Comments on: Branding Personality Driven Organizations http://philcooke.com/branding_personalities/ Change Revolution Fri, 18 May 2012 18:10:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Erik Ticen http://philcooke.com/branding_personalities/#comment-1021 Erik Ticen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/branding_personalities#comment-1021 In the short term, perhaps.  However the problem is not so simple.  At some point the brand must transcend the individual - even if the name remains.   Lucy Ball never had millions hanging on her every revelation, a church to purpetuate, or a multinational organization to feed when she was in her old age.  She left us with great memories of herself and that was enough.  And in another 50 years she will be almost forgotten by most people.<div>                                             <div>The fist generation mass media preachers have very little precedent to fall back on and the results of handing over the power to their kids is still up in the air.  Joel doesn't really count because the national public never really knew his old man to begin with.  And Franklin has found his own way.  Personality remains the quickest way to the top. But the book remains to be written on whether it is enough in itself to keep it there. </div></div> In the short term, perhaps.  However the problem is not so simple.  At some point the brand must transcend the individual – even if the name remains.   Lucy Ball never had millions hanging on her every revelation, a church to purpetuate, or a multinational organization to feed when she was in her old age.  She left us with great memories of herself and that was enough.  And in another 50 years she will be almost forgotten by most people.
                                             
The fist generation mass media preachers have very little precedent to fall back on and the results of handing over the power to their kids is still up in the air.  Joel doesn't really count because the national public never really knew his old man to begin with.  And Franklin has found his own way.  Personality remains the quickest way to the top. But the book remains to be written on whether it is enough in itself to keep it there. 
]]> By: Alan Smithee http://philcooke.com/branding_personalities/#comment-1022 Alan Smithee Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://philcooke.vintom.com/branding_personalities#comment-1022 <p>Phil, your words early on in your post were perceptive: "People won’t want a relationship with an organization, a TV program, or a building. They want to relate to another person." Churches - and their leadership - who produce tv shows need to realize the power and effects of branding and audience relationship + receptivity. People watch and are faithful to a show based on the speaker, his or her personality and likability - and their message. I like watching T.D. Jakes because he's T.D. Jakes and I know every little - nor do I care - about his church, Potter's House in Texas. Give me T.D. Jakes huffing and puffing and blowing the house down. That's what I'm drawn to. The sponsoring group is backstage, T.D. front stage. The relationship between a viewer and the speaker is unique. We often "project" onto them values they may or may not possess. This is based on individual perception & biases. These are the fundamentals of television communications. Many Christian groups, more attuned to ministry than media, don't understand these fundamentals.</p><p>Just recently, I left producing a church sponsored tv show where multiplied millions of $'s were spent on airtime. It accounted for 1 out of every 4 dollars of the church budget. Over and again it was pointed out to the pastor (and his gatekeepers) that his television audience tuned in because of HIM, not the CHURCH itself. They liked him, enjoyed his message. Even the branding of the show had his name in it. Over and again, church leadership + the pastor kept trying to make the case that the show was all about the church sponsoring it. There was a viewpoint that any talk about pastor as "brand" was heresy. They didn't get it. Because of this stubborn viewpoint the pastor failed to make himself available for any other special segments other than a hello, then off to the message. He didn't want to be bothered with extras. To this day, the show - which has phenomenal potential - putters on underperforming. All because the branding strategy of "people loyally view each week because of their perceived relationship with a dynamic speaker" was not accepted, understood or acted upon. Phil, you're right: branding is based most often on a person (pitfalls and all). The world has known this for decades. When will Christian TV get it too?</p> Phil, your words early on in your post were perceptive: "People won’t want a relationship with an organization, a TV program, or a building. They want to relate to another person." Churches – and their leadership – who produce tv shows need to realize the power and effects of branding and audience relationship + receptivity. People watch and are faithful to a show based on the speaker, his or her personality and likability – and their message. I like watching T.D. Jakes because he's T.D. Jakes and I know every little – nor do I care – about his church, Potter's House in Texas. Give me T.D. Jakes huffing and puffing and blowing the house down. That's what I'm drawn to. The sponsoring group is backstage, T.D. front stage. The relationship between a viewer and the speaker is unique. We often "project" onto them values they may or may not possess. This is based on individual perception & biases. These are the fundamentals of television communications. Many Christian groups, more attuned to ministry than media, don't understand these fundamentals.

Just recently, I left producing a church sponsored tv show where multiplied millions of $'s were spent on airtime. It accounted for 1 out of every 4 dollars of the church budget. Over and again it was pointed out to the pastor (and his gatekeepers) that his television audience tuned in because of HIM, not the CHURCH itself. They liked him, enjoyed his message. Even the branding of the show had his name in it. Over and again, church leadership + the pastor kept trying to make the case that the show was all about the church sponsoring it. There was a viewpoint that any talk about pastor as "brand" was heresy. They didn't get it. Because of this stubborn viewpoint the pastor failed to make himself available for any other special segments other than a hello, then off to the message. He didn't want to be bothered with extras. To this day, the show – which has phenomenal potential – putters on underperforming. All because the branding strategy of "people loyally view each week because of their perceived relationship with a dynamic speaker" was not accepted, understood or acted upon. Phil, you're right: branding is based most often on a person (pitfalls and all). The world has known this for decades. When will Christian TV get it too?

]]>