Some of my clergy mates have been a little tetchy with me for publishing Ted Brush’s article A McDonalds church is no bad thing in Southern Cross.

The concern they say is that our ministry models are being driven by pragmatism rather than the Bible.

But is that really what is going on?

I’m not so sure.

However it is an issue I’m really struggling to think this through seriously.

What is the role of branding, advertising, marketing, PR, and other mass communications techniques in evangelism?

This week’s major feature ‘Co-operation: the secrets of the burger kings’ is an attempt the get people thinking abut this.

Here are some brief thoughts

1. Our world is very different from the 1st century Roman world. One major difference is mass communication technology which opens up new methods of evangelism not in frame of reference of the NT writers.

2. The mass Bible distribution strategy, far from being driven by pragmatism, is actually driven by the Archbishop’s theological commitment to the agency of God’s Word. However it is not a strategy that would have been possible in NT times.

3. A mass Bible distribution strategy, by its nature needs to be under-pinned by mass communications techniques.

4. In some people’s minds there is a tension in Connect 09 between the a) ‘personal connection’ part of the mission and the b) mass Bible distribution part.

5. However, there is a temptation to think about evangelism in ‘either/or’ categories rather than ‘both/and’. A major issue here is recognising that missiologically there are many ‘Sydneys’. (Indeed, sociologists and philosophers are just coming to recognise and theorize about the fragmentation of worldviews in the West). For example we need to think through the differences between urban, suburban and semi-rural ministry. The issues that Ted raise may well be critical in his context on suburban fringe where ‘Christianity’ is still identified with positive values: discipline, hard-work, charity and good schools ... but those very strategies if employed in the highly secular inner city would actually be unhelpful because ‘institutional’ Christianity is identified with a bunch of negatives.

6. Given point 5, any mass media campaign around Connect 09 will be highly problematic… especially given that compared to the corporates the Anglican Church’s budget is an absolute shoe-string effort.

7. Also given point 5, it would good to cut each other a bit of slack. A cheeky thought - I do wonder if some of the criticism of Ted’s article reflects the kind of cafe-culture anti-suburbanism endemic in the inner-city dressed up with theology???? Though I also understand where some of the edginess is coming from - there are genuine missiological problems with any one-size-fits-all approach…

I could say much more about points 5-7.

Anyway no real conclusions… just some thoughts…

Jeremy,

I wasn’t scandalised by the article, but I think it raises some interesting issues for Sydney and indeed for other Anglican Dioceses.

McDonald’s corporate branding only ‘works’ because it has a very clear sense of what that branding represents.  In particular McDonald’s is able to very clearly articulate what it is trying to be, recognising that it could be something else.  So it has chosen not to be a ‘top-end’ gourmet restaurant, although that would be a completely acceptable and legitimate thing to be.  This in turn helps the broader public to approach McDonalds with a very clear sense of what to expect and what not to expect.  If I go to McDonald’s and the hamburger takes five minutes to arrive I have a right to be disappointed.  If I go to McDonald’s and there are no cloths and candles on the table I have no reason to feel that way.

I think it’s here that churches run into trouble.  We rightly want to guard the essentials (the gospel, prayer, evangelism etc).  But this can make it hard for us to articulate precisely what we could be, but have chosen not to be. 

I suspect this means that clarifying our denominational identity is more important than we often realise.  What is true of Anglicanism (or Sydney Anglicanism if you prefer) than is not, and need not be true of every expression of Christianity?  If you are able to answer that question you may be on that way to understanding what a logo represents.

Actually, I think Harry Goodhew was trying to push the Diocese in this direction with his notion of ‘Dynamic Anglicanism’.  But I suspect he failed either because he was unable to articulate what this term meant or because it was overtaken by other events.

NB none of the above means we should neglect or merely assume the essentials.  They must remain absolutely central to the life of any church.  But I do believe gaining clarity on the ‘non-essentials’ is helpful.

Cheers,

Mark.

Of course it would be possible for a McDonald’s manager or worker to start up a gourmet restaurant and in so doing reach a whole different group of people. McDonald’s may even be willing to offer some kind kind of affiliation arrangement whereby their staff are able to transfer superannuation and other entitlements to the new venture (although some may then question the independence of the new venture:))

In general our team would be best advised to start from the ground-up rather than remaining in the same building under the same logo and thinking they could change everything just by adding candles and cloths to plastic tables. I suspect that would merely bemuse the existing customers while failing to attract a new crowd.

OTOH subtle changes of identity may have some impact.  Adding a salad bar and getting the National Heart Foundation to approve some of your meals may extend your appeal somewhat, although I suspect convenience rather than health will remain the main reason for customers choosing to eat there…

Let the reader understand:)
Mark

Jeremy and Mark,
I think this is an extremely helpful discussion.

One of my questions is the level at which branding is most effective. Should we brand at the diocesan level or the parish level? A diocesan mission, put into action in different parishes and socio-economic scenarios, will often appear to be very different.

Mark Short - 03 March 2008 02:20 PM

Jeremy,
What is true of Anglicanism (or Sydney Anglicanism if you prefer) that is not, and need not be true of every expression of Christianity?  If you are able to answer that question you may be on that way to understanding what a logo represents.

MacDonalds have the same tangible product. All elements in Richard Branson’s Virgin conglomerate have the same attitude - better quality, cheaper price, and fun. What would an “Anglican Collective” be trying to brand? Would be be trying to brand our doctrine? Would be be trying to brand our methodology (’bible based’ or ‘expository preaching’)?

And then the big question - how do we relate these to the outsider to whom branding is meant to be aimed if they do not already hold dear these things?

Personally Jeremey, I can understand the issues your Clergy mates have with the article.

Without wanting to disparage the author, I think the concept of comparing the network of Anglican churches in Sydney to a Franchise model as per McDonalds is nonsensical.

Perhaps some common branding (such as the Connect 09 logo, which I quite like) will be helpful for communicating a unified message to church members in the various parishes, but surely we cannot seriously think that “marketing” Connect or Anglicanism to our city will be effective.

The article itself quotes the following:

“At the heart of making Connect 09 successful must be action driven by the realisation that most of the people to whom we would proclaim Jesus simply do not enter our church buildings – ever,” .

This statement is right. Howver it is folly to think that by sprucing up the front of our buildings that all of a sudden a whole bunch of people will suddenly decide that the anglican church is now the answer to all their spiritual yearnings and questions.

Please, please, please, can we get away from the idea of marketing ourselves to the community. People are already super saturated with marketing garbage. Let’s just get ourselves out of our buildings and Christian enclaves and make real, authentic, genuine friendships with our neighbours, work colleagues, sports acquaintences etc.

Sorry, rant over.

Jeff Atack - 03 March 2008 03:50 PM

Please, please, please, can we get away from the idea of marketing ourselves to the community. People are already super saturated with marketing garbage. Let’s just get ourselves out of our buildings and Christian enclaves and make real, authentic, genuine friendships with our neighbours, work colleagues, sports acquaintences etc.

Hi Jeff

To be a little bit cheeky - what you suggest is a very popular marketting strategy.  Where companies to bill themselves as being “real”, “authentic”, who want a “real relationship” with their customers etc.  A certain beauty company is currently using “real women” and an “Anti-beauty” marketing scheme to convince women to use their products.  Certain banks advertise themselves as offering “real” relationships.

But I do think you’re right - I’m sick of marketing and a pragmatic approach to church.  There is no doubt you can grow churches by slick marketing, unite communities around great slogans, bolster numbers with cool music and encourage people with content driven dynamic contemporary practical preaching - but I’m not convinced these lead to kingdom growth.

The good news about Connect09 - is it encourages churches to put the word of God in people’s hands - and to share the great news of our saviour Jesus Christ.

Mike

2. The mass Bible distribution strategy, far from being driven by pragmatism, is actually driven by the Archbishop’s theological commitment to the agency of God’s Word. However it is not a strategy that would have been possible in NT times.

3. A mass Bible distribution strategy, by its nature needs to be under-pinned by mass communications techniques.

4. In some people’s minds there is a tension in Connect 09 between the a) ‘personal connection’ part of the mission and the b) mass Bible distribution part.

I didn’t realise connect was a mass bible distribution program - I am confused again!

I may be wrong but the Archbishops video seems to want to promote ideas of connecting with community, through prayer and relationships - which will then lead to opportunites for sharing and distribution the word of God.

iow - there are two agencies being promoted - relationships and the word.  but I didn’t get the impression that any of this relied on a mass (read impersonal) distribution (though we do want to connect with lots of people)
the mass distribution we need is relational engagement on a mass scale LEADING to the mass communication of the Word - unless I have miss understood the arch again.

It is amuzing that we are talking about shop fronts and branding- and a unified one at that!
I can think of 5 ways in which we have already been branded. 

fundamentalist
pedaphile
divided
outdated
irrelevant.

I am sure we could be creative and think of more (true or not) - but all branding will do is dress up mutton to look like lamb in the popular mindset.

It seems there are 2 fundamental premises behind Ted’s Article

1. centralisation
we are a centralised body - lets use those strengths and relaise it s potential

There is some good points here and one that already is in many respects operational but we also need to understand the weakness of centralisation - particualrly in a missional context where too much cetnralisation can actually choke new ideas and initiatives (and people )

also, why go to McDonalds for a centralisation strategy when we already have been give the biblical analogy of the body working together under the one head etc. do we really learn that much more from maccas or does it actually detract from more fundamental and biblical realities.

2. fascade
if we look a bit prettier on the outside maybe somebody will like us.

We could have a far more visible ‘face’ in our communities - like real faces and real lives that have been transformed by the gospel and are seen to be making a real difference.
Along these lines it is stuff like Anglicare that will provide the strongst apologetic in the minds of the secular community.

Maybe we call all waer Syd anglican tshirts like Mormons with their bicylces and crisp white shirts. MAybe the archbishop could dress up like a clown and do in store appearances.

The idea that buildings and branding will attract is seriously flawed as the article itself suggests. The very use of terms like shopfront are a sad indication that we have ‘bought’ into a consumeristic mindset - thinking of what will attract a market share than rather than what it means to be salt and light. in a decaying and dark world.

I find this all very depressing to be honest. We might as well go and join hillsong who are far more glossy and sexy.

I do wonder if some of the criticism of Ted’s article reflects the kind of cafe-culture anti-suburbanism endemic in the inner-city dressed up with theology????

Shane said:

incisively brilliant deconstruction - hole in one.

Sorry that was provocative.

I’m really describing my own aesthetic prejudice against the whole ‘McMansion’ package and my own tendency to be sanctimonious about it :)

However, I don’t think the language of ‘shopfronts’ etc necessarily implies that we have bought into a consumerist mindset anymore than a mission-minded Christian community gathering in a local pub or cafe does.

I have to admit my assumption is that Connect 09 involves a certain degree of ‘mass’ distribution. That’s what the Synod funding was specifically earmarked for. I haven’t heard anyone say this is not the case… but then again I don’t get to go to the rectors-only briefings. Perhaps someone else can fill us in?

What I heard the Archbishop saying last year was that there was going to be enough ‘media buzz’ around Connect 09 that people will be expecting us before we even contact them. With my professional communicators hat on, I know that with our minute budget we will be relying on PR, signage, branding etc to create that buzz.

That’s sorta what Ted is saying.

That said, i think you guys a right about the importance of mission intentionality/Christian community for the connecting bit of Connect 09.

That’s my problem.. I’m not sure how this fits together…

Perhaps the answer is not to have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.

I think the answer is to have a PR framework that can be customised to the local circumstances.

The ‘media buzz’ does need some level of coherency.. but I sympathise with the fear that a centralised branding strategy may actually undermine the ‘connecting’ part of the mission in contexts like Shane’s where there is cultural antagonism to corporate-style messaging.

I think it’s a misnomer to suggest that we lack branding, or are above it. What do we think a church building is? What do we think a cross on a steeple is?

The cross is probably one of the most recognizable symbols in the world, second only to the big-M and a brown fizzy drink.

Whether it’s the right kind of branding is another thing, but good luck to anyone who wants to come up with something to replace that!

The thing with McDonalds and Starbucks et al is that they are commodified experiences. They came up with an experience that people enjoy and would pay for, designed it right down to the last detail, and meticulously recreated it across the world.

The independence of the local Maccas store owner is also a bit of a misnomer imo - they run an extraordinarily efficient, homogenized experience. The point is uniformity and conformity, not independence. 

Bringing it back to Sydney Anglicanism - guess what, we have a uniform, commodified experience too! Sure, it’s a long way from the ultra-uniform fast food experience, but it’s still there. From the songs to the sermons to the service structure, it’s all largely the same. It’s all pretty much interchangeable.

The question is, is it an experience anyone wants?

As for growth, take Starbucks again as an example. They developed an experience people want, worked out how to reproduce it perfectly in a highly efficient system, and opened a boat load of stores.

If you can tick the box that you have an experience people want, the next step is (in the fast food example) to open a lot of stores everywhere, put someone in charge, and make it their responsibility.

If we really want to follow the franchise model, we have to open a lot of franchises.

Also, on branding, you brand experiences, you brand products, but at the moment Connect 09 is neither (I’m not saying it should be), so unless you have something to actually brand, the usefulness of branding is probably going to be, uhh, limited..

Also speaking of branding, the Mormon’s do it pretty well (which is perhaps indicative of how useful it is) - the churches, the uniforms etc. They sure can design a nice ‘gospel’ website too. They also have (in Salt Lake City) one of the best design/interaction teams out there.

Having worked for a couple of big global brands, one in food and the other in business services, I have a feeling that the McModel is less suitable than the business one.

(I’ll talk about the business services model more clearly in a direct way and then suggest some parallels).
Different market segments are dealt with by the same firm, and provided for by the same firm, in a uniformed branding way. 

In the minds of many the word “Anglican” already acts as a brand which their local church is just part of the broader organisation. 

Having been at different churches at different times, the brand may be more or less emphasised, the function of the church may be more or less traditional, but as long as the gospel is preached, this should not matter.

As a non inner-suburbanite, I’d rather efforts go into encouraging churches to continue developing semi-autonomous identities to reflect the people in their church, sharing ideas and encouraging the other churches in their area, but still retaining their identity as separate churches under the broader Anglican banner. 

Unlike both the food company I worked for, and the firm I now work for, the church should be a community thing, a gathering of believers under God’s word.

Different believers living in different cultures (even within Sydney) will be more effective at reaching the locals of their culture, than a one-size fits all approach (to forms of service, architecture and cultures) that used to exist on a larger level.

Mike Doyle - 03 March 2008 04:56 PM

Hi Jeff

To be a little bit cheeky - what you suggest is a very popular marketting strategy.  Where companies to bill themselves as being “real”, “authentic”, who want a “real relationship” with their customers etc.  A certain beauty company is currently using “real women” and an “Anti-beauty” marketing scheme to convince women to use their products.  Certain banks advertise themselves as offering “real” relationships.

But I do think you’re right - I’m sick of marketing and a pragmatic approach to church.  There is no doubt you can grow churches by slick marketing, unite communities around great slogans, bolster numbers with cool music and encourage people with content driven dynamic contemporary practical preaching - but I’m not convinced these lead to kingdom growth.

The good news about Connect09 - is it encourages churches to put the word of God in people’s hands - and to share the great news of our saviour Jesus Christ.

Mike

I do understand all too well unfortunately Mike...I work for the company running the “Anti-Beauity” Campaign!

I sympathise with the fear that a centralised branding strategy may actually undermine the ‘connecting’ part of the mission in contexts like Shane’s where there is cultural antagonism to corporate-style messaging.

soory about my sarcasm - my mood has lifted today.

I am not sure that this is particualr to the greener and gay-er parts of Sydney - it is a broader cultural mood

BTW - i live opposite a multinational corporate food chain with a scottish name.