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

[poptart]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

This thread upset me a bit, my progressively uglier posts show it.  I was really hoping to get away from it a bit this year but o well, here we are.  I'm LGBTQ too, I'm so sick of their crap.  I'm with you on this one as are pretty much all my hapa friends.  We've had it.

[kimpearson]

The Church's growth in the 60's, 70's, 80's and early 90's was due to a very clean, easy to explain, heart warming and devoid of any issues message that was put out in various ways.  The film Man's search for happiness was and early example.  The heartwarming messages on TV was another.  Missionary lessons were organized and packaged in a very easy to teach (sell) way for missionaries compared to the disjointed mission by mission approach of prior years.  The sales method of missionary lessons was further refined by experience going from rainbow discussion to simplified discussions.  Baseball type baptismal efforts were encourages (I served in Venezuela and saw it first hand) where thousands were baptized in a mission who attended church once and then were never seen again.  Any opposition to the Church was almost always by someone on the fringe like Ed Decker and the film the God Makers or Gerald and Sandra Tanner.  These opponents were easy to dismiss because the opponents had very little resources to get their messages out.  The Church's stance against communism played into the very powerful political developments in the fall of the Iron Curtain. The main view worldwide was of Mormons having happy safe families.  The message was very powerful and I was able to be part of the conversions of hundreds on my mission.  I never had to explain the priesthood ban, patriarchy, LGTBQ and any other controversial issue.  The hardest questions I got was if I was really a missionary or an undercover CIA agent (I'm serious).  We were cautioned constantly to be careful of young women who joined the Church in hopes of getting a missionary to fall in love with them so they could go to the United States (That actually happened with several of my best friends serving missions).  A few missionaries went home early either for moral issues with member women or they got really sick.

Everything changed with the creation of the Internet.  In a very short period of time, all the issues and half truths of the Mormon story got exposed.  History issues, the full extent of polygamy, the full extent of racism, the patriarchal structure that was almost exclusively white well to do older North American men.  Stories of priesthood abuse flooded the Internet.  The highly problematic interviewing of very young teens by older married men came to light.  Basically the realization by many both inside and outside the Church that the pure clean Mormon story was not nearly as clean and pure as they had been told.  In fact the story contains some down right ugliness.  The Church's attacks against the LGTBQ community became big news.  This resulted in falling conversion rates, increased inactivity and resignations of memberships.  Trust in the LDS Church and its leaders was lost not only by members but society at large.  No more heartwarming TV ads.  No more interviews with Church leaders that came across very favorably on those leader because now hard questions are being asked.  Now the Church is seen as rich, politically powerful and very conservative.  The high demands and majority political views that are seemingly required of members is front and center.

It seems like Church leaders are responding by telling members to go back to the 60's, 70's and 80's and ignore the issues that the internet has highlighted.  Almost all of the personal efforts of general authorities is focused internally on members and this includes missionary work.   The only current exception is Africa.  The Church has no message currently focused on the outside world.

That is the way I see it as a member born in the 60's in Southeast Idaho who spent time personally with general authorities who were friends of my dad.  Who grew up with released time seminary, youth conferences, dance festivals, firesides at Rick's college and the Tabernacle.  Who attended Rick's College and BYU.  Who served a mission as soon as I turned 19.  Who attended scout jamborees both national and international where the Church was the largest by far sponsoring organization.  Who firsthand saw the debate over blacks and the priesthood, the ERA amendment, live temple endowments, numerous changes to temple ceremonies, knowing hardly anyone who had left the church to having my own family members leave the Church. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by kimpearson

[Stormin' Mormon]

Ima just post these on my way out....

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/2/7/22921927/latter-day-saint-leaders-support-arizonas-new-gay-rights-bill-heres-what-theyve-said-in-the-past

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/federal-fairness-for-all-support-december-2019

https://www.fox13now.com/2015/03/12/gov-herbert-signs-utahs-lgbt-non-discrimination-bill-into-law-as-supporters-cheer

[James 1 5]

On 2/7/2022 at 7:38 AM, smac97 said:

...

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?

Is it accurate, you ask.  Well, I think many of those facts may be correct, but I see a lot of speculation and negatively biased opinion. I think the Church marketing or advertising reps were targeting everyone in the world using various methods, including those Reid labels as a "niche" market.  I believe the Church reps still want to persuade everyone to believe that being a member of the Church is good with many good benefits, rather than only one niche market as Reid seems to believe.  We do say some things differently now than we did in the past, but I think we still want the same thing for everybody. We invite everyone in the world to join us and become a member like us.  We have never targeted only one class or group of people.  We want everybody with us.

 

On 2/7/2022 at 7:38 AM, smac97 said:

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?

No, I don't agree with him.  Some specific group of people may have became members of the Church because of a Church marketing strategy, but I believe the majority of people who became members did so because they felt the Spirit of God testify to them that the Church is what it claims to be.  And the Spirit of God moves wherever the Spirit of God wants to move.  The Spirit of God is not controlled or handled based on any Church marketing strategy.

On 2/7/2022 at 7:38 AM, smac97 said:

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?

No, I don't think that is a fair or accurate assessment, and the reason why I don't think so is because my attitude and perspective is not so negative.  I believe most members of the Church have received a firm and certain testimony from God assuring them that the Church is what it claims to be.  I know there are some lukewarm members and many who struggle, and many who don't know as much as I know, but I am sure most members of the Church have the strength of testimony they need to inspire them to want to remain with the Church. 

On 2/7/2022 at 7:38 AM, smac97 said:

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?

I don't think the Church reps responsible for marketing and advertising have any problem repeating what they have said or advised others to say before.  If it is good to say something once it is usually also good to say it again.

On 2/7/2022 at 7:38 AM, smac97 said:

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Not sure, but maybe by "providentially" he meant inspired by God and by "fitted for its prosperity" he meant suitable for its prosperous success, so maybe: which also happens to be inspired by God to be suitable for its prosperous success.

[smac97]

Today the Trib has published a response to Reid's piece.  It is by Richard Davis of Orem, Utah, a Political Science professor at BYU and author of “The Liberal Soul: Applying the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Politics.”

Quote

Reid is correct that the church made a fundamental shift about that time. It was seen in moves such as the church logo displaying the name of Jesus Christ more prominently, a new subtitle for the Book of Mormon, and more Christ-oriented missionary discussions. The change was so dramatic that I remember one older church member asking in a church class when we turned our attention away from Joseph Smith and towards Jesus Christ.

However, the shift was more than a public relations strategy. I believe it was the product of revelation to bring church members to a belief in and reliance on Jesus Christ as each member’s personal redeemer. It was an effort to help members understand the role of grace in their lives and find peace in sometimes troubled times.

Perhaps even more than that, it was designed to emphasize what was central to church members rather than simply what was distinctive. It is true that Latter-day Saints have distinctive doctrines and practices from traditional Christianity. But those are not at the core of the church’s beliefs. It is the atonement of Jesus Christ — his role in helping all of God’s children eventually return to God — that is fundamental to the faith.

These are fair points.

Quote

Reid suggests that members who have been attracted to the church, or have remained faithful, due to this focus on Jesus Christ are somehow less devoted. However, he provides no evidence that is the case. It is true that the growth rate of baptisms of new converts has slowed considerably in the past couple of decades. But that phenomenon has been true generally for Christian churches of all stripes.

I think his first sentence above is not accurate.  But the point about the slowing of growth across all of Christendom is solid.  And this generalized trent militates against Reid's thesis because the Church's "marketing" shift would not have had any generalized slowing effect in other faiths, and that that slowing has occurred.

Quote

Moreover, even with the concentration on Jesus Christ, the church is still distinctive and will remain so. Concepts like pre-mortal existence, covenants and modern-day revelation separate the church from mainstream Christianity. Not to mention the use of the Book of Mormon, non-recognition of baptisms outside the faith and celestial marriage. There is no danger of the church losing its unique identity.

I agree with Brother Davis on this point.

Quote

Changes at Brigham Young University such as requiring temple recommends or codifying on-campus demonstration rules are not issues related to Christian identity vs. traditional distinctive practices of the church. They have more to do with assuring that church schools don’t become secularized as many religious-sponsored institutions have become. Catholic and Protestant schools have experienced these same tensions and they are part of mainstream Christianity.

I agree with him here too.  That is, I think his explanation of the changes at BYU is more likely to be accurate as compared to Reid's.

Quote

The church can be Christ-centered and distinctive at the same time. Indeed, it is now and will remain that way. Church leaders have adopted this theme because it will help members face their trials in the future. No longer will they believe they must work, work, work to gain their salvation, but instead will turn their lives over to a loving God who, through the atonement of Jesus Christ, will forgive them as they repent and enable them to become disciples. There is no more important and reassuring message for Latter-day Saints in the 21st century.

Good thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/7/2022 at 2:41 PM, mfbukowski said:

That's it precisely.

So what the heck CAN we do?

Turn the other cheek?  I suppose that is the expectation 

Capitulate and give up the claims of the Restoration. That is the end game.