Should natural disasters be branded? It surely sounds off-taste. Well, at least naming a natural disaster is necessary for many reasons. The basic of branding still applies here: identification and distinction.
There are designated authorities in the world who assign in advance (in some cases, even for next 5-6 years) the names of future storms that would form in tropical and sub-tropical areas. For example, storms or hurricanes forming in North Atlantic Ocean are assigned names by National Hurricane Centre, Miami, through choosing a name from an alphabetically arranged official list of hurricane names maintained by World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Similar lists are contributed by various countries based on their oceanic region. Advantages of naming hurricanes are manifold. First, it reduces confusion through identification. Once named, communication becomes easier between the government and general public. Sometimes, multiple storms may form in the same oceanic region which would require distinct identification when warnings/alerts are issued. It happened in the past that alerts were issued for cyclones in wrong areas whereas the target area was missed due to confusion in identification. Second, naming a storm helps in internal communication among government agencies. They can coordinate their warning and rescue operations with specific reference to the storm concerned. Third, renaming a storm is required when it moves from one basin to another. It greatly helps in unique identification about the nature of the storm. For example, if a cyclone moves from Australian region to Indian Ocean, it has to be renamed for identification purpose.
It seems that, we will probably keep all natural disasters branded (at least named) before they actually take place. Isn’t it interesting to see that, this is perhaps the only thing that is branded even before they actually appear? We hope they appear as less as possible.