As a former business person with 20+ years of senior management in the private sector, I couldn’t agree more.  The desire to make change is not change.  You need a clear perspective of the organization including its strengths/weaknesses and an understanding of its identity and mission.  Additionally, an organization should look at its place in the (dare I say it) market place and seek to differentiate itself from like organizations and missions.  As the dollars get harder to raise and donors consolidate their giving to fewer organizations, major donors will be seeking differentation.  This is key if the organization is to remain donor worthy.  But you’re right…you must "do" your mission.    

However, at the risk of being obvious and hyper-spiritual, I posit the following:

* To make a better culture, you must make better social groups. 

* To make better social groups, you must make better people. 

* To make better people, you need the preaching and adherence   

to the Scriptures (in the fullest sense – not just salvation).

The Scriptures are the only source of power for genuine and lasting change. 

So, while I am all for renewing the culture (all of it…arts, sports, politics…all of it), can someone tell our Pastors that something is off with our Churches!  If they’d get it right, I suspect our jobs would be easier or, for those of us in para-Church ministries, altogether unnecessary. 

I couldn’t agree with Phil’s branding axiom more: Branding IS action. The way I would and have explained branding is that it is a story; you have a story to tell and your true brand is the story your customers, clients, followers tell after they have encountered you.

My favorite "brand" in the last 100 years? Mother Theresa, who can’t tell her story?

BTW my answer to your question at the end: Give me a compelling presence and I will write you that report.

I understand your longings for the bygone days, but I would argue that even in the first century church, marketing was at work. I, too, hate the 400 page reports (and so does Phil) and hate the endless meetings that focus more on what we can do than on what God might want to see done.

I know you as a Christian who is also branded as such. There are far too many who name the name of Christ without truly being identified as His own.

By the way, I don’t check it every day, but I do love your journal. http://joni.rodparsley.com/AboutMe.aspx

Making culture involvesmore than just making "better stuff." The emphasis on "stoptalking" and "start making" is not a totally accurate. The things wemake are carriers of meaning — often established by their social context. Noone buys Abercrombie & Fitch for the threads. Things carry meaning.Branding is simply the process of being more self-conscious about the meaningwe are creating and carrying. Consequently, both discernment and reframing arenecessary in culture making. Culture is always a mixed bag. We need to make sure that our culture making promotes human flourishing and the common good.

Second, as Phil notes, wewill not make a difference if we are content to speak only to our own. The Amish arequaint, but not influential. We live in a"been-there-done-that-world." Unless we reframe "religion"in terms of lived reality, whatever we say will be perceived as irrelevant. UVASociologist James Davison Hunter notes, "The culture currently beingproduced by most faith communities is almost exclusively directed to the internalneeds of the faithful. This insularity is quite striking."

We must recognize thatbrand or no brand, the church’s influence is not measured by the size of itsorganizations or by the quantity its output, but by the extent to which itsdefinition of reality is realized in the social world — and taken seriouslyand acted upon by the influential players in the social world. In most spheres of cultural production, faith communities are not taken seriously. In short, a callto more "culture making" will make little difference if it is more ofthe same. Fireproof will not turn heads at Sundance.

Great insights. Your story IS what they say it is, not what I declare it to be.

Love the statement "branding… is the residue of innovation." It’s the emotional footprint left in the consumer’s heart. And that is what glues the relationship, isn’t it?

Keep the thoughts coming. Love the dialogue here.

Dawn Carter

@decart