Perhaps you may have noticed, as I have over the past 5 years, direct mail pieces littering your mailbox from local churches created by a company in California called Outreach Marketing. I must admit that I requested a package of resources from this outfit back when we were involved with a church plant circa 2000. For what they do, they have a nice array of identity materials and graphics that churches can use to do awareness-building communication in a community.

However, they also make a lot of money convincing churches to employ their direct marketing tools as a means of evangelism, promotion and church growth. That’s not all bad—but as I’ve posted before, what do you have going on when every one in town gets a slick postcard (produced by Outreach) promoting a pop-culture-inspired sermon series from each congregation “on the market,” so to speak? Do we really want to be so clearly perceived as marketing the gospel or The Church?

Ever since The Passion of the Christ (or perhaps even before that), Hollywood tie-ins have become as popular for churches as they are for McDonald’s Happy Meals. (Which makes me recall recently receiving a gift bag with a coupon for a free McD burger inside a coffee mug emblazoned with the logo of the church I was visiting. Hey, I’m lovin’ it.) Outreach offers and promotes these movie-to-church campaigns—developing partnerships with the film studios to acquire the rights. Film studios have caught on, making this a part of their promotion strategy and budgets. Christian merchandisers follow suit with books, music and attractive nick-knacks. Certain spiritually neutral stars (or ministry personalities) make the rounds at premier time with the Christian media. It all sells very well. (Mighty Aslan roared King Kong into submission at the box office this past winter).

This leads me to some hard questions about “marketing” and “products” in this context. Is buying into this a way to exhibit an authentic community of faith to the world? Is the Church also being co-opted into a direct marketing empire and a new entertainment business model? (Outreach, Inc. is not a non-profit ministry, by the way, although they call themselves a ministry in their “statement of faith.”) If so, is that okay with us? And do we think we can register more butts in the pews or real conversions based on a local-church funded promotion campaign for The Chronicles of Narnia (a fine film), or a response campaign to The DaVinci Code? For that matter, why not a good horror flick? Check this idea out (created by Van S. at MissionThink.com).

Of course, this parody takes it to the point of the hilariously absurd (although, I think a congregation could get something meaningful out of viewing and considering this particular film).

I’m compelled to question this church marketing trend in particular—blockbuster evangelism. Is it worth spending tithes and offerings on cross-promoting (pun intended) entertainment media that seeks to make a profit for its own self-interest (even though there’s nothing wrong with a business simply wanting to make a profit)? Can you feel the same dissonance I often do? As a person of faith, part of the Body of Christ and a movie lover, the conflicting interests concern me deeply. I tend to regard this as discernment—but I may just be breathing too much of my own exhaust.

Honestly, I don’t want this to be another cynical or hyper-critical rant. But I think these questions are important enough to begin asking. Anyone else out there squirming as much as I am? Or are you thinking, “come-on—lighten up, you big fat party pooper”? Your commentary is welcome.

Now that Emily Rose is out on DVD, I thought the time was right to share this and the hilarious marketing parody from Van S. I recommend his post surrounding it, as well. In the spirit of Van S., here is my contribution under the new direct marketing brand, Watchout® Marketing (pictured left)

Look for more great marketing products from Watchout® Marketing in the future, right here.

|

One last holiday gem to share

Monday, January 16, 2006

Surely most of you have been exposed to the seasonal fashions (often modeled for all to see at family and office Christmas parties) that consist of sweaters or sweatshirts bejeweled with seasonal glitter, rhinestones, beads and metallic fabrics affixed with hot glue, embroidery and other crafty methods.

I now know that the aforementioned garments are classified as “Gem Sweaters.” This fashion phenomenon has been captured for posterity in the form of a dance video by the local internet media agency, Space150. Known for changing their logo and identity system every 150 days, the folks at Space somehow found the time in between creating podcasts, RSS feeds and flash animations to film and produce the linked Seasonal Greeting.

To better understand the folks from Space, do yourself a favor and check out this linked video overview on the evolution of Space150. I’m still chuckling about that one.


Now, children, go experience the gem sweater in all its luminescent glory.

|

Tasting sinful new flavors of blogging

Friday, January 13, 2006

I’m 6 months into blogging now, and already I am contemplating making a platform jump. I’ve learned a lot using Rapidweaver, but with the advent of two .Mac-based tools that are out there as of today (iWeb from Apple and Sandvox fomr Karelia) I’ve got more options to mull over.

Macworld’s much anticipate keynote was Tuesday, and I had my Web news feed piping in updates every three minutes (thanks to MDN) to enable me to read the very latest words Steve Jobs was uttering during the big show (did I ever mention I was a geek?). Apple’s iWeb was announced, along with a slew of improved features for .Mac. The nice thing is that iWeb will be a part of my next iLife update—and I already subscribe to .Mac services. So, I will be able to test that out without too much capital expenditure. In response, Karelia is offering Sandvox as a beta release—so I get a risk free trial there, too.

Rapidweaver is going to have to go head to head (to head) with these new apps. I know many fellow bloggers out there use established internet-based platforms for blogging (blogger, typepad, etc.)---which do offer some nice advantages over the software-based packages (better portability, anywhere updating, communities). But for me this is better as it keeps me from blogging at the office when I should be working for the man (I need some discipline), and it integrates so well with my complete computing environment (server space, software, media and site management, etc.). Your mileage may vary.

I’ll keep you apprised of my results over the next few months.

Meanwhile, someone please try to keep me from ordering a new MacBook 15.4 inch Intel Core Duo or iMac 20 inch Intel Core Duo (or both) before I bankrupt my family for good. Emma and Ethan better learn a trade, because the college fund is toast. Adam and Eve’s forbidden fruit surely must have been an Apple (with a dual or quad core inside, of course).

|

Why you will love TV advertising

Friday, January 13, 2006

For some, love may be too strong a word. You may expect it from me, however, being someone who has more than a passing involvement in the advertising game. Truth be told, I’ve never been directly involved in TV advertising (except that one time my then girlfriend—now my bride—was involved as talent in a local ad spot). But my work with local ad agencies has helped grow my interest in TV ads to the point that now I truly enjoy watching a good TV ad. It makes the Superbowl much more interesting for a kid from MN who only associates the big game itself with painful memories of crushed purple dreams.

So why post about this as Superbowl XL and its Superbowl of TV ads loom in the near future? In a word: Google. Robert X. Cringley recently posted his 2006 tech predictions column with a fascinating vision of how Google will change TV advertising as we know it.

Of course, most people say they hate TV advertising—but most people also love a clever ad spot. Personally, is see good advertising as a craft, and consider bad advertising to be something else. Still, as the internet has proven over and over again, content is king. And this is truer still when it comes to how people react to today’s TV advertising. Often a bad ad is really just the wrong ad.

Let me explain. Have you ever found yourself terminally annoyed by TV ads for the latest impotence or migraine medicine, when what you really need is a good car mechanic. Or forced to sit through an Ad for Covergirl lipstick as a 35 year-old male (who isn’t a drag queen)? What if the only TV ads you ever saw were for items you actually needed and/or wanted? And, what if they were specifically tailored and updated on a moment by moment basis? Consider this vision of the future excerpted from Robert X. Cringely’s latest post:

Google is an advertising company. Their edge is granularity. No one uses Google AdWords to push toilet paper because everybody uses TP. But if you want to sell custom Warlock capes or hand-machined shifters for discontinued Studebakers, Google can charge advertisers a huge premium (per prospect) because these customers are too expensive to find any other way.

…right now, everyone in the country watching “American Idol” sees the identical commercials at the same time, except for two ads at every half-hour mark, which are inserted by the local station. So the state-of-the-art in TV ad granularity is buying only a million people, instead of a hundred million…. VIRTUALLY EVERY TV AD IS WASTED ON PEOPLE WHO AREN'T REAL PROSPECTS. The entire programming chain is profitable DESPITE the fact that practically the entire audience is freeloading.

…imagine if everyone watching “American Idol” only saw ads for things they might really buy? Or, better yet, only saw ads for things they had already expressed an interest in? The value of those same 30-second commercial slots would increase by orders of magnitude.

Google imagines a world where only single people see match.com ads, and people who can’t drive see ads from taxi companies where others see Toyota campaigns. Where fraternities see ads for strip clubs, beer, Cancun weekends and LSAT prep courses, and only seniors (and their adult children) see ads for Alzheimer’s drugs. What would be the value of that increased efficiency, capitalized into present dollars? Ten billion? Fifty billion? I say the value is $100 billion -- 25 percent of the total U.S. advertising market and 15 times Google’s current size.

Google is going to let the telco and cable companies burn their capital building out IP-TV, knowing that Google will still be the only game in town for the crux of the whole thing: the ability to show every viewer the specific ads that companies will pay the most to show him at that specific moment. What Google wants to do…is SERVE EVERY TV COMMERCIAL ON THE PLANET because only they will be able to do it efficiently. Only they will have the database that converts those IP addresses into sales leads, only they will have the servers and disk space close enough to the viewers to feed the ads. Only Google will have the chops to run a constant, real-time auction for the next ad every consumer is about to see, and then serve that ad at the moment the program goes to commercial.

Suddenly, everybody can (and, really, must) advertise on TV, because it’ll be so specific...and so dynamic.

That will be something to see.

|

Merry Elvismas

Friday, January 06, 2006

As I’m sure you know, each January 8th many cultures around the world celebrate the birth of another kind of king…the king of Rock-n-Roll: Elvis. Our family plans to crowd around our television set on Elvismas Eve, near our adorned Elvismas tree (pictured), and ring in the day by watching Elvis get all shook up in “Clambake” while dining on deep fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches.

Tell me about your cherished Elvismas traditions or fond memories from Elvismases past in the comments section. (Or get into the spirit of the occasion by making something up.)

Here’s wishing you a happy and safe Elvismas holiday. And take it easy on the cholesterol.

|

Soon and very soon

Friday, January 06, 2006

You know, even Pat Robertson will die one day.
I hope I don’t show my theological stripes too obviously on this one. You may have heard about the recent stark raving mad comments from Pat Robertson about Israeli Prime Minster, Ariel Sharon’s recent stroke. Unfortunately, everything crazy Robertson says on the 700 Club gets picked up by the entire world news media. (What is that 700 in the show’s name, anyways, his SAT score?) Hats off to the NRB for this contribution to the Kingdom.

The New York Times has it here, as stated by Robertson on the 700 Club, saying, in effect, that “[the Bible—the prophet Joel] makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who ‘divide my land.’” He goes on to posit that Sharon “was dividing God’s land, and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease [the European Union, the United Nations or the United States].”

Hogwash. I wonder if Robertson is familiar with the New Testament, or the New Convenant we have in Christ? Or maybe he should ask a Jewish Rabbi for some insights on interpreting the Old Testament prophets—someone like apostle Paul, prophet Jeremiah or Jesus:

Jeremiah 31:30-32 and Hebrews 8:8 “…I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them.”

Romans 10:11-13 “As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’ For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Hebrews 9:15 “…Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.”

It’s time people of faith stand up and question (severely, when necessary) those most-visible icons who claim to speak for us to the world. Robertson no more speaks for me and my faith than a $1.99 per minute astrologer working in a Scranton phone bank.

I wrote this post because a friend of mine from work brought it up out of the blue in conversation. I have no idea if this friend is a believer or not. I should, and plan to find out—and hope that Mr. Robertson’s comments don’t stand in the way of an effective Christian witness going forward. The Holy Spirit will tend to that.

Someone please be sure to let me know what the angle will be on God’s judgment when one day Robertson finally succumbs to some physical ailment (since the man himself won’t be around to interpret it on his TV talk show). I, for one, will NOT be suggesting that it is merely God working out all His pent up divine enmity because “Pat kept shooting his fool mouth off.” Although, in my theological view, this is still possible for a God of the New Covenant. Just ask Ananias and Sapphira. Or does anyone think he will be caught up to heaven in whirlwind like Elijah?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

|

Consumer retorts

Friday, January 06, 2006

My father-in-law gifted us with a subscription to Consumer Reports (CR), which I have very much appreciated in the past year. One of the things I have been happy to see has been a warming toward the Mac platform in CR’s computer reviews and ratings. Still, with the increased coverage, there have been some inaccuracies in how CR refers to Mac Security and Viruses/Spyware/Malware and the like. I think getting this right is very important for all of you in my circle of friends and family that are unsure about making a jump to a Mac. So, in the interest of complete accuracy, I offer this response to CR penned by a Mac user named Martin Hill (from the UK?) posted in the comment forum of MacDailyNews December 13. It is packed with facts and stats from Symantic and others, and it really makes an excellent case for Mac OS X’s security superiority over Windows XP. For all those committed to their PC platform of choice, please ignore (or read on if you are curious). The numbers alone (from Symantec) will blow your mind.

"Thank you for a useful and interesting report on buying a Computer. However, there are a few inaccuracies in your “Windows or Macintosh” and Security sections that result in somewhat less than balanced report.

The “Windows or Macintosh” section mentions that the ratio of viruses targeting Windows vs Mac OS X is 1000-to-1. Although this seems impressive, the ratio is considerably more extreme being of the order of 140,000 to 0. As Kelly Martin, the content editor for Symantec’s publication SecurityFocus said in April 2005: “There are no viruses on OS X—not a single one. Just as Windows users have become accustomed to 140,000 viruses, Apple users have become accustomed to none.”

You cannot in all conscience include the 60 or so bits of malware that targeted the old Classic Mac OS 9 which do not affect the modern Mac OS X (which is almost as different an architecture as Windows XP is from the Mac). Unlike viruses for earlier versions of Windows (eg Win 95) which can and do affect Windows XP, Mac OS 9 viruses cannot harm Mac OS X which ships with every new Mac (and has done so for 5 years now). The Classic environment has not been bundled with OS X for quite a while now.

Your report also mentions that “Viruses and spyware are also far less likely to target Macs than Windows PCs.” This statement, again, while positive to the Mac platform, also ignores how extreme the contrast is—there are *still* no reported instances of spyware or adware that work on the Mac.

Here are the raw statistics for your information:

Microsoft Windows:
Viruses and Worms = 140,000 (Symantec Security Focus)
Spyware and Adware programs = 78,000 (http://www.pestpatrol.com)
Burrowers = 40 (http://www.pestpatrol.com)
80% of PCs infected with spyware (webroot.com)
Last year (2004) alone:
- 500 new Trojans (http://www.pestpatrol.com)
- 500 new keyloggers (http://www.pestpatrol.com)
- 1,287 new adware apps (http://www.pestpatrol.com)
- 7,360 new viruses and worms (symantec.com)

Mac OS X:
Viruses and Worms = 0
Spyware programs = 0
Adware = 0
Keyloggers = 0
Burrowers = 0
Trojans = 3 (symantec.com)
Last year (2004):
- 1 Rootkit (symantec.com)

When you look at the actual data, it becomes pretty obvious that with zero worms, viruses, spyware or adware recorded targeting it, the [CR] statement “fewer viruses and spyware” sounds like a glaring misdirection. Mac OS X remains the safest, pest-free OS by a far larger margin than you imply, a fact which would get much larger attention in a more accurate report.

Note that Trojans can’t spread by themselves. They are bits of code that pretend to be something innocuous and need to be downloaded and opened by an authorized user. In the case of the three targeting Mac OS X, two are harmless while the third deletes a user's home directory if run by that user.

Note also the Rootkit discovered on a couple of OS X machines is a set of scripts that requires root access to be turned on (turned off by default on all Macs). The hacker then also needs to know the root password and the malware has no mechanism of spreading and infecting other computers by itself.

Note that 37 vulnerabilities in Mac OS X noted last year (which were promptly patched by Apple) does not constitute “increased attacks on OS X” as some commentators have stated as no attacks using any of these vulnerabilities have been recorded. Security firm Mi2g states: “Mac OS X and BSD Unix [on which it is based] are the “world’s safest and most secure 24/7 online computing environments.” John Gruber also has a useful article on why Windows suffers so much malware.

However, no software can be perfect and it would be foolish to say there won’t eventually appear some malware targeting the 15 million-plus OS X users out there—however, today is still not that day. Mac OS X has been sitting untouched for 5 years now pretty much without blemish which speaks to a very impressive security story even if/when some effective malware appears. This is something your [readers] should be hearing more about if they are going to make balanced decisions about which computer to buy."

‘Nuff said I think.

|

Feeding frenzy

Sunday, January 01, 2006

A recent post of mine sparked a discussion where my friend Pete eventually posed the question, "When did the primary purpose of church become that of "feeding" attendees?" It went on to question the conventional evangelical wisdom that one should find and attend a "bible believing" church where one can "be fed." (Pardon my brief paraphrase--you can see the comments post by linking here--thanks, Pete.)

Aside from the bias of language like "bible-believing" churches (which I assume must be better than churches that don't believe the bible), the notion of needing a church that feeds you well doesn't sit right with me either.

This idea could likely originate from Jesus' admonition of Peter in John 21:17-19--"Peter, do you love me? .... Feed my sheep." And perhaps it also comes from other food-related metaphors in the teachings of Jesus or Paul.

If you define The Church only as a physical place with a professional clergy, then passages like John 21:17-19 are your proof texts. But to me it means more than that. It also means that all believers should use their gifts to feed the body of Christ (clergy and laity alike)--wherever that may be--because of love (just like a parent would feed her own children).

Boiling this down to being a proof text to justify judging a local church by how well they feed their sheep turns The Church into a barn and the sheep into swine. How, then do you evaluate a church, by the quality of the pork? I'd rather be a vegan in this regard and just stick to the fruits: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Indeed, The Church should seek to feed and be fed with an objective of discipleship and Christian formation--but the way that happens isn't limited to one model. Using the term "fed" in a pejorative fashion makes The Church into a service provider to individual consumers, rather than the personhood that comprises the community of all believers.

|