Church

Church: Marketing a Non-Commercial Message?

by Brett McCracken

The church today has a weakness for numbers. We are infatuated with measurements and quantified data: statistics, opinion polls, market research, attendance figures, bestseller lists, budgets, and so on. We want specific numbers so we can keep tabs on things like market saturation, return on investment, and consumer satisfaction. We want to monitor what the masses are buying, where the people are flocking, and what is hot right now, so that perhaps our warehouse churches will overflow with seeker-consumers. In other words, the church today operates like a corporation, with a product to sell and a market to conquer.

But what happens to our faith when we turn it into a product to sell? What does it mean to package Christianity in a methodical manner so as to make it salient to as wide an audience as possible? What does Christianity lose when it becomes just one piece of a consumer transaction? These are questions that the brand managers of “cool Christianity” would do well to consider.

In Branding Faith, Phil Cooke talks about how Christianity’s brand appeal is strengthened due to its mystery, in the same way that Kentucky Fried Chicken’s brand is enhanced by the mystery of its secret spices and McDonald’s by its secret sauce. He also compares the sensory appeal of liturgical churches’ “smells and bells” (incense, etc.) to that of stores like Victoria’s Secret and Bath and Body Works, which enhance customers’ experiences with smells. Christians are constantly making comparisons like this, using the language of mass-market capitalism to talk about how to polish and position the “brand” of Christ. But it strikes me as incredibly unseemly and wrongheaded to speak of Christianity in this way—as if it were just like any other organization or business that needed to be marketed. We market products, sports teams, movies, and … Jesus? We trivialize and demean Jesus when we place him in the company of yellow pages products like hairspray and hot wings.

Let’s think for a minute about what Christianity is and why it doesn’t make a good “product.” For one thing, products must be subject to markets, yet God is not subject to the consumer needs or wants of any market. God only and ever deals on his own terms. His grace comes from within him and is bestowed on us as he pleases. It doesn’t come when we are ready for it or when we long for it. We struggle to fathom something that can’t be purchased “on demand” in this day and age, but Christianity is one such thing. God saves at his discretion and on his watch.

Another reason why Christianity doesn’t make a good product is that it doesn’t lend itself to an easy commercial sale. Sure, there are appealing things about it, but there are also not-so-appealing things about it (um… taking up one’s cross, avoiding sin and worldliness, etc.). And although the Gospel is wonderfully simple in the sense that even a child can recognize its truth, it is also mind-blowingly complex in a way that doesn’t lend itself to thirty-second jingles. Marketing requires simplifying, cutting out all friction and obstacles to a sale, and focusing solely on the beneficial, feel-good aspects of a product. To market something is to empty it of all potentially controversial or difficult elements, which is maybe not the best method of communicating the gospel, says David Wells:

[Marketing] flattens, simplifies, and converts everything into what is appealing. That is what it has done in the evangelical church. The gospel, understood as a product, loses its depth and cost. This happens so that its appeal and salability can be elevated, but along the way Christianity becomes flat, empty, and banal.

Not only that, but Christianity also becomes indistinguishable from any other marketed commodity. When people are “sold” Christianity in the same way that they are sold a pair of shoes or a cell phone upgrade, people will naturally think of Christianity in the same way that they do any other consumer product; that is, as a lifestyle choice and brand with which they currently identify but might easily abandon if a better offer comes down the pike. If I primarily choose Christianity because it is slickly marketed, like I might choose an iPhone, the risk is high that I won’t stay loyal to that “brand” forever. I never was attracted to the “thing” itself, after all—just the attractive marketing, which can easily be one-upped in the future by competitors. Attempting to sell the gospel as “cool,” then, is a dangerous proposition. It’s dangerous because it bases the attractiveness of the gospel on an external definition of marketability and “cool” that will appeal to people but has very little to do with the actual content of the message. Converts to this gospel will likely be like the seeds on rocky soil in Matthew 13—rootless. As Tyler Wigg-Stevenson notes:

Any salvation that needs a sophisticated sales pitch is a salvation that won't really do anything. It will make you holy the same way a new pair of Nikes makes you athletic—which is to say, not at all. It only changes your religious brand… Spiritual shoppers have no reason to think that Christianity is anything but one option among many.

Just as “cool” has become little more than a happy meal product to satiate the desires of young people to “purchase empty authenticity and rebellion,” pop Christianity is on the verge of becoming little more than just another vacuous moniker and feel-better-about-myself, over-the-counter drug. It’s always easier to consume cool or buy a satisfactory status (whether emotional, spiritual, or physical) than it is to legitimately work for it, earn it, and become it. The church must make sure we aren’t selling an empty, easy, superficial product devoid of anything truthful or real. It’s easy to sell Christianity-Lite when you mention only the positive, “this will make your life so much better” selling points. It’s significantly harder to convince people to adopt a full Christian life that makes no promises about instant gratification and almost guarantees hardship. Such a thing isn’t as easily “sold,” but it’s worth more than anything you might ever buy.

_______

Do you think Christianity makes for a good "product?" Where does contemporary church marketing get it right or wrong?
_______

Editor's Note: This article is excerpted from Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide (Baker Books, 2010).

Comments

Lauri

I like this. I think I know what is being got at here, but I guess the irony is that the post was posted on Q, the iPhone of cultural engaged Gospel thinking. We cannot but wear clothes and there is a right choice of cloths, a right animal to ride. Jesus chose a Donkey. How Hipster is that?

Martyn Mayfield

Good stuff! If we don't make it "cool," or we don't push the personal benefits, why would anyone want to become a Christian? Is that the topic of your next post? I'm hoping so.

Ben

This is an interesting debate in christianity today and I can understand why McCraken has taken the side that he has. But as a christian and a designer I believe that marketing is and will continue to play a very important role in sharing the church with the world.

Marketing to me is 'managing perceptions', that may sound bad but I believe we do it every day without realizing it. We do it personally. Everyday we put on certain clothes, eat in certain restaurants and so on... All of this gives off a message to people around us about our personality, how we want to be viewed or even how we view others.

I don't see how marketing the church is any different to that. We have to present our selves how we want to be seen. And that doesn't just relate to signage or ads, it relates to how the congregation relates to each other and new members.

The general public won't often just stumble into a church. They need to be given an opportunity to peer in. Advertising or marketing is this opportunity, to give the public a better perception of the church. There are far too many messages out there telling the world that the church is 'out of date' or judgmental. Marketing is an opportunity for us 'The Church' to give the world a glimpse into what we have.

We need to make sure that the glimpse show's the world, what the church really is...

Patti Lehman

AMEN!! I do not at all go for marketing (in a business model sort of way) Jesus, the Church or Salvation.

What we "have" is to be lived and shared in a real way day to day with the people who touch our lives. God is the one who draws people in not us.

I may be overly simplistic in my views but I just look at what Jesus did as my model and follow it.

Martyn Mayfield

Ben writes, "The general public won't often just stumble into a church. They need to be given an opportunity to peer in. Advertising or marketing is this opportunity, to give the public a better perception of the church."

If the model and goal is attractional extractional versus missional incarnational then the above comment makes sense. But how does institutional marketing fit the missional incarnational model?

Tony Whittaker

Very helpful thoughts. Of course, all churches, whatever their approach, are doing 'marketing' in the widest sense. If all you ever do is have a poster outside inviting people to services, then that is marketing. If you have a church website, you are offering a window to the community (if you have tried to make it outsider friendly), and that is marketing.

The problem is thinking that it is just a product, rather than a relationship, a revolutionary lifestyle, a priority change, a rescue, a transfer of nationality, etc!

Yet there remain parallels with secular marketing, in terms of understanding how to communicate a message memorably and effectively. Note how, for instance, most TV ads tell a story. Visual storying telling is an integral part of our digital communication culture.

Blessings

Tony

Troy Konicki

This discussion is extremely beneficial, both the post and the comments. Thanks y'all. I would join you and add that, in my experience, the product marketed seems to be the superficial aspects of the church, of Christianity and of Jesus. If we are to market, I believe it needs to be focused around authenticity and story, around churchood in the sense of community and identity in Christ. Marketing a provacative message, "worshipful songs" and entertainment (the same variables that my friends and I generally discuss and critique after a given service) is empty, but marketing the Gospel, marketing raw and safe community in seeking God (his purpose, joy, and mysterious truth) is worthwhile. And, I think the "Marketing movement" (or whatever) is a reaction to previous decades of marketing through tracks and the like that claimed to be "the gospel", so we want to be sure to avoid that direction as well. I guess we need some kind of happy medium between being socially conscious and Gospel(ly) unashamed...and I think the answer is just plain old authenticity. It means not talking one way to a pastor and another to an atheist friend. It means being real with both doubts and convictions.

Brett McCracken

As a professional marketer (I work in the marketing department at Biola University), I recognize that marketing is useful and necessary when trying to get something in front of an audience that already has far too many things vying for their attention. But I also recognize that in marketing, you always tend to play up the "attractives" and downplay (or hide altogether) those things that might be stumbling blocks. And here's where I have concerns about applying too much of a marketing mindset to Christianity. What happens when we downplay the challenging aspects of Christianity (things like suffering, losing one's life to gain it, putting others before yourself, being hated by the world, etc) because it might be a "harder sell" than the "Christianity is the answer to all your problems!" approach? When we market Christianity as a cool-looking, friendly, fun, community-based activity (because that, we think, is what the audience wants), but forget to mention that it requires sacrifice, repentance, and a U-turn in one's life, what sort of Christianity are we attracting people to? What sort of disciples are we making? I think the best marketing for any church is always going to be the lives of its members, glowing with the always-attractive, inwardly sanctifying and outwardly sacrificing power of the Holy Spirit.

Brett McCracken

@Ben: You say marketing is about "managing perceptions." Indeed it is. But I think this approach can be a dangerous road for Christians to go down... Perceptions are a hard thing to control. No matter how biblically faithful or Gospel-central we are in our own individual contexts, there are always going to be Fred Phelps types who grab headlines and "taint" Christianity in the minds of onlookers. Rather than spending our time and energy trying to repair bad PR that in many cases is out of our control, I think we should just focus on living biblically and loving others in our own communities and contexts. The Holy Spirit is ultimately the thing that will change perceptions and move on hearts to bring them into church. We can only do so much to "re-brand" church to compensate for its long history of PR disasters. At some point we have to just BE the church in as faithful a way as possible, trusting that if we do that, the Spirit will use us in a mighty way.

Anthony Coppedge

Brett and Ben: Why is it either/or instead of both/and? While we're being the church in a faithful way, let's also create messaging that reflects the unique DNA of each church in their community. Why not create creative, well-designed content, facilities and organizations that speaks to the culture in the same way that Jesus used parables to speak to his culture?

If each church is honest with who they are (their unique DNA - which, incidentally, is not "we're the Presbyterian church" or "the Baptist" or "Community church") and represents that in an attractive, honest and compelling way, that's good marketing. That marketing is then reinforced through what we, as members and servants, say and do.

The genius of both/and. :)

Dwight Clough

The real point here is about not cheapening the gospel, which, in itself, is a marketing concept. Absolutely, we need to manage perceptions. The Bible says, "A good name is more precious than rubies." We are accountable for managing perceptions, although we cannot totally control them. The name "Satan" means "accuser," which, of course, is all about corrupting perceptions. "Hallowed be Thy name," is a marketing, or, more precisely, a branding concept. God is to have the place of honor in our minds and hearts. That's a marketing challenge. We may prefer to call it by another name, which is fine. But it is about managing perceptions. The issue we have with marketing is this: Madison Avenue has juggled perceptions to create a fantasy land in our minds where we think if we just buy some product our lives will be peachy. So, naturally, we don't want to hawk the gospel, like we hawk the trinkets of this world. So, if marketing means lying, then no thanks. But keep in mind this: In many parts of the world, Christians are perceived as dangerous. They are locked up and treated as criminals or worse. I (and I hope you) would very much like to change those perceptions in that part of the world. Jesus was honest and clear about the elements of the gospel that were attractive and those that were difficult and challenging. We should be also. Read John 6+. More to the point this: Should we advertise our churches? Absolutely yes, if we do it in a way that corrects misguided perceptions about God, Jesus Christ, the gospel and the people of God. Indeed, Christians should be the best marketers in the world. We have the most to gain - or lose - in the process.

Steven Holloway

For years John McArthur has been preaching about the dangers of marketing the gospel. No doubt our western culture has been seduced by the incessant pull of entertainment and materialism to the point where when not, we become easily bored, impatient and inattentive. As 2 Timothy 4:3 warns, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires" As a church are we to be about doing these things or are we to be there as witnesses of God's saving grace, acknowledging sin, teaching boldly before those whom the Holy Spirit of God has stirred up? What are we expecting to accomplish by our "techniques" used to draw people in and keeping them there? In light of what we are witnessing in our churches today, it seems more and more we are becoming a "Christian" culture caught up in methodologies and "what works" for us, and less able to live out the truth that saved us.

Wayne A. Nestor

The article is shallow and poorly organized. A professor would grade this paper; maybe a D if he or she was in a great mood.

About the only place I see this "supermarket of Christianity" is with "Christian" radio and TV. Take the radio program Living On The Edge for example ... Skip (is that his name) shares a great message with some powerful truths to apply to one's life, then, his sidekick comes on, reinterprets why everything Skip said is so good and why you must immediately call or logon to buy the latest CD, book, or whatever.

Alec Arnold

I agree with the sentiment behind this article, but one of the things we all seem to be lacking is some clarity about what it is we're talking about. I argued in a thesis for Regent College that the problem with 'marketing' the gospel is that it converts the existential reality of what Jesus invites us to into a modern packet of 'information'. The gospel is a lived reality. It transcends any of our attempts to 'transmit' it as though it were a recipe. By attempting to evangelize the gospel through mass media, we only reveal our confusion about the difference between COMMUNICATION and INFORMATION.

In the modern age, 'communication' has been principally defined as the transmission of information. But nothing could be more dehumanizing than the idea that our words only serve us as buckets for filling with meaning, carrying to another person and looking for evidence of 'reception'. True, genuine, Christian communication is animated by the Holy Spirit, who gives us the capacity to use our words as he does: for making covenants, for extending our personhood, for COMMUNION. THIS goal can never be realized through any technological medium. To think it could is to forget the significance of what it means that we humans are made in the image of God; it denigrates a proper theological anthropology.

All that said, we shouldn't poo poo the well-meaning Christians who want to share Jesus in any way they can. The lesson to learn is that we can only use technology/mass media as a means for POINTING TO the kinds of conversations we should be having face-to-face with our culture about who Jesus is and what he invites us to. Along this line, a good primer for WHAT WE SHOULD DO with the mass media is Kierkegaard. He teased his audience. He invited them to the processes of interpretation. He gave them two sides of arguments and forced them to work it out for themselves. He didn't 'sell' A MESSAGE, because the Gospel transcends our attempts to make it into a singular 'message'. As Lesslie Newbiggin explains, there can never be a culture free gospel, and any attempt to abstract a universal gospel divorced from culture is a failed attempt.

So I say DON'T discourage those who want to use the media, but at the same time, evangelicals must recognize what makes communication distinct from a Christian perspective. It is only realized in the context of personal relationship, and it's never simply a linear process of transmission.

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Verify Code:
	Please keep me informed with the latest updates from Q

ALSO BY BRETT MCCRACKEN

ALSO IN CHURCH

Church: Marketing a Non-Commercial Message?

Comments

Leave a Comment