Marketing the Church?

Christianity Today has an interesting article called Jesus is not a Brand. It is a very thought-provoking article. One of the author's key concerns is how consumerism has harmed the church. With consumerism, we try to establish our identity by the nature of the goods we consume. This bleeds over into the church. The concern is valid. But I confess that I take exception to some aspects of the author's argument.

I chafe at the tendency to equate marketing with little more than a tool of consumerism. This is a common inaccuracy that I think the author perpetuates. Here is how he defines marketing.

"By marketing, I refer to all the activities that help organizations identify and shape the wants of target consumers and then try to satisfy those consumers better than competitors do. This usually involves doing market research, analyzing consumer needs, and then making strategic decisions about product design, branding, pricing, promotion, advertising, and distribution."

Fair enough, but here are a few thoughts.

First, regardless of how intentional you are about it, you are engaged in marketing if you are in the marketplace. You present yourself with a product, and a prospective buyer looks for clues about your product's nature and character. It is impossible to have an economic transaction without marketing. If you oppose marketing, then you are opposed to all economic transactions.

There is some parallel here for the church. The Pauline letters contain instructions on how to behave, some of which have nothing to do with the ethical nature of the behaviors but because to do otherwise might obstruct communication of the gospel. Paul is concerned about the "marketing" of the gospel in the Greco-Roman marketplace of ideas and alternative cultures.

Second, most advertising does not persuade people to buy something they would not otherwise buy (though clearly, some advertising does). Most advertising is about persuading customers to buy from a particular advertiser versus another supplier (i.e., shifting market share among competitors). For example, having the "Anthony Plumbing & Heating" refrigerator magnet on my refrigerator does not make me more inclined to buy plumbing services. However, it does make it more likely they will get my business when a pipe breaks. In the marketplace of ideas and communities, we must be present to the ones we wish to draw into community.

Third, this article aims particularly at what economists call positional goods. Economists differentiate between material goods and positional goods. Positional goods are goods whose value derives (mostly, if not entirely) from their desirability relative to substitute goods. If I build a house on two acres of land in rural Kansas and build the same one on two acres of land in the Hollywood Hills overlooking L.A., the second house will cost much more. The exclusivity of the location, and the status it brings, is the determining factor. Owning a beautiful painting by a famous artist versus owning a beautiful painting by an unknown artist will cost more. Yet in both cases, similar amounts of raw materials were used, and the basic need for a home or beauty was met.

Consumerism, in my book, is primarily about finding identity through the consumption of positional goods that we perceive place us in a superior light to those who have not purchased similar goods. Is that present in our society? Unquestionably! Are countless billions of dollars spent on promoting this? You bet!

But it does not follow that marketing is inherently evil or a mere extension of consumerism. Marketing is about market players competing to function more responsively and effectively. This will be as true for food markets, as it is for luxury car markets, and pornography markets. Marketing is a powerful force for facilitating great good … and great evil.

When we're talking about competing in the marketplace of ideas and community, there is no escape from marketing. Jesus and New Testament writers were very intent on recasting their "customers" perceptions of their own needs, on presenting themselves in specific ways, on "closing the deal" of bringing people into the new creation community, and on persuading others to do what is in their own best self-interest; namely to serve others in the community, in service to God.

We no longer need to fill our identity through consumption when our identity is filled in Christ and his community of disciples.

(If my reference to self-interest doesn't sit quite right with you, please see my short essay on self-interest.)


Comments

23 responses to “Marketing the Church?”

  1. one problem i see is that marketing costs a LOT of money. the church generally already does a pretty horrible job of using its resources to help those in need (as least compared to the minimum tithe and not to the world’s generosity), so why should we use up so many resources for what are usually negligible returns when we could use such resources for helping others, which would help to validate our incarnated message. i’m not sure you are pro-marketing in the sense i am talking about, but it does not matter much. if one must defend the word ‘marketing’ (which as the author notes, carries its own message), then i suppose you can say that christians do ‘market’ the gospel, in a very rudimentary way.

    unfortunately i have to run, but i would also object, on a more philosophical level, to the notion of the gospel as an ‘idea’ (or possibly even a ‘culture’) in the marketplace of ideas.

    moreover, when the church does use its resources (which are usually much less than the world’s) for marketing in the way of the world, it mostly does a pretty laughable job. unfortunately, i don’t think this is what paul meant by the foolish message of the cross.

  2. As you may have gathered, I’m intentionally being provocative with this post.
    “one problem i see is that marketing costs a LOT of money.”
    Here is where I would draw and important distinction. Advertising is a component of marketing. The need for advertising is driven largely by the nature of product and industry. Advertising usually is about the presentation of a message in a particular media.
    There are entire industries that do little or no advertising, but every business does marketing. My barber has a sign in his window, a phone number in the phone book, and business cards. That’s it. He has been cutting hair for thirty years. His marketing is by word of mouth. He creates satisfied customers who tell others of his services. That is his marketing strategy. For the first several decades of Hershey’s Chocolates’ existence, when it was under the management of the original family, Hershey’s did no advertising. They stood on the quality of their product. I know any number of folks who are in a variety of businesses that do little advertising.
    Yet each of these businesses is heavily engaged in marketing. They have carefully thought through the needs of the customers they want to reach. They have honed their products and services to address their customer’s needs at a competitive price. Their marketing can include everything from how employees dress, to the nature of the office space, to how phone calls and emails are handled, to terms and conditions of sales, to a host of other considerations. The attempt is to lower the barriers customers have to doing business with your firm and then persuade them about your product.
    Gospel is “good news.” We are called to communicate the good news not only in what we say but in the entirety of who we are. We “market” the good news by being who we are regardless of how intentional we are about it or how accurately we communicate it. Furthermore, the explicit aim of the communicating the message is transformation; to cause people to make decisions.
    Further still, messages are always communicated with in a social context. Thus, an effective communicator of the gospel is always asking who is “the market” for the message. Again, market here does not have to mean mass market. “Market” can be one individual.
    Thus, when an emerging church congregation decides to worship in a non-traditional space with comfy chairs and pillows scattered about rather than a pulpit and pews, they are making a “marketing” decision. They have determined that one option is better than another for effectively conducting “business” based on what they understand the message to be and who they are trying to persuade with the message.
    The real danger with some of this marketing talk is that we come to objectify the hearers of the message. They become impersonal tallies. The relational aspect is lost. Ironically, it is this same slide into objectification that cripples many businesses. Another challenge is when we confuse evangelism for institutional growth and dilute the message in order to inflate the institutional numbers.

  3. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    Mr. Kruse,
    I don’t do this very often, but I’m actually going to refrain from posting the 3 page come I just wrote you. 🙂
    I was mostly thinking out loud, and here’s the conclusion I reached:
    I believe I could like marketing if it didn’t differentiate between flavors of Christian, but I can’t say for sure because I’ve never seen any. Marketing that says (even implicitly), “Come to our church. It’s better for you,” seems wholly at odds with the gospel of One Lord. I’d probably be in favor of marketing against the world, but not marketing against brothers.

  4. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    “The real danger with some of this marketing talk is that we come to objectify the hearers of the message. They become impersonal tallies. The relational aspect is lost. Ironically, it is this same slide into objectification that cripples many businesses. Another challenge is when we confuse evangelism for institutional growth and dilute the message in order to inflate the institutional numbers.”
    This is the point exactly.
    D.

  5. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    > Thus, when an emerging church congregation decides to worship in a non-traditional space with comfy chairs and pillows scattered about rather than a pulpit and pews, they are making a “marketing” decision.
    Bzzzt.
    I met for years on pillows (home church, not emergent) and it had nothing to do with presenting “us” to “them.” I met on a pillow because I believed it allowed me to worship Christ more perfectly. If pillow-meeting had meant decreased market share (and it did) then I’d have done it anyway (and I did.) Surely there is such a thing as a decision made purely without regard to market share, and such a thing cannot properly be called marketing.
    You are redefining marketing into something that cannot be hated, but you’re also redefining it into something that cannot be stopped. The author of the article clearly was refering to an action that could be stopped. Now all you’re doing is conducting an exercise in definition, not grappling with the entity the author wanted to change.

  6. 3 pages? I think I poked codepoke! 🙂 Let me start with your last point first.
    Definitions are important. The author is referring to mass market advertising strategies, which is a subset of advertising, which is merely one component of marketing. You wrote:
    “You are redefining marketing into something that cannot be hated, but you’re also redefining it into something that cannot be stopped.”
    First, I’m not redefining, I’m correcting an errant definition. This article is directed at the concept of marketing. Any Marketing 101 textbook will begin by making the distinctions I’ve just made. If we are going to critique business then we need to use business terms in the sense business practitioners would use them.
    Second, a hammer can be used to drive nails and build a house, or it can be employed as a weapon to smash things and harm people. A hammer is amoral.
    Marketing can be used for great good or evil. It is an amoral tool like a hammer. So yes I am defining marketing as something that can’t be hated. To do so mistakes the tool for the malevolent or errant people who may be employing the tool, and thus leads to demonization of those who use the tool legitimately.
    Third, it is also true that I’m defining marketing as something that can’t be stopped. We act upon our understanding of our call to discipleship. How we act is inextricable from the message we seek to communicate. It will have an impact on how our message is communicated and received. There is no choice between marketing or not marketing our message. The only choice is in how intentional we will be about it.
    Fourth, I agree that the author is referring to action that could and (likely) in many cases should be stopped. He is talking about mass marketing techniques. He is talking about “marketing” the church as a spiritual mall to meet our every need rather than marketing the church as a call to radical discipleship. These are marketing techniques and strategies that should be stopped. But marketing itself can not be avoided.
    Fifth, I strongly agree with you about redistributing “market share” among churches. That is not the gospel. The competition for market share is between the universal church and competing ideologies and communities that draw people out of the Kingdom away from God.
    Sixth, you wrote, “If pillow-meeting had meant decreased market share (and it did) then I’d have done it anyway (and I did.)” But if decreased “market share” had meant decreased market share for the kingdom (versus simply taking from someone else’s church), would you still have made the same decision? If so, then I would suggest you have made a decision about how to market the message. If not, what are we to make of Paul’s marketing strategy given in 1 Cor 9:19-23:
    “19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.” NRSV
    How’s that for a marketing plan?

  7. Dana
    “This is the point exactly.”
    And a critical point it is.

  8. I’m particularly interested in the fragmentation mentioned in the article, which the author linked to niche marketing. I can see some of this played out within the church, with various demographics having their own studies, small groups, occasionally even entire services devoted to their experienced needs (often within an overarching context of middle – class comfort). I’m not saying that having ministry directed at the needs of a particular group is bad – it can be very positive – but the pervasive nature of this kind of ministry as well as the way it’s framed illustrates in my mind one of the darker aspects of modern marketing: the implication that the consumer’s felt needs and desires are king in determining what “product” is consumed, even within the church. This not only fragments the congregation’s meaningful fellowship, it runs counter to our call to enter the lives of others and risk our comfort for their sakes.

  9. Marketing may be a very good tool, but I don’t think it’s a really good fundamental force for building a culture. Thoughts?
    ps – having a plumbing magnate hanging on your fridge might not make you more likely to seek out plumbing services, but it could enhance your financial prospects – especially if his family really loves him and is willing to pay the ransom (I’m sorry; can’t help myself)

  10. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    > First, I’m not redefining, I’m correcting an errant definition.
    Agreed. As with points 2 & 3.
    > Fourth, I agree that the author is referring to action that could and (likely) in many cases should be stopped.
    That sounds like you’re actually agreeing with the article, but resisting imprecise use of trade jargon.
    And then 5th and 6th:
    > But if decreased “market share” had meant decreased market share for the kingdom (versus simply taking from someone else’s church), would you still have made the same decision?
    I feel reasonably sure I won’t intentionally worship the Lord any less fully to increase the chances that His kingdom might seem bigger. I think Paul would agree. I also feel reasonably sure I won’t intentionally allow anyone to be kept from Christ because I’m afraid to worship Him more or less freely. Freely and fully don’t have to be in opposition, so I don’t believe there’s really a tension there. There’s one somewhere, but I don’t think it’s in forms of worship.
    And all told, I’m not against marketing itself(and obviously not within your accurate definition.) I am against advertising that promotes a given building as opposed to Christ within the nearest building, but I could support certain forms of advertising that promote all Christian churches generally.

  11. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    And yes, this subject pokes me in a very sensitive place. 🙂
    Thanks.

  12. codepoke Avatar
    codepoke

    > ps – having a plumbing magnate hanging on your fridge
    Score. 🙂

  13. S
    “Magnate.” Sigh. Sometimes auto spell-check can be your enemy. 🙂 Went back and fixed that one.
    “the implication that the consumer’s felt needs and desires are king in determining what “product” is consumed, even within the church.”
    Amen! And this is the real crux of the matter because “marketing” this form of Christianity is false advertising. It does not deliver what it “advertises.”
    The person who is going to market only quality reliable cars is never going to sell as many cars as the guy who is willing to hide flaws and pass of lemons as quality. The second, at least in the short term, may have greater sales but does the customer get what he or she really needs?
    Likewise, Christ teaches us that we must surrender all to his Lordship and unite as one across social boundaries in order to get that which we most need. “Selling” a product other than this may get more institutional numbers but it does nothing to achieve the “business plan.”

  14. S
    “Marketing may be a very good tool, but I don’t think it’s a really good fundamental force for building a culture. Thoughts?”
    As with any metaphor, it certainly has its limitations. The curious thing is that businesses that do well usually do so because the do develop a “culture” where the values of the marketing plan have become instinctive. It is not contrived. We need other metaphors to fill out the picture of what it means to be the church. Stay tuned for Tuesday’s post.

  15. Re: magnate. Glad to assist in his escape 🙂 . Spell check is a wonderful thing…
    Re: marketing. I’m not sure that a conscious marketing format is the most dangerous thing. I think we’ve absorbed the consumer mentality to such a degree that we often don’t notice when we apply it in inappropriate ways.

  16. You make some good points, thank you. Marketing is essentially communicating your story. Every church markets whether they think they are or not. Either they are marketing well or they are marketing very poorly. Most churches from my experience market themselves very poorly (unfortunately).
    Christian churches have the best message on the planet to market, (the best story to tell) but sadly are the worst marketers I have ever come in contact with. Churches must learn to be better marketers so that they can properly execute the great commission!

  17. David, I don’t know whether I can take any more pokes like that.
    Breathe.
    Breathe.
    It’ll be OK.
    Phew.
    🙂

  18. LOL
    Easy there, codepoke.
    David
    Thanks for the comment.
    I agree that marketing is first and foremost about communicating a story. One concern I have is that we too frequently communicate a gospel that is about “Jesus and me.”
    The gospel is the message of the Kingdom present among us and the call to radical servanthood within that Kingdom. Marshall Mcluhan said the medium is the message. Mass marketing techniques do well for communicating benefits but they aren’t so hot for calling out radical discipleship. The medium tends to convert the gospel into an exercise in satisfying personal utility.
    So the difficult question is how to “market” the gospel in a way that leads to radical discipleship? We are “marketing” something that many people see no need for or see as too costly.

  19. Carla Gentry Avatar
    Carla Gentry

    Very thought provoking discussion on this topic. I am going to have to pick up this copy of CT and read the article (I saw it at Borders on Saturday while knitting but didn’t buy it then.) The discussion and comments so far remind me of a book I read a couple years ago “Consuming Faith” by Tom Beaudoin. Beaudoin is a Gen X theologian who has written first on Gen X and is now focused on the impact of consumerism on the faith of the individual.
    As a small church pastor of a less than post modern congregation that will be gone in less than a generation, the marketing of the church to me and my congregation is annoying. There is no way that paying the overpriced costs to attend a teleconference from Mega Church A or Mega Church B is going to help me or anyone from my congregation grow my church. Their marketing is a myth and seeks to prey (rather than pray) on the fears of membership loss, fear of engaging those different than us and generate a numbers game mentality (bigger churches are better churches). Couldn’t the money spent on the glossy mailers be better spent serving the poor (i.e. buying food for the food pantry, funding the local homeless shelter, helping people get out from under a predatory mortgage, etc.)
    Marketing misses the whole point of the church and that is God and God’s Spirit grow the church through relationships. God’s Spirit isn’t a product to be consumed, but a relationship to be experienced and nurtured and no product is necessary to experience God [This was one of Calvin’s (and Luther’s) arguments against the practice of selling indulgences. Modern Marketing is parallel to the indulgence of the 16th Century at least in my way of looking at things. Did the Apostle Paul have a marketing director?
    Consumerism by its very nature does not build relationships but exploits weaknesses in relationships as a means to the end of selling the product, which is ‘sold’ as being the solution to the weakness. Consume more of x and your problem will go away or you will feel better, at least temporarily.
    If you want to think more about this great though provoking topic, I’d suggest reading Beaudion.

  20. Carla
    The link in the opening sentence of the article will take you to an online version of the article.
    Again, and I can’t stress this enough, in the business world, advertising and marketing are not synonymous terms. Mass market advertising is a subset of advertising, which is itself one component of marketing. Marketing begins with your mission. Every aspect of operations (customer service, business location, human resources, vendor relations, etc.) is evaluated on how it contributes to that mission and, within the boundaries of ethics and the law, is optimized to achieve that mission.
    As I side note, let me emphasize that no successful long-term business has making money as their mission. Making money is essential to accomplishing the mission but it is not the mission itself. By analogy, our mission in life is not to eat but without eating we will not accomplish anything else.
    I fully agree that the church has become dominated by the mindset of being a spiritual shopping mall. The church is seen as a service provider to meet felt-needs that places few demands on the “consumer” instead of as a community of radical discipleship. Advertising choices (a subset of marketing) made by churches and para-church groups frequently reinforce this mindset. This is where the author and I are in complete agreement.
    That said, people do have felt-needs that can legitimately be met through advertising. Car repairs, clothes cleaning, plumbing and grocery shopping are just a few examples that are aided through advertising. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with mass market or targeted marketing approaches. The issue is that many in the church have not understood “the product” and have opted for advertising strategies that do not support the mission. It is a case of a bad market strategy. But the option is not between marketing and not marketing. The option is between marketing strategies. Whether by intention or default, we have a mission in our heads and “present ourselves to the world” (i.e., market ourselves) according to that mission.
    “Marketing misses the whole point of the church and that is God and God’s Spirit grow the church through relationships. “
    The overwhelming majority of people who have become Christians report that they did so because someone took and interest in them and invited them into a community and into a relationship with God. One from of marketing is relationship marketing.
    As I wrote in my post today, we seem to have little problem with family metaphor for the church, even when it makes us utterly insular and thwarts the great commission. In the Greco-Roman world, the archetypical household was a family (or collection of families) and a business. The church is not a family and it is not a family business. It is a family business. Thus we must hold tightly to both relational family metaphors and business metaphors to get a full picture.
    In a real sense, we are “marketing” a product for which there is no felt-need and, in fact, often aversion. Through our shared life together we exhibit (market) to the world an alternative that God uses to generate a felt-need to be a part of the Kingdom. That seems to me to be God’s primary marketing strategy.

  21. I hadn’t thought about the difference between advertising and marketing. There may even be an overlap.
    darren: “… i would also object, on a more philosophical level, to the notion of the gospel as an ‘idea’ (or possibly even a ‘culture’) in the marketplace of ideas.”
    All of us here know that, but to the “unchurched”, that’s exactly what it is. We need to reach them and let them know that it’s more than that.
    David: “Christian churches have the best message on the planet to market, (the best story to tell) but sadly are the worst marketers…”
    I’ve heard that at least once before – and it’s certainly true; but not always. There are pretty good communicators – Rick Warren, for one – a great marketer in the commercial sense; N. T. Wright is another one out there in the public eye (though I have some doubts about his theology, especially considering he admits to not having read the church Fathers); the “Left Behind” series (and “The Shack” – though I’m not sure what to make of it); and there are many shelves of Christian books at my local Borders. All these are a form of marketing – but probably mainly to the choir.
    Any time a church puts up a sermon title on the marquis, they’re marketing.
    S: “I’m not saying that having ministry directed at the needs of a particular group is bad …”
    There are plusses and minuses with that. Our church is downtown, in the middle of a largely Hispanic population. It’s been where it is for 125 years, and the older congregation is mostly white middle class, average age about 60, with new families coming in now and then. To accomodate the Spanish-speaking members, we set up two parallel services. The co-pastor is Hispanic, and runs that service separate from the main service. There wasn’t a lot of mixing of the congregations before they tried that, and there isn’t much now – but at least the congregation as a whole is growing.
    A few years back, we tried a service to reach out to the youth population. We called it “The River”, and held services in the basement (really a bottom floor, big enough for 100 people or so, with a sound system, a 3-piece band, contemporary praise songs, &c). It worked for a year or two, and then ended (I don’t know why).
    Along those lines (aiming the presentation to particular audiences), one local church says right on their website “We don’t change the message, the message changes us” (partly alluding to the difficulties of the Episcopal Church).
    Within easy driving distance from us is one long-standing church – a free evangelical Baptist church, whose building is older than our 125 years, holds about 80 people; been there since it was built. In that same distance is Warren’s Saddleback Church, and 3 or 4 churches whose buildings span entire blocks, and with 3-story parking structures and day-long programs for kids, teenagers, young adults, the whole range. Needless to say, the little Baptist church is always strapped for cash. (A couple of years ago, a big Mormon Temple went up next door.)
    Even with the tax exemption, those big churches didn’t get built by their pastors sitting around waiting for money to come pouring in.
    The extreme case of church marketing was probably Gene Scott (in his 24/7 TV shows, he’d sometimes just sit there for hours, glaring into the camera, saying “We’re just going to sit here until you people start sending in pledges!”) The little Baptist church is at the other.
    It’s probably obvious that commercial marketing and church marketing are different. But what do you call the process of spreading the Gospel?
    And what are some good ways to do that? (I think the Mormon Church is one of the faster-growing churches in the country. They market: everyone goes on a mission; once they get your contact info, they follow up with phone calls and videos. It works.)

  22. I’m with you, Michael, that marketing is a good part of an economic system. My undergrad degree is in Business/Marketing, and so I am often put off with the automatic assumption that marketing is an evil of the consumeristic culture.
    That being said, I agree with Benjamin Barber that “things are flying off the shelves that we don’t want or need or even understand what they are, but we go on buying them.” Capitalism is no longer healthy – it “needs us to buy things way beyond the scope of our needs and wants to stay in business. That’s the bottom line. Capitalism is no longer manufacturing goods to meet real needs and human wants. It’s manufacturing needs to sell us all the goods it’s got to produce.”
    When the church uses the same tactics as today’s marketing machine, we no longer are offering something that meets a real need, we are simply mimicking the shallowness of this sad turn in marketing.

  23. “When the church uses the same tactics as today’s marketing machine, we no longer are offering something that meets a real need, we are simply mimicking the shallowness of this sad turn in marketing.”
    Amen!

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading