> I think Quaker has a branding problem. People think of quaker oats or amish.

The Quakers, like many minorities, face other people who know next to nothing about them claiming them as mascots. Quaker Oats are called that not because of a special Quaker fondness for oats or a cultural association between Quakers and oats but because General Mills thought the image would be good for their brand. If they were selling socks or buckets, they would have slapped that Mona Lisa-esque visage on those products. I have heard there was a particular Quaker mill owner whose likeness they used. I'm sure his quaint, 18th or 19th century attire, and the presence of Amish in Pennsylvania, are why people think there's some connection between the two religions. (Also, both are peace churches, but Baha'i and Jains are also pacifists and people don't confuse them with Quakers.)

In Pennsylvania there's a business of some sort called "Quaker Steak and Lube". The Quakers I know -- and I grew up among them in a large, well-connected Quaker family -- have no salient connection to either steak or lube. It's just that back in the mists of time Quakers founded the state which others now thoroughly control and some businessman in Pennsylvania thought it would be funny to slap their name, initially invented as a slur against them, onto his business.

So Quakers have two branding problems: people don't know their brand and they do know other peoples' brands that pretend to have some association to them.

About Quakers withering away, I do see a lot of agèd Quakers. The group that meets near my house is pretty old. But there are still Young Friends groups that are thriving, Quaker summer camps (full of non-Quakers), and such. Quakers probably are fading away, as most non-rightwing religions are, but I don't think they're a special case. At least they still believe in procreation, unlike the Shakers.