The Church's Marketing Strategy - Reverting from the Shift?

[smac97]

There are two other current threads that may pertain to this one:

1. Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in decline?
2. Interesting development with BYU

The first discusses whether the Church is in some sort of death spiral.  The latter discusses the recent announcement at BYU regarding more stringent temple recommend requirements at BYU.

An opinion piece in today's Salt Lake Tribune may provide illumination addressing both of the above topics: 

Quote

Stuart C. Reid: LDS Church lost its unique appeal by trying to enter the religious mainstream

LDS Church does itself no favors by attracting fair-weather members.

By Stuart C. Reid | Special to The Tribune  | Feb. 7, 2022, 6:00 a.m.

The mini-bio appended to the article describes Reid as follows: "Stuart C. Reid, Ogden, is a former Army chaplain and a former public affairs professional who regrettably helped develop the 1990s marketing strategy shift away from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ successful niche market."

This is not the first opinion pience Reid has written to the Tribune (see, e.g., this one from August 2021 (speaking in favor of Elder Holland's then-recent talk at BYU), this one from June 2021 (expressing concern about politically-motivated violence), and this one from September 2016 (criticizing the "Utah Compromise").

So Reid seems to be not particularly shy about sharing his viewpoint.  I find this quite refreshing.  He starts out by quoting Patrick Mason's response to the recent story about BYU re-emphasizing temple recommend requirements ("I do think this is really a muscular reassertion of the church’s distinctive identity and mission") and also Matthew Bowman ("It seems to me that the church has picked up this sense of separation and the sense that being different from mainstream American society is the way through which the church will survive").

Reid uses these to launch into an argument making the following points:

1. The Church enjoyed its best growth with it emphasized (that is, "marketed" itself based on) its distinctive/unique traits: The Church's marketing efforts on its own behalf emphasized its “distinctive identity and mission” and “being different from the mainstream” for about thirty years, from 1961 to 1990.

2. The Church previously had a "niche" marketing strategy: The Reid characterizes this as a "niche market strategy."  Essentially, the Church was marketing itself to a particular type of individual (as opposed to casting a wide net).

3. The niche marketing strategy worked well: During this 30-year period the Church enjoyed "the most remarkable average annual rate of growth of 5.2%" which was more "{robust} than nearly every other Christian denomination during that time." 

4. The Church shifted away from the niche marketing strategy: The Church's "public affairs professionals" then made a serious error in the Church's marketing efforts to "reorient" away from the Church's "niche market strategy that emphasized the uniqueness and peculiarity of its restored gospel claims" and instead "de-emphasized its uniqueness and the peculiarity of its restored gospel claims and instead highlighted its commonality with the general Christian marketplace."  The Church, Reid claims, "decided to go along to get along."  Reid further claims that the Church did this "to decrease criticism and the occasional persecution."

5. The shift away from this niche strategy was a serious error: Reid argues that this shift in marketing strategy has been "devastating" because we shifted from seeking out "niche market" folks (I think here he means people who are ready, willing and able to take on a belief system that is, by design, “distinctive identity and mission” and “being different from the mainstream”) to "the general Christian marketplace new members, who, understandably, are at best lukewarm towards the church’s restored gospel claims."

Reid further claims that the Church has, in "'building bridges of understanding' into the general Christian marketplace" succeeded in muting sectarian criticism and gaining acceptance in the wider Christian community, and that this is a good thing.  Reid disagrees, claiming that "the criticism and occasional persecution naturally screened out those who would not truly be converted to the restored gospel claims — claims that during the previous 30 years attracted highly devoted converts and solidified the devotion of members because of the criticism and occasional persecution, not in spite of it."

Reid further claims that today's Church "is filled with fair-weather members who lack conversion and devotion to its restored gospel claims."  That is, many of the members of the Church have joined or come of age during the its purported "assimilation into the general Christian marketplace" phase.  This, Reid argues, shows a "misguided marketing shift away from its highly productive niche market resulted in the catastrophic collapse of the church’s average annual rate of growth, reduced to 2.6% — half of what it was during the previous 30 years," with a decline in the last decade being "even {} worse, with an anemic average annual rate of growth under 2%."

6. The Church may have started shifting back to the "niche market" strategy: Reid concludes by suggesting that the recent change at BYU may well indeed indicate the beginning of "a 'muscular reassertion' of the church’s 'distinctive identity and mission' that is very much 'different from the mainstream,'" which may lead to "the church’s annual rate of growth {rising} again."

---

So, a lot to unpack here, much of which seems beyond my ken, so I thought I'd start a thread and get your input.  Thoughts?  The tone is fairly strident, but not uncivil.  The ideas here are very interesting to me.  A few questions to get the ball rolloing:

A. Is Reid's recitation of the Church's "marketing" history accurate?

B. Reid argues that the Church's "niche" strategy was causative of, not correlative to, the Church's impressive growth of yesteryear.  Do you agree with him?  Why or why not?

C. Reid characterizes many of today's members, who have either grown up in or joined the Church during its more recent "de-emphasis of uniqueness" phase, as "at best lukewarm towards the church’s restored gospel claims" and as "fair-weather members who lack conversion and devotion to its restored gospel claims."  Do you think this is an accurate and fair critique?  Why or why not?

D. Do you think Reid is correct in suggesting that the recent events at BYU (Elder Holland's address, emphasis on TR, etc.) indicate the beginnings of a return to the "niche marketing" efforts of yesteryear?  If so, do you think such a shift is a good or bad idea?

E. There was one part of Reid's piece, at the very end of it, that I did not quite understand:

Quote

If the KUER report accurately reflects a true reality regarding a “muscular reassertion” of the church’s “distinctive identity and mission” that is very much “different from the mainstream,” which also happens to be providentially fitted for its prosperity, undoubtedly the church’s annual rate of growth will rise again. And then, perhaps, much will be well in Zion.

What do you think he means by "which also happens to be providentially fitted for its prosperity"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

I'm not inclined to agree that the success or failure of the church hinges on marketing.  I've seen this idea that if we just say the right things, or present the gospel in the right way, then we'll get converts played out in countless ward council meetings and missionary lectures and I've never seen that much success come from it.

Plus, it doesn't take into consideration the way that things have changed in the last few decades.  Is there any reason to believe that what worked in the 70s and 80s would work just as well now, when the world, especially the US and its culture, is vastly different than it was in the 70s and 80s? 

I don't have an issue with the church pushing back against wider inclusion at the expense of its doctrines or truth claims, but I don't think it's the cure-all for a membership that is struggling to find its place in a world that is increasingly hostile towards its teachings.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not inclined to agree that the success or failure of the church hinges on marketing. 

That's a fair point.  I wonder if it could instead be characterized as marketing having a substantial impact on the Church's missionary work, and - over time - on the worldview of its members.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've seen this idea that if we just say the right things, or present the gospel in the right way, then we'll get converts played out in countless ward council meetings and missionary lectures and I've never seen that much success come from it.

At the "micro" level (ward level), sure.  But I wonder about the "macro" effects (regionally, nationally, globally).

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Plus, it doesn't take into consideration the way that things have changed in the last few decades.  Is there any reason to believe that what worked in the 70s and 80s would work just as well now, when the world, especially the US and its culture, is vastly different than it was in the 70s and 80s?

Another very good point.  The advent of the Internet may have had just as much, if not more, of a causative effect on growth than the things referenced by Reid.

Further, I still think the Church works very hard to emphasize many of our distinctive elements (the Book of Mormon, temples, forever families, missionary work, service, etc.), so saying the Church sold out, that it "decided to go along to get along," seems too strident.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't have an issue with the church pushing back against wider inclusion at the expense of its doctrines or truth claims, but I don't think it's the cure-all for a membership that is struggling to find its place in a world that is increasingly hostile towards its teachings.

A "cure-all?"  Nope.  You are quite correct there.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2022 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Plus, it doesn't take into consideration the way that things have changed in the last few decades.  Is there any reason to believe that what worked in the 70s and 80s would work just as well now, when the world, especially the US and its culture, is vastly different than it was in the 70s and 80s? 

Being an official Old Guy, would you please elaborate on how you see these cultural changes?

I see much of the wildest dreams of we who were '60's "yippies" now being fulfilled, and I disagree totally with my younger self and feel somewhat guilty for my minuscule share of the blame in the cultural shift we are now experiencing.

One of the reasons I was converted though, was for the uniqueness of church Doctrine and beliefs; one would EXPECT the restoration of beliefs originating 2000 years to be different than present day culture.

So how do you see the 70's and 80's differing from the 60's?

Now if we see it from a 50's perspective, I would agree emphatically, but to me, since the 60's we have been on the same march in the wrong direction, with major exceptions like equality for minorities and women.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Being an official Old Guy, would you please elaborate on how you see these cultural changes?

I see much of the wildest dreams of we who were '60's "yippies" now being fulfilled, and I disagree totally with my younger self and feel somewhat guilty for my minuscule share of the blame in the cultural shift we are now experiencing.

One of the reasons I was converted though, was for the uniqueness of church Doctrine and beliefs; one would EXPECT the restoration of beliefs originating 2000 years to be different than present day culture.

So how do you see the 70's and 80's differing from the 60's?

Now if we see it from a 50's perspective, I would agree emphatically, but to me, since the 60's we have been on the same march in the wrong direction, with major exceptions like equality for minorities and women.

The internet, mostly, and the information available that didn't use to be, and also the push back on conservative "values", including a secularization of our US culture.  I think all of those have had huge impacts on members and investigators.

For example, right now, not supporting SSM is practically seen as the same thing as being racist or anti-semitic.   When one of the current main tenets of the faith is seen by the majority of people as just as bad as supporting the KKK, then to me that's a cultural shift that the church can't market itself out of.

[The Nehor]

I have my doubts that the church’s “public affairs professionals” had such a huge impact on growth. The idea that this somehow filtered down to who missionaries were looking for……nah. I think the slowdown in growth is due to changing social environments making proselyting more difficult. The idea that because the early missionaries could bring in huge hauls current missionaries can too ignores the fact that the first missionaries were novelties to break up a dull day and could often get other churches to host missionary meetings. I only had that happen once in my mission and it was probably very wrong for us to do what we did. It was fun though.

Now that people have a wealth of entertainment options available literally in their pocket that in many ways surpass those of the most debauched Roman Emperors it is harder to be an interesting novelty.

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The internet, mostly, and the information available that didn't use to be, and also the push back on conservative "values", including a secularization of our US culture.  I think all of those have had huge impacts on members and investigators.

For example, right now, not supporting SSM is practically seen as the same thing as being racist or anti-semitic.   When one of the current main tenets of the faith is seen by the majority of people as just as bad as supporting the KKK, then to me that's a cultural shift that the church can't market itself out of.

Ok got it.  So the shift is the actualization of "my" 60's yippie goals.

Spiffy.

Just wonderful. And Broadway plays making fun of "Mormons", while we say/do nothing

😱😡😥

Wanna discuss marketing? Now THAT was the best softcore antimormon marketing ever.

Let's just laugh along and pretend to smile.  That should fix everything 😈

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When one of the current main tenets of the faith is seen by the majority of people as just as bad as supporting the KKK, then to me that's a cultural shift that the church can't market itself out of.

That's it precisely.

So what the heck CAN we do?

Turn the other cheek?  I suppose that is the expectation 

[poptart]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The internet, mostly, and the information available that didn't use to be, and also the push back on conservative "values", including a secularization of our US culture.  I think all of those have had huge impacts on members and investigators.

For example, right now, not supporting SSM is practically seen as the same thing as being racist or anti-semitic.   When one of the current main tenets of the faith is seen by the majority of people as just as bad as supporting the KKK, then to me that's a cultural shift that the church can't market itself out of.

Do everything you can to distance yourself from the racist, homophobic flavored politics those of us on the outside pretty much automatically associate conservative Christians with.  Be the difference, care for those who are different than you, vouch for POC, LGBTQ etc.  I'm not saying embrace us with open arms, just treat them like people.  We have absolutely had it, we act and vote accordingly.  We deserve rights just like any other white suburbanite does, the past few years have really put us on edge.  Don't misunderstand me, not accusing you or anyone else here of being klan tier but for those of us who've had it bad, anymore we do blanket judge people on your end of the divide, it's been that bad for us.  

Next thing, make it well known.  The LDS church has a fantastic PR department, I'd be spamming social media feeds like crazy.  Get the word out, Mormons have principles, dogma etc. but they also believe in equality of all of Gods children.   Be like Jesus who helped the poor and dirty, not like the pharisees which many on the conservative Christian end tend to act like, at least that's been the experience myself and many of my hapa and LGBTQ friends have had to endure.  Again, not accusing, just saying how a lot of people on our end feel nowadays.

Edited February 7, 2022 by poptart

[let’s roll]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's it precisely.

So what the heck CAN we do?

Turn the other cheek?  I suppose that is the expectation 

We are unlikely to make any meaningful headway with sons and daughters of God while they are in their “prodigal” phase, but if we’ve earnestly tried to love all our brothers and sisters and exemplified a life lived with Divine “rest” (I.e. free of fear and doubt), when one of those brothers or sisters “comes to her/him self”, as did the prodigal, they may well come to us for guidance as they search for the rest they have seen in us and we can point them toward the source of that rest.

[James 1 5]

I'm not a professional expert in this kind of thing, and by that I mean nobody is paying me with money to share what I think, but I think our "marketing strategy" is the same as it has always been.  We're going and telling what Jesus Christ has taught us.  Things  that other people would not be aware of unless we told them.  And our target audience is everyone in the world; it always has been.  Whenever and wherever anyone has ever lived on this planet.

[Scott Lloyd]

In guiding the Kingdom of God on earth, revelation will most often be preceded by a period of thought, deliberation and discourse involving the best minds available (a collective “studying it out in your mind,” as it were). 
 

But there must come a time when the prophet of the Lord synthesizes all the deliberation that has occurred and then seeks to know and implement the mind and will of the Lord. This is a time for gathering the wheat and letting the chaff blow away. 
 

I submit that we’ve seen this demonstrated very recently with President Nelson’s course correction regarding the proper use of the Church’s name. In an instant, it seems, years of slick marketing campaigns were scrapped as we were taught that the Church is not to be referred to with nicknames and initialisms, but rather, to bear the name of its divine Founder. 
 

And true to what one might expect from a divinely called prophet, President Nelson has fearlessly resisted (or ignored) pushback from both within and without. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In guiding the Kingdom of God on earth, it occurs to me that revelation will most often be preceded by a period of thought, deliberation and discourse involving the best minds available (a collective “studying it out in your mind, as it were). 
 

But there must come a time when the prophet of the Lord synthesizes all the deliberation that has occurred and then seeks to know and implement the mind and will of the Lord. This is a time for gathering the wheat and letting the chaff blow away. 
 

I submit that we’ve seen this demonstrated very recently with President Nelson’s course correction regarding the proper use of the Church’s name. In an instant, it seems, years of slick marketing campaigns were scrapped as we were taught that the Church is not to be referred to with nicknames and initialisms, but rather, to bear the name of its divine Founder. 
 

And true to what one might expect from a divinely called prophet, President Nelson has fearlessly resisted (or ignored) pushback from both within and without. 

Agree vigorously!

I joined over 40 years ago, and before that had little understanding of "that weird cult in Utah".

That name "Mormon" was the worst thing that ever happened to our wonderful restoration of Christianity!

We have never known really, how precious the jewel we have is.

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

The first discusses whether the Church is in some sort of death spiral.

I started the LDS Church in decline topic.  I did not, in any way at all, propose the Church is in a death spiral.  Your portrayal is disingenuous. 

[SkyRock]

The church has grown soft, as it has become one with the world instead of being a "peculiar people". Instead of being "in the world but not of the world" the church is "of the world" and trying hard not to be attacked for its principles.

Throughout modern Christianity, churches that go soft on principles lose members long term. 

Today's LDS church is barely distinguishable in message than the mega church preachers, as we try so hard not to offend anyone. 

I was struck reading in the Book of Moses recently that Enoch offended others with his teaching.  He still converted his city and they all were translated.  

Why not go back to celebrating our differences and standing for principles?  People want that and the church isn't really giving that as much today.  Invite all to come unto Christ and repent,  instead of telling them they are just peachy as they are. 

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

The church has grown soft, as it has become one with the world instead of being a "peculiar people". Instead of being "in the world but not of the world" the church is "of the world" and trying hard not to be attacked for its principles.

Throughout modern Christianity, churches that go soft on principles lose members long term. 

Today's LDS church is barely distinguishable in message than the mega church preachers, as we try so hard not to offend anyone. 

I was struck reading in the Book of Moses recently that Enoch offended others with his teaching.  He still converted his city and they all were translated.  

Why not go back to celebrating our differences and standing for principles?  People want that and the church isn't really giving that as much today.  Invite all to come unto Christ and repent,  instead of telling them they are just peachy as they are. 

What principles have we “gone soft” on?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

The church has grown soft, as it has become one with the world instead of being a "peculiar people". Instead of being "in the world but not of the world" the church is "of the world" and trying hard not to be attacked for its principles.

Throughout modern Christianity, churches that go soft on principles lose members long term. 

On what "principles" do you feel the Church has "go{ne} soft?"

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

Today's LDS church is barely distinguishable in message than the mega church preachers, as we try so hard not to offend anyone. 

I'm really not seeing the comparison.

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

I was struck reading in the Book of Moses recently that Enoch offended others with his teaching.  He still converted his city and they all were translated.  

Why not go back to celebrating our differences and standing for principles? 

Again, what "principles" do you think the Church has abandoned?

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

People want that and the church isn't really giving that as much today.  Invite all to come unto Christ and repent,  instead of telling them they are just peachy as they are. 

The Church is telling its members that "they are just peachy as they are?"

Not really seeing that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What principles have we “gone soft” on?

 

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

On what "principles" do you feel the Church has "go{ne} soft?"

 

Now I am scared.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, SkyRock said:

Today's LDS church is barely distinguishable in message than the mega church preachers, as we try so hard not to offend anyone. 

Oh yeah! All those mega churches teach that God has a tangible human body, and that we can become a God ourselves, and that we can get a second chance at "salvation" even if we blew it here.

Uh huh.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah! All those mega churches teach that God has a tangible human body, and that we can become a God ourselves, and that we can get a second chance at "salvation" even if we blew it here.

Uh huh.

Well, the praise bands are exactly the same ...  

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Well, the praise bands are exactly the same ...  

Oh yeah, forgot that.  I really like standing up and getting glassy-eyed and waving my arms to that pop music during sacrament meetings!

Oops, no, I forgot that we only do that in the temple!

[SkyRock]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah! All those mega churches teach that God has a tangible human body, and that we can become a God ourselves, and that we can get a second chance at "salvation" even if we blew it here.

Uh huh.

Is the primary message of the church today about belonging and accepting or about repentance?  If "belonging" and being non judgmental are the primary things, then the message isn't much different.   We don't even excommunicate or disfellowship anyone because we changed the names.

Sure, the methods are different than the megachurches, but the LDS is much more for a mainline Christian church today than 40 years ago, an intentional effort.  Slightly different doctrine, but similar focus. 

 

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

Is the primary message of the church today about belonging and accepting or about repentance?  If "belonging" and being non judgmental are the primary things, then the message isn't much different.   We don't even excommunicate or disfellowship anyone because we changed the names.

Sure, the methods are different than the megachurches, but the LDS is much more for a mainline Christian church today than 40 years ago, an intentional effort.  Slightly different doctrine, but similar focus. 

 

If the results are the same what does it matter what it's called?

[MiserereNobis]

The Catholic Church backtracked from much of its culture and practices following the Second Vatican Council. We tried to become more palatable to protestants and more protestant in our appearance. This resulted in a much watered down liturgy, which then resulted in watered down beliefs. "Lex orandi, lex credendi" means "the law of prayer is the law of belief." In other words, they way we worship forms our belief. For example, in the pre-Vatican II liturgy, the eucharist was received kneeling on the tongue. This certainly taught the belief that the host was the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. In post-Vatican II liturgy, the eucharist is received into the hand while standing. This will water down the belief in transubstantiation, because the host is not treated as if it were Christ Jesus.

It appears to me (I wasn't there) that the Catholic Church went a little giddy in the 70s and 80s trying to erase Catholic culture. Beautiful churches were sold and new garish ones were built that were decorated not with ornate altars and stained glass windows, but instead with felt banners. Gone was Gregorian chant and in came the guitars and praise bands. Catholic culture suffered because people wanted to appear mainstream protestant instead of Catholic.

There is a beautiful old minor basilica in my town. It is open during the day for tourists. They play Gregorian chant. Then, on Sunday, they play guitars. It is so frustrating. They realize that people associate beautiful Catholic churches with chant, so they play it for tourists, but they won't allow chant during Mass.

Why do people visit this church? Because it is old and clearly Catholic.

I wonder how many people are rushing to see this Catholic church (and can you even tell it is Catholic?):

Now it is the traditional Catholic communities that tend to be flourishing. These are communities where Catholic culture is embraced and advanced, where the law of prayer does match and reinforce the law of belief, where young families are having lots of children. I have noticed, too, a shift in regular Catholic communities, where people are trying to recover some of what was lost -- for example, the liturgy is celebrated more reverently.

I share this as a possible parallel with the LDS culture, if the article in the OP is accurate. It would probably be good for you to return to your roots, as it is imperative that the Catholic Church does so as well.

 

[carbon dioxide]

18 hours ago, Moneymaking said:

Totally agree with this. I don’t have any use for the gay agenda but 30 yrs ago I had exactly zero friends who were gay, in gay marriages and didn’t know anyone openly gay and LDS. Fast fwd to 2022 and I have both family members and friends who are lds and openly gay. They believe the church and most it’s members hate them. 
 

I have many friends (mostly lesbian) who are married with adopted kids. My kids have friends who are gay. 

Here is the change— just 20 yrs ago when this gay stuff started to get a foothold I remember being at a family thing and a discussion about it ensued. My dad straight up said they all ought to be strung up (hanging by the neck) and he was at that very moment a stake patriarch. Most of us (every single one over 40 yrs old) looked at him like he was crazy. 
 

The point is those old guys who were the backbone leadership and general membership of the church are mostly all dead now or will be shortly and even many of their own kids who are boomers and gen x are not hating on the gays. 
 

Going forward the church is going to have to figure out how to market our total opposition  to gays and still gain converts. Everyone has gay friends and family now. Good luck getting people on board with that and it isn’t going to get easier.

The Church is a world wide church.  Much of the gay issues are stronger in the US and perhaps Europe but other places it just is not as important.  In fact getting too gay friendly might make the church less appealing in these other areas of the world.  There are people who are going to get caught up in the LGBT stuff and make this a big issue.  The Church however is not for everyone and the Church really does not even attempt to maximize the number of converts.  If it was concerned about it, it would make simple changes like reverting the church view of the word of wisdom back to when it was first given.   Then it was was seen as counsel, not a commandment.  Now it is seen as a commandment and needed to be baptized and go to the temple.    For 95% of the population that is not LGBT,  they may support gay people but their lives are not directly affected by gay issues.  The average Joe who his not gay but loves beer may not like the Church view on gays but probably is not going to keep them from being baptized.   For them, having to give up beer is a much bigger issue because it affects them directly.