The Church and Branding
Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : April 12, 2005
Is it impossible for a church in America to NOT engage in some form of branding? Most churches feel the need to have a logo, letter-head, a website, a core demographic, a purpose statement, etc…things which exist in part to distinguish that church from other churches. Churches "brand" themselves to compete with other churches in the free market. Doesn’t this sound like a relatively bad thing? What is the alternative?
for further reading . . .
- None Found
I don’t think it needs to be a bad thing necessarily. I might draw a distinction between having a sense of community identity that presents itself publicly in specific ways and “marketing.” I do think it’s odd to find churches listed in much the same way other advertisements are displayed.
I have to agree with Chris on that one. If branding becomes the emphasis, then it runs into idolatorous territory. If it is subsumed within a missional framework, then I would be ok with it.
That being said, on a personal level, I dislike an overemphasis on branding more because I’m a BoBo PoMo than for ecclesial reasons… If that makes sense.
If a group cannot exist apart from a shared identity, then “branding” or self-identification is necessary to even define who the “we” are. Maybe the problem is not THAT churches self-identify, but HOW they self-identify and with WHAT.