Sometimes, it’s best NOT to brand.
Thanks to my friend Rob, I stumbled upon this little doozy today. (although I didn’t StumbleUpon it… but that’s another lesson for another time…) At it’s core, the five minute short explores what Starbucks would be like if it were marketed like a church. The result is somewhere between amusing and indicting.
At the end of the video, it left me pondering what it meant. What does the video actually say, and what action should be taken to resolve the problems it addresses. In the end, I’ve settled upon the idea that churches just shouldn’t brand. (sorry Kingsway, this isn’t to pick on you, my church is a sister church and we’re equally guilty on the branding side of things) The problem, as I see it, is that the church acts as though it now has a product to sell, and the way that the “marketing” is handled not only betrays the core values but it also dissuades new membership, creates a sense of exclusivity, and comes across as disingenuous.
The clip clearly illustrates these points.
The reason that I think branding should be dropped is because it misses the point. Churches, it seems, should be welcoming, encouraging, and loving without an initiative. Greeters are often used to put a face on the church to help new people, but I wonder if new people should not only feel welcome but shouldn’t feel lost when they enter the building. I recognize the necessity and good that comes from complex church buildings: extra study space, room for congregants to have community, a place for kids to stay off the street. But perhaps by emphasizing these things and “marketing” the benefits of the church, we’ve made it much harder to discover the reason for coming: the sanctuary.
It also seems to be a contradiction that the church has something to sell, and it strikes people as disingenuous in the same way that used car salesmen do. It seems that so many people have a snake-oil salesman perception of church leaders, and it seems to me that the cause of this is the focus on marketing that churches take. It seems that churches work so hard to sell people on their goodness, that they don’t take a minute to look in the mirror and see that they’ve been going for the hard sale. In the process, the “customer” is turned off to the purchase, and “yeah… we’ll be back next week… sure…” As the clip demonstrated, we want them to sign the dotted line, and in return we assume they want something they already have. We barely give them the coffee because we’re so worried about the mug.
Perhaps the worst part is the sense of exclusivity that the church can also breed. As a critical observation, rather than a judgement, it seems like we create the image that we’re a club. People drive around with stickers on their cars endorsing apple, political parties, and… church? The problem with “advertising” the church like that is that it creates competition. Us vs. Them. Apple vs. PC. Republicans vs. Democrats. Our church vs. …. you?
All of this led me to the conclusion that it might just be best to let go of branding the church and to return to the work of the church: service. That’s the single thing that Starbucks does right that the church should work toward. Forget the slogans, the “mood-setting”, the advertising, the sales team. Focus on service. Sometimes it’s just best not to brand.
Torn… over Peanuts
One of my favorite illustrators and “narrators” is Charles Schulz of Peanuts fame. His artwork as an illustrator has always connected to me, and his story lines manage to speak to me on a sublime level. By borrowing from real life situations and writing in a more or less biographic way, Schulz was able to touch a chord deep inside and to connect the gap between fantasy and humor and some of the darker realities of life.
At the height of it’s popularity, Schulz made a decision to allow Peanuts to be produced into film, combining the creativity of three great men: Lee Mendelson, Bill Melendez, and Vince Guaraldi. Between the writing, illustration, animation, and musical talent of those three men combined with Schulz at the head, the Animated specials were created (over 50 total) including the famous Christmas Special. Schulz was very particular about the men working with his characters, and the quality of the film clearly reflects those choices.
This week on iTunes they’ve added the new “Peanuts Motion Comics” series to the free downloads of the week. Being who I am, and considering my love for Schulz’s work, I downloaded the free episode to see what it was. Sadly, after downloading and watching it, the new series only retains the imagination and narration of Schulz without the animation vision of Mendelson or the talent of Melendez. The craft has gone from artwork to cheap flash animation, and it feels like an attempt to make an extra dollar from his characters rather than to actually use them well. That may not be the actual intent, but I just wish they had retained the things that were so good about the original animated specials. Once again the focus on design and the cohesive whole is lacking. Like my previous critique on the newer Star Wars movie, I am concerned that the creators of the series simply have forgotten the way the original strips benefitted from the illustrators used, and it’s distracting that it’s flash (linear) animation.
Sometimes, Inspiration hits when you least expect it.
Sitting at my desk, racking my brain over what to write about, I happened across a link to this video.
For those who know me, there is little that I appreciate more than Star Wars. One of the major things Lucas did right originally was to sign on John Williams for the score rather than go with the “pop” being churned out. Which, sadly, was an actual consideration. For me, Williams’ scores for epic films are a bit like Danny Elfman’s scores for some of the darker or stranger films out there. If you’ve seen it, and it was epic, and it fell between 1970 and 2000, it was probably made awesome by the musical talents of John Williams.
The saddest part of the most recent Star Wars films was the lost spirit of ingenuity that went into the original three. Lucas had to try and convince us that things were real before, and he did a great job. Did you know that the fighters were stationary and it was just the camera moving? Did you think that C-3PO and R2-D2 were actually people? Didn’t you think the speeder bikes were really flying through the jungle? The films are filled with examples where Lucas focused on making you believe you were there. In the more recent films, he opted to go for a more fantastical approach that neglected the need to feel engaged by the environment. No one is fooled by the computer generated animation. We can see it, and instantly we remember that it’s not real. Part of the magic of the old sci-fi films was that you had the chance to be a part of the environment because it was real, it didn’t rely on you being able to imagine away the graphic treatment.
Likewise, John Williams score was a design feature of the film that made it cohesive and allowed the viewer to relate to it without dissonance. You didn’t have to get past cheesy lyrics to get the emotion from the compositions, and Williams was able to underscore the events by retelling them in music. Darth Vader didn’t just impact your visual senses. You didn’t just see the dark, looming figure. You felt his presence as the Imperial March matched his motions step to step as a part of his character as much as the sound of the respirator.
And that’s the brilliance of design. You don’t necessarily know it’s there (although clearly you may recognize it without issue) but without the cohesive structure the work would suffer. Without the imagination and craft, you trade Empire Strikes Back for Phantom Menace.
So, thank you John Williams. And sweet performance John Williams tribute guy.