a kind of shampoo, a new form of insurance policy, a thing for getting stones out of horse hooves…) ‘zoo’ would be a suberb choice. ‘Z’ ( the mark of Zorro) is an exotic, underused letter, and zoo even usefully rhymes with lots of other words.
But they can’t, because we nabbed it first.
And yet when you in the business of seeking external support and recogntion…. it is not that simple, is it? ‘Zoo’ may be exciting, but it also has lots of negative or inappropriate connotations, many only there at a subliminal level. For some at least, the idea of captivity, cages, mindless amusement will always pop into mind, and we had better hope they actually admit this, so we can at least address the misconsception. Then again ‘zoo’ has come, in the UK at least, to suggest a kind of unbridled, pleasurable chaos or hedonism, as in ‘this place is a zoo!‘ Hence ‘zoo tv’/radio’ and the number one Google result in the UK is the semi-pornographic lads mag ‘ Zoo’. Not the best form of association! Aquaria and Safari Parks are luck to escape the negative tag.
So, when I am making the case for a given zoo organisation, or the sector as a whole, I go out of my way to avoid the expression. The official organisational name is normally, after all, something more prestigious and with greater gravitas ( …The Zoological Society of London, Marwell Preservation Trust, etc). The ‘zoo’ is only an output, a physical site, an address. The longer name lend much greater credibiliy. Yet how many zoo representatives daily use the words ‘Society, Institution, Charity ( if relevant), Trust, etc? It is very easy to use the shorthand, isn’t it?
I have often heard commentators external to the zoo world suggest changing the official name, losing the word ‘zoo’. The example of the Bronx Zoo changing its name back in the 90’s to ‘The International Wildlife Conservation Park’ underlines the futilty of this, in terms of the public and the media at least, as everyone just ignored the change and carried on going to ‘the Bronx Zoo’.
All this of course is from a limited anglocentric viewpoint. It is my impression that ‘zoo’ ( pretty much a global term) does not have quite the same associations in Europe, the States, Australia or elsewhere.
I would be interested to hear if colleagues around the world think this is the case…?
Best
John
Johnreganassociates.com
2 Responses to “What should zoos be called? How might an organisation’s titles subtly affect external image and funding potential?”
Got something to say?
There have been other suggestions like “Biopark”, “Conservation Center” or “EcoPark” etc., but all over the world “zoo” is still the term one encounters the most.
The Germans also have an interesting synonym for “zoo”: “Tierpark” , which means “Animal Park” and is supposed to convey the impression of a large, park-like scenery in opposite to the more urban “Zoo”. However, as there are nowadays large, park-like “zoos” and smaller, urban “tierparks” in Germany, it’s really up to the individual institution how to call itself.
I would separate out what you should call the organisation when seeking social funding of one sort or another, and here would avoid the word ‘zoo’ and its associations ( whilst not of course being deceptive in any way). In dialogue with the UK Government on behalf of UK zoos, I tend to reference ‘large audience nature sites’
As for attracting the paying public, I agree it hard ( and perhaps not even desirable) to avoid the word zoo. After all the public originally made it up!
I am aware that both the above points probably reflect a UK centric view
John