The past few days have provided some pretty cool reading...mostly articles and stuff, nothing major, but I figured it might be cool to throw some quotes out this week and see what you think.
Here's one to get us going:
"A lot of people think branding is about crass commercialism, big business, and exploiting workers in Third World countries. A lot of people have really negative connotations of branding, but the essential definition of branding is simply the story that surrounds a product, a person, or an organization. In other words, what do people think of when they think of you? What do people think of when they think of Apple? What do they think of when they think of Nike? All that information is encoded in that brand. A brand is a story that surrounds an organization.
"So my thing is the Church actually began branding because we're the people who began thousands of years ago telling a compelling story that transformed our lives. But it seems in the last 40 or 50 years, we've lost that ability and business now does it better than we do. Nike tells a better story than most pastors."
-Phil Cooke, author of Branding Faith
(Taken from Collide Magazine, Issue 04, March/April 2008)
Totally true? Total nonsense? Somewhere in between?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Words...
Posted by Todd Wright at 11:00 PM
Labels: collide magazine, discussion, phil cooke, quotes, reading
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'm not feeling it, sorry.
Churches don't brand because they're telling the Christian story. They brand so you'll go to that Church. Even when that's not what they're trying to do--"Church of the Holy Trinity (Reformed Episcopal)" probably isn't going to attract too many Baptists with the RE "brand."
I don't think that's an accurate definition of branding -- Starbucks isn't "telling a story" with their brand, they have established an identity which makes people choose their coffee over another's.
Why try to look like corporate America anyway? We've got the Gospel, isn't that enough to attract people?
I think this goes back to Willow Creek's realization that it's process wasn't necessarily working. The simple fact someone is consuming the product does not mean the product is necessarily worth consuming. It doesn't mean that the product is bringing about the desired result.
This idea of church "branding" sounds more like tapping into the rampant consumerism that pervades our culture. If businesses want to "tell a story" (convince people their product is better than someone else's) that's fine, but don't bring that crap into the church. That usually leads to church's trying to prove they are the best one in town.
Is there a discussion to be had on the subject of whether pastors use narrative as an effective means of communicating the Gospel? Yes. However, this guy is wrongly equating the "story" of big business with the truth of God's word.
Let's divorce commercialism and corporate (from the latin for body... btw) from the discussion of branding.
We all brand. We all make choices that define us and then project our choices to others. To brand is to define... how can any church not brand... It is like trying to not communicate. It's impossible.
So... I guess we need to ask ourselves if we are telling the compelling story of Christ and his redemption of the world, or some tiny "come to my church and be cool" story. Because if we are, we are like dim lighting at a bar that is destined to leave people with that "now that I've slept with you, what is your name?" feeling.
You guys are making some excellent points...
When I think of branding I think of livestock ... you BRAND your livestock so that everyone knows to whom the livestock belongs ...
The problem is not ( at least the way I see it ) the fact that we ( the church ) are branding ... the problem is more of what IS our brand ... FUMC or HHHBC should not be our brand ... J E S U S ... that is what our brand should be ... our brand should be our relationship with Christ ...
We have gotten away from promoting THE CHURCH and we have started promoting "our church" ... our church buildings, our church staff, our church leadership, our church doctrine, and so on ...
Just my $0.02 ... carry on
We probably need a tighter definition of branding. Catchy names ("The Revolution!!!™") and slogans are prolly what we're really talking about. Methodist, REC, Baptist...not really a brand in that sense.
THIS POST IS AWESOME!
"So my thing is the Church actually began branding because we're the people who began thousands of years ago telling a compelling story that transformed our lives. But it seems in the last 40 or 50 years, we've lost that ability and business now does it better than we do. Nike tells a better story than most pastors."
Doesn't it come down to personal experiences ? We "tell the story" of someone else instead of telling our own story ... ( maybe we don't have a story to tell --- but this is an entirely different post ) ...
Branding is only as effective as the people who give their "personal" experiences or endorsement ... NIKE = Michael Jordan ... if he wears them I want to also ... maybe the "magic" is in the shoes ?
I am learning that if I can just tell someone what Christ has DONE for me ( died on the cross for my sins so I wouldn't have to ) as well as what He is DOING for me now that will change people's lives ... now they can identify ... If Christ can make a difference in Don Wayne I know He can make a difference in my life ...
I needed a liver transplant and one became available as the last minute ( see Kevin Roy at Denman Ave Church in Lufkin, TX ) ... personal experiences and personal testimonies open the door to people's hearts ...
And for the record ... Lance definitely has a "way" with words ... Because if we are, we are like dim lighting at a bar that is destined to leave people with that "now that I've slept with you, what is your name?" feeling. You come up with that on your own or have you heard that spoken somewhere before ... regardless, it is great
that's mine, dude...
thinking of "branding it"!
off topic: good to see you, don wayne!
Paul, I like your comment regarding the Gospel being attractive to people. However, even the Gospel must be sold. "How?" You may ask. In my opinion, I don't believe the Gospel can be sold or introduced to folks through elaborate church facilities. Nor can it be shown through different types of worship environments. That being traditional or contemporary. Yet can only truly be "sold" by a way of life that is God honoring. A total submission to His will in which would show everyone else a "glow", so to speak, that would draw their interests to ask questions like, "Why is he so happy all the time?" or "Wow! She really seems like a genuinely friendly person."
Years ago, this person mainly just kinda freaked me out and I looked at them like, "Just another Jesus Freak."
As kids, several of my friends and I liked playing basketball at this outdoor court that belonged to a small country church. We could always walk or ride bikes to get there and then play ball all day sometimes. We had alot of fun there. One day, the preacher walked out from his home, also near the court, and watched for a while. Please keep in mind here that I was not a Chirstian at that time. So the preacher watched and after we played a while, we took a water break(from a garden hose) and the preacher walked over to visit. He was fairly young and asked if he could play. We were 14 through 16 years old then and he was pretty much the same size as us. The Preacher could play pretty good. It got to the point that when we picked teams, we wanted him on our team cause he had a good shot. My point now comes to this. The preacher never asked us to come to his church. He never asked us to pray with him. He did, however, want to play and slowly built a relationship with us. I remember this like yesterday because I personally was cautious and guarded when he first came on the scene. He never pushed anything on us. Occasionally he would say that they would be having a cookout and that we should come and eat. It was typically always on Sunday and i never went. I remember him well because he also came to our high school games to cheer. I even think he supported Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) for a few years as well. I only have good memories of him now. I know what he was doing now as well. There is no telling how many hours he spent praying for all of us. Ultimately, he seemed genuine and honest. You know, like a good friend. It made a lasting impression on me. I eventually began asking questions somewhat like those I mentioned above. He was a good "Seller" in my opinion.
Sorry for the long comment
Old....
Well said ...
Build relationships ... meet their needs and then they will listen to what you have to say ... respect and trust is earned
DWC
You guys are onto something that I think this guy misses out on. He targets pastors as not living up to the church's potential/need for effective branding.
The effectiveness of the church, in whatever the venture, is determined by the faithfulness of the individuals--not just the pastor.
Several of you have talked about personal surrender and transformation. In a world of "personal faiths" this goes to show that there really is no such things as a solely "personal relationship" Jesus Christ. While each believer has a dynamic relationship with Christ, it by nature will spill over into the lives of other people.
Yes, the pastor must live this out in order to effectively lead the church; but if the pastor is the ONLY one living it out, then the church isn't going to be that vibrant.
Post a Comment