“Dwarfed by these ambitious branding projects, it becomes difficult for mere mortals to compete with their own expressions of meaning, which is precisely why, it is brands – not intellectuals or activists or religious leaders – that are the principal truth-tellers of our corporate age.  They are the ones speaking loudest about meaning, helping us to look with awe and wonder at the world, even if what we are looking at, ultimately, are branded sneakers, lattes and laptop computers.”  - Naomi Klein, the Truth about Advertising.

This intrigued and concerned me…  It intrigued me because it is true.  It concerned me because it is true.  Is a latte branded?  Absolutely.  If I buy a latte (not often, as they make me ill), there is a difference between whether or not I buy a latte to go, or a latte to drink in.  There is a difference between whether I buy it at Starbucks, Soho, Costa, the local caf, or carry it in a thermos.  It actually makes me feel different.  Drinking latte at all makes you feel something.  So if we truly do live in a ‘brandscape’, where everything, even liquid that we drink is ‘branded’, not as a label such as *STARBUCKS - LOGO WITH FUNNY MERMAIDY WOMAN*, but as a consumer experience, or as something that speaks of our lifestyle, mood, beliefs, morals, ethics, snobbery etc, then should Christianity buy into the notion of branding?

I have battled with this long and hard, trying to disarm human logic and seek God’s guidance.  Many have told me, in discussion, that the church should absolutely not buy into branding, as the gospel should not be commercialised.  I totally agree about the commercialisation bit, God’s grace is free, we never want to make money out of it.  But do we miss the point of what branding is about?  Is it a money spinner, or is it an entity that instills trust within an authority or a name?  Why, if you buy a big mac burger in Afghanistan, would you feel safer than buying some local meat cooked up on a BBQ?  Because we assume that the brand in which we trust (maybe the golden arches are not a good example?!) has standards.   We assume that they have at least a set of base rate morals that will ensure our safety in buying into their ideal.

Why are the religious leaders not the ones speaking the loudest?  Maybe we have lost sight of what people are looking for.   I am not saying that we should design a funky logo for Jesus (although I am convinced that people would take the church more seriously if it was presented well!!  Pleae please update your public image churches!)  but I wonder what the BRAND as such of church is.  Well the answer is simple.  The branding guidelines are set out in 66 books known as the Bible.  If we adhered to these guidelines we would protect and honour the brand, just as Nike or any of the other big globals have to do in order to protect the ’swoosh’ and all that it stands for.  In this day and age I see no more urgent a time than now to get back to the good book.

It takes years of expensive and effective marketing to restore consumer trust in a big brand following one scandal or blip (think Cadbury’s salmonella and Nestlé powdered milk).  How much more will it take to restore the faith of society in a church that has gone so far off the beaten track in places that ‘consumers’ think that we are a joke.  It is not too late, but it is going to be tough.  We have a corporate responsibility to the Lord to protect His brand and all that He stands for.