When developing a branding strategy for our clients, our firm begins by trying to uncover and understand the organization’s true purpose. In many cases, this involves a discussion with the founder or leaders of the organization to ask them these questions:

• Why was the organization started?
• What problem were you seeking to solve when you started the organization?
• What is the passion that is the driving force behind the organization?

For example, Southwest Airlines built their company with a laser-like focus on their purpose to “democratize the skies”. They strive to provide the best combination of low fares and convenient service for their passengers. Southwest CEO, Herb Kelleher, said that there have been a number of cases where managers within the company came to him with well prepared plans of how to make money from offering meals on their flights. In each case, he turned them down because offering meals means raising the cost to the passenger, which means diverting away from their purpose. The result of this strong adherence to their purpose? Southwest is one of the most successful and profitable airlines in the world because people understand their brand promise and the company delivers on it over and over.

So what is the purpose that defines Christianity’s brand? Of course, Jesus could not be directly interviewed to discuss His true purpose, but delving into the red letters within the Bible – the actual words of Jesus – provides a strong sense of the purpose that He set out for His followers. Here are some of His key statements that relate to that purpose:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Matthew 22:37-40

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
John 13:34-35

I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
Matthew 25:40

You could certainly go through the red letters of the Gospels and select other key passages, but these provide a strong sense that the purpose is based on love above all else. He also speaks consistently about serving the needs of the least of these – the poor and the marginalized in the world and showing mercy and forgiveness.

If you look at the current perceptions of Christianity that were illustrated in UnChristian (any-homosexual, judgmental, hypocritical, sheltered, too political, proselytizers), love, although clearly the central theme in the teachings of Jesus, does not show up on the list of most common perceptions. Conversely, if you look at Southwest Airlines, the actions of the members of the company are aligned with the purpose that has been defined and, in turn, their customers understand what the company stands for. The actions of Christians, in a general sense, appear to be out of alignment with the true purpose.

In the days of the early church, there were examples of thousands of people at one time being converted to “The Way”, as following Jesus was called at the time. “The Way” enjoyed substantial growth and, if it were a business, one could say that it had an extremely successful launch and quickly gained a solid share of the market. Sometimes its members strayed from “The Way”, requiring recourse to correct its direction. In much the same way as a directive from a company CEO, some of the letters of the apostles were written to bring the early church back on track and on purpose.

As with many organizations, growth provided challenges to adhering to the original purpose of “The Way”, which eventually became known as Christianity. Decisions, probably with good intentions, were made by church leaders to put rules and rituals in place to try to dictate a common set of beliefs and guide behaviour among followers.

Many of these rules and rituals have their foundation in the Bible. Bruxy Cavey, in his book The End of Religion, explains it this way: “The rules and rituals of the Bible are like a map that leads to a great treasure, though they are not the treasure itself…Religious people often tend to confuse the treasure map for the treasure.”

Companies that experience significant growth in their workforce often try to guide the behaviour of their staff by putting codes of conduct or policy manuals into place. Such direction can dictate behaviour from a top-down approach. However, successful companies like Southwest Airlines have found that it is more powerful when employees buy into a purpose whole-heartedly and are equipped to reflect that purpose in their day to day activities.

Somewhere along the way, a large enough number of Christians have stopped reflecting the purpose of the faith. For the general public to form perceptions that Christians are anti-homosexual and judgmental rather than loving and merciful, gives evidence that there is a serious misalignment. This is the underlying reason why Christianity’s brand is in crisis.

The next post will deal with some practical steps that can be taken for Christianity to take corrective action, borrowed from the business world.

*******

If you missed it, check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this blog series.

I strongly encourage you to read unChristian for yourself to learn the full extent of these issues.

Photo from http://matthewpaulturner.net/ – I highly recommend his blog.

Christianity’s Brand Position

Before we look at the current brand position of Christianity, it’s important to understand what constitutes a brand. There are many divergent definitions, but the one that makes the most sense to me was one I heard from Arlene Dickinson of CBC Television’s “The Dragon’s Den” who defined it as “your company as experienced by others”.

If we apply this to Apple, for example, all of the various ways Apple is experienced by others constitutes its brand. This could include seeing the Apple versus PC commercials on TV, hearing the buzz about the iPhone5 on Facebook or Twitter, observing the design of Apple’s products as trendy folks use them at the local Starbucks, or listening to one of Apple’s raving fans expound about how much better their life is since they got their Macbook. Every snippet of this information gets recorded in our brains and forms our perceptions about Apple. Whether positive or negative, it will undoubtedly play a role in our decision-making the next time we buy a computer, smart phone or MP3 player.

So if we apply the definition to Christianity, we must look at how Christianity has been experienced by others. Here are a few possible experiences that may have shaped the Christianity brand for you:

• A visit to a church or a childhood memory of going to church
• Observations of people who define themselves as Christians
• Hearing about a Christian charity building a well in Africa
• Watching a televangelist while flipping through channels
• Learning about the inspiring story of Mother Teresa
• Reading local news reports about church-goers debating over which church buildings in a town to close and which to keep open
• Walking past a Salvation Army kettle while Christmas shopping
• Hearing about scandals involving child abuse by members of the clergy

The net result will be subjective depending upon each individual person and their personal experiences with Christianity and Christians. For some, their overall experience may be positive, but for a growing number of people, according to research, the net result is certainly negative.

David Kinnaman of the Barna Group and his co-author Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project conducted detailed market research into the perceptions of non-Christian youth and young adults in the United States for their eye-opening book unChristian. The chart below summarizes the most common perceptions of Christianity as cited by this age group.

Source: unChristian, by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons

Overall, of the top 12 most common responses in the survey, 9 of them were negative. While these perceptions may not be held as deeply by older generations, the findings are a serious indictment of Christianity in America. These perceptions are likely similar in other western countries.

Interestingly, survey participants stated that their perceptions of Christianity were shaped by their experiences of attending church or through relationships. The vast majority of non-Christians have been to church and most have attended at least one church for several months. Therefore, these perceptions of the Christianity brand have been mainly shaped by a direct experience with the faith. It may come as a surprise to some, but such things as media coverage of child abuse scandals that have rocked the church have likely added to the negative perceptions, but did not create them.

While not scientific research, in CRAVE: The Documentary, Erwin McManus interviewed non-Christians in Vancouver about Christianity and spirituality. In part of the interview, he gave his interviewees a series of words and asked them to respond with a response of positive or negative. Words like ‘religion’, ‘church’ and ‘Christianity’ were overwhelming rated negative. However, words like ‘spirituality’ and ‘prayer’ were viewed positively.

Erwin reported that sometimes ‘Jesus’ evoked a positive response and sometimes negative; however, he makes this observation: “What we found over and over again was that it wasn’t something about Jesus that causes negative reaction. It wasn’t something Jesus did. It wasn’t something Jesus said. Every time, it was an encounter, an association, an experience with a person who is identified with Jesus.”

In another survey by the Barna Group, they report that 26% of Americans have changed their faith. The largest group of these individuals is ex-Christians who now reported being atheist, agnostic or followers of another faith. When asked why they changed faith, respondents stated:

• Life experiences, such as gaining new knowledge or education
• Feeling disillusioned with church and religion
• Feeling the church is hypocritical
• Having negative experiences in churches
• Being in disagreement with Christianity about specific issues such as homosexuality, abortion or birth control
• Feeling the church is too authoritarian
• Wanting to express their faith outside of church
• Searching for a new faith or wanting to experience other religions

Source: Barna Group

The research clearly demonstrates that Christianity as currently being presented is becoming less and less appealing to many people.

This is a situation that has been capitalized upon by a growing legion of atheists. Books by such notable atheist writers as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have been huge sellers in recent years. And with a history that includes the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, residential schools for Aboriginal Canadians, sexual abuse of children by members of the clergy, and other dark spots, these writers have plenty of ammunition to state their case.

Just as Erwin McManus observed in CRAVE, many of the arguments made by atheists point to the actions and statements of organized religion, its leaders and its followers. Their criticisms are generally not associated with Jesus, but with things that people who claim to be followers of Jesus say and do (or do not do) in His name. Just as with the Gandhi quote that opened this section, it appears that many people have the perception that most Christians are unlike Christ.

The result? While author, Anne Rice, made a very public announcement when she recently quit Christianity, many other lesser known people have been quietly showing their discontent and disillusionment by simply walking away from the church. Traditional churches are seeing fewer and fewer attendees, particularly among youth and young adults, forcing them to consolidate congregations and find ways to operate with less.

The writing on the wall is clear – the Christian church, at least in the western world, is largely in decline. If Christianity were a business, shareholders would be dumping the stock and employees would be desperately searching for new jobs. There is no doubt – the brand is in crisis.

*******

The State of the Church in America

Only 15% of churches in the US are growing.

Only 2.2% of churches in the US are growing by conversion growth.

10,000 churches in the US disappeared in a five-year period.

Only 45% of Americans attend church regularly.

The number of Americans that do not attend church doubled over the past 15 years.

Source: Andy McAdams, Church Dynamics International

*******

If you missed it, check out Part 1 of this blog series. Next post: Christianity’s ideal brand position.

I strongly encourage you to read unChristian for yourself to learn the full extent of these issues.

Photo from http://matthewpaulturner.net/ – I highly recommend his blog.

In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

-       Anne Rice, statement made July 28, 2010 on her Facebook page

This powerful statement made by Anne Rice, author of Interview with the Vampire and more recently the Christ the Lord novels, was a lightning rod for reaction by the media, Christian leaders, believers and non-believers. For many people in the Christian church it struck a nerve, while for many others it struck a chord. Whether you side with Anne Rice or not, the fact is that this public statement, borne out of a real and deep frustration, has resonated with far too many people to be ignored as the isolated sentiments of one individual. To me, it put an exclamation point on a situation that I’ve been observing for some time – Christianity has a branding crisis.

I realize that calling the serious issues within Christianity a branding crisis may seem trivializing to some, but I ask you to hear me out. As a branding strategist, it’s natural for me to look through this lens when observing companies and organizations. When the actions of entities, from Martha Stewart to McDonald’s, do not match what they stand for, their brand suffers.

For example, take BP. For the past decade, BP had been striving to reshape its brand with a “Beyond Petroleum” theme that focused on their activities in solar, wind and alternative energies. While these energy activities formed a small percentage of BP’s entire energy portfolio (about 2% in the first quarter of 2010[1]), their brand was gradually becoming more and more associated with green energy than big, dirty oil. Then the Deepwater Horizon oil spill happened in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite ten years of saying one thing, the public immediately formed the perception that BP was still a big oil company and their brand position completely changed. The walk did not match the talk.

In a recent message delivered by Craig Groeschel, Pastor of LifeChurch.tv, he said, “When I meet people and they ask me what I do for a living, I’ve got to be honest with you, I often want to lie. I never have, but I’ve been tempted to so many times. Because I could be having a great conversation with somebody, just flowing along, and then they say, ‘What do you do for a living?’ And I say, ‘Well, I’m a pastor of a church.’ And every time I say that, immediately the conversation changes…if they’re not a Christian, the conversation just tanks.”

What Craig is experiencing, is the default reaction of many non-Christians to Christianity. With just a mention of the words “Christianity” or “Church”, they immediately begin to form perceptions, usually negative. On his CBC Radio program, The Age of Persuasion, host and author Terry O’Reilly stated, “One sign of a remarkable, vibrant brand is that the very mention of it unlocks a flood of imagery.” The same can be said about a brand in crisis, except the imagery is negative. For Craig Groeschel and many other Christians, these perceptions are not accurate or fair, but for the non-Christian in the conversation, their perceptions have been formed by their experience with Christianity and Christians.

Whether BP or Christianity, people have formed negative perceptions for a simple reason – what the entity is supposed to stand for does not match what people have experienced. Of course, one can’t compare Christianity to BP, except to state that BP has a branding crisis that will take a monumental effort to change…and so does Christianity.

Over the next few weeks, I will look at the perceptions of Christianity as a brand, demonstrate that it is in crisis, and present some recommended responses to address the crisis. This discussion is not designed to assign blame or point fingers; my hope is that it serves as a catalyst to get a conversation started.

Read Part 2: Christianity’s Brand Position

But what about Canada’s political parties? How are they positioning themselves within the voter marketplace and are they meeting those expectations? The previous posts looked at the Conservatives and Liberals, so now we turn our attention to the surging New Democratic Party.

New Democrats

The New Democrats have traditionally taken up the role of the social conscience of the nation and have been focused on keeping the governing parties in check on social issues. In that role, they have garnered respect from many voters who appreciate what the party stands for, even though they may never vote for them. The brand has been shaped by this role since the days when they were led by Tommy Douglas who used his leverage with the Pearson minority governments of the 60′s to introduce such substantial programs as Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan.

Once known as the party of the union movement, the NDP have successfully moved away from this brand position in recent years without alienating the support of unions. As a result, voters who may not be labour movement supporters feel more comfortable putting their trust in the party.

The party has benefitted from strong leaders that have helped shape the brand. Besides the aforementioned Douglas, Ed Broadbent was highly respected and often received higher approval ratings that his adversaries with the Tories or Liberals. The same is true today with Jack Layton. Of all the leaders, he is the most charismatic and voters feel they can trust that he will stick to his promises.

There are two knocks against their brand that are related: 1) they are unproven as a federal governing party, and 2) the Bob Rae-led NDP government in Ontario was deemed by many Ontarians to be disastrous.

The party has governed in many provinces throughout the country, in many cases with credible results. For some areas of the country, this reassures people that it may be time to give the NDP a chance to govern federally. However, in Ontario, the result was not positive and, given that Ontario has the largest number of seats, this experience will be difficult to overcome to form government.

The Bottom Line

The NDP brand is surging in the country, backed by strong support in Quebec and the charismatic persona of Jack Layton. However, much of the current support is coming to them by default, as voters are not happy with the recent governing of the Conservatives or Liberals. The negative perceptions will still exist until they are given an opportunity to prove them unfounded.

Previous: The Conservatives The Liberals

But what about Canada’s political parties? How are positioning themselves within the voter marketplace and are they meeting those expectations? The previous post looked at the Conservatives and now we turn our attention to the Liberals.

Liberals

The CBC’s Vote Compass has shown that most Canadians are most closely aligned with the policy position of the Liberal Party. That makes sense, as the party positions itself in the centre with a balance of economic and social responsibility. However, this also seems to hurt them in the current politically charged landscape as they tend not to offer polarizing policy stances at either end of the spectrum that galvanize support from a portion of the population while offending another.

For most Canadians, the Liberals have traditionally been the safe and comfortable choice, designed for the mass market. But these days, people are more specific with their choices. That could spell trouble for the Liberals unless they can stake out a well-defined position that people can gravitate toward.

There are two significant knocks against their brand: 1) the sponsorship scandal has not been erased from the public’s minds, and 2) Michael Ignatieff is an unproven commodity.

It’s very difficult for the Liberals to overcome the sponsorship scandal. Even though Michael Ignatieff was not involved in that government, the mistrust still exists with the overall brand. Overcoming it would require a switch to happen in the minds of voters that completely takes their attention off that recent history and toward a new direction. That could happen with a significant policy, such as when Mulroney introduced free trade, or with a dynamic and charismatic leader, like we say with Obama in the U.S.

The party tried to introduce a significant policy in the last election with the green shift, but it was effectively attacked by the Conservatives and failed to be a rallying point. As a result, the key to them doing well in the election rests with Michael Ignatieff pulling off an incredible performance that brings people “under the big rent tent”. So far, pundits and the media have remarked that he’s been doing well in that regard. New ads – see below – have been designed around building an image of him as friendly and caring. But is he dynamic enough to cause the switch to happen in voters’ minds?

The Bottom Line

The Liberal Party brand is still untrusted by many Canadians. They can be won back, but the Ignatieff brand has to capture the imagination of Canadians to do so in this election.

Previous: The Conservatives Next: New Democrats

But what about Canada’s political parties? How are they positioning themselves within the voter marketplace and are they meeting those expectations? Over this current 2011 election, we’ll look at the brand of each of the three main parties. We’ll start with the front-runners.

Conservatives

The Conservatives have been very successful in positioning themselves as the best stewards of the economy. It’s a fact that Canada has fared better than many other countries through the recent economic crisis and the Conservatives have been taking the glory for that. Is it deserved? Considering they introduced the stimulus plan only after the threat of a coalition forced them to prorogue parliament and “re-calibrate” their position, one could argue with that. However, there is evidence that the economy is rebounding and this strengthens the perception in the minds of many voters that the shrewd economic managers brand position fits.

Of course, they have also staked out positions that resonate with their party faithful – they are tough on crime, they favour spending to strengthen the military, they oppose the long gun registry, and they are in favour of tax cuts to corporations and individuals. This position puts them in a very strong position with their conservative-minded base, many who are baby boomers and seniors. These folks are also a portion of the population that feels very strongly that it is their civic duty to turn up to vote. That’s a strong foundation upon which to build.

On the down side, the Harper-led Conservatives were first elected because they were going to fix Ottawa and take us away from the days of the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal. As time has passed, they have not met this expectation and the party has significant questions of integrity hanging over its head.

They are also perceived as being inactive on the environment and climate change, and closely tied to the oil industry in the west. This is a negative for many younger voters who care deeply about this issue.

The Conservative Party brand, as with all parties, is linked with the personal brand of Stephen Harper. He has been a polarizing figure and Canadians either love him or despise him. He is perceived as very serious and a bit of a control freak, but is given a great deal of latitude due to the economy. Harper won’t electrify people with his personality, but people know the country is not going down the tubes with him at the helm.

The Bottom Line

The Conservative brand position as stewards of the economy is strong and will trump the negative perceptions in the minds of many. They are likely to again form the government, but their strong positions on some issues will make it difficult for them to reach a majority.

Next: The Liberals New Democrats

In an earlier blog post, I suggested playing the word association game with your brand. What would happen if we did that with the word “politician”? What comes to mind when you hear that word? For many people in Canada, it evokes descriptions like:

• Will tell you whatever you want to hear for short-term gains
• Manipulates the truth
• Ego-driven
• Only concerned about getting and holding power

Do the same exercise with “used car salesman” and you’ll probably get more positive results.

The sad thing is that there are some politicians who do actually have strong principles and morals, and sincerely run for office to do their best to serve their country. However, they are largely invisible to the public eye because they’re overshadowed by today’s typical politicians, many of whom are “lifers” (check out Jeffrey Simpson’s great column on this).

Broken promises, scandals, negative attack ads, combative demeanor in the House of Commons, etc. have left Canadians with a bad taste in their mouths when it comes to politics and politicians. Many pundits would argue that when that happens, we have the democratic right to vote the culprits out. The problem is that the public sees most politicians in this light and feels that they don’t have a reasonable alternative. For an increasing number of Canadians, their displeasure is expressed by not showing up to vote.

In the new book, The High Road, by Terry Fallis, the hero of the story, Angus McLintock, runs a campaign for office by refusing to attack his political opponents, standing on moral high ground, and focusing solely on the issues that are most important to the country. The approach is a breath of fresh air and Angus becomes widely popular as a result.

If the “politician” brand is going to turn around, we’ll need more politicians that are cut from the Angus McLintock cloth. The public wants representatives who take stands on issues because of their personal convictions, rather than political ambitions. The public wants representatives who make promises because they fully intend to keep them, not because the promise will get them elected. The public wants representatives who say what they believe to be right and truthful, not what the pollsters and spin doctors tell them will be politically expedient. The public wants representatives who work together for the national good, rather than slamming every stance of the opposing side just because of their political stripe.

Can the “politician” brand become positive again? Perhaps, but it will take a monumental shift by the same people who are responsible for the current sad state of the brand.

We’ve completely changed our company structure, inspired in part by the message in REWORK and this talk. Enjoy!