DISQUS

I love this. And it applies to EVERYTHING. It is not about doing it right or doing it wrong. It is about doing it.

Maybe scale, in the 1:1 sense, isn't necessary. Maybe there can be a 1:1 relationship on a regional basis or by sub-interest, etc... Hard for a lot of Social Media people because we/they have branded themselves as A person. But companies can certainly have regional social media reps.

Imagine if Dell had an "official" Boston social media person who can represent Dell, but also be a local Bostonian. Start with the big Markets and work your way out. (Of course, region or state might be more cost effective)

If your point is made to the smaller company who has long drooled over the opportunity to make a superbowl ad... then absolutely. Spend your money in better ways at better places.

But if *everyone* takes your advice and cuts their superbowl ad for 2010's superbowl, how long before there isn't a superbowl (not that I would care, in particular).

Ultimately, I think fear will keep the superbowl ads (and the superbowl) safe. The big companies will be too afraid to not advertise. What if that kind of advertising really does still work and fewer people buy coke this year because we didn't advertise? What if our competitor does something brilliant and that one ad causes everyone to switch?

But while the old corporations continue advertising on old media it gives opportunities for new companies to spring up in their place.

You should get people to submit photos and let others vote. Craziest "mad church" picture gets the book.

I think the thing I enjoyed most about meeting you was seeing how much you valued other people. You introduced me to other people and introduced them to me. When the "famous" people wandered over nothing changed. Your willingness to be "normal" and to treat the "normal" people as important was/is incredible. Thanks.

@chrisbrogan - I like your point about lab (isn't that your company name?). I think it makes a huge difference if you are engaging in an experiment and reporting your findings and generating new questions and then digging in and researching those questions.

Maybe your advice and opinions and experience with Panasonic are not as unbiased as you thought (going by some comments, I thought it was fine). Maybe you missed some angles like disclosure on twitter and whether you would have paid for the experience and products. But it is an experiment. You learned things about the process, not just Panasonic. Maybe you'd do it again, maybe you'd tweak some things, or maybe you'd running screaming in the other direction.

Regardless of how I (or anyone else who read's your blog) have been influenced towards or away from Panasonic, I (we) should be looking at the experiment, not just the company/product involved. I have clarified for myself some self-checks for when I do reviews. If given a similar opportunity, I will already be a few steps ahead in the collaborative research project. This is the value I (we) take from your site. This is why I (we) subscribe.

Thanks for experimenting and reporting.

Chris,

I think you are mostly right on this one. There is a huge difference in my mind between disclosed reviews and advertisements. But something else to consider...

My wife runs a book review site. She only reads books she wants to read. For her, it doesn't matter how she got the book. She only reads and reviews what she cares about. She has a decent following and regular comments but one of the things she occasionally mentions to me is that of cost.

She will often review books and she will actually like the book. She'll write her review and tell people how much she likes them only to find out that some of her readers didn't like the book. The difference... My wife got it for free or checked it out from the library. Her reader bought it at the store.

Consider the Panasonic Camera you just got. While you had a positive experience and generally liked the camera (you mentioned buying more "glass" for it at some point) you didn't have to pay for it. Had you taken $700 to the store to buy a camera, would you have bought a Panasonic? Or would you have bought the low end Nikon?

I'm not saying, remotely, that what you are doing is somehow unethical or that you shouldn't do it. I've done reviews before and will do them again. I've never had anyone pay me to do a post, but I've done several reviews of "gifts" from companies. But one of the questions I try to remember to answer is would I have paid for this. No matter how much I love it, would I have dropped the cash if I was out shopping for this type of product.

Just a thought to further disclosure and transparency. This way, we don't all rush out and Buy a Panasonic because Chris Brogan uses one, when secretly, you'd rather have a Nikon (or a Blackberry instead of your iPhone).

It is always the obvious truth that is so hard to accept. My linear career path has been in a blind curve for two years now. Not a bad thing, just a reality. Accepting that it is a curve and not a linear step along the bath has been huge. Now I can enjoy the scenery and being excited about what may be around the cureve. Thanks for your thoughts.

It was great to meet you last night at Latitudes. And thanks for introducing me to so many others. It is hard sometimes to feel like you can or should make that initial contact and say hi. I got over it and I'm glad I did. I met people who twitter here in Orlando because of a guy from Boston (and ultimately because of a guy from Indiana (Thanks Jon)). You should make a permanent link to this post on your home page. Right under the twitter icon. Your face as the icon, MEET CHRIS BROGAN as the link text.

I'm glad we met and look forward to connecting again in the future (maybe in a quiet coffee/wine shop where conversation can more easily happen). Have a great trip and let us know when you are back in Orlando again.

Hey Ben... glad you found this. The pizza making thing is such a perfect example of so much of what we have talked about in ministry. We actually did this early on in Daytona and it was one of the best "events" we ever did. Too bad I didn't see the brilliance of it then.

@Tony - The third option to that would be the existing member's preferences. We shift programs (or keep programs) based on what on existing members "want" instead of what the lost world around us might need. Just like going with the staff person's preference, we are missing the research element.

One of the things that stood out to me was the research methods he talked about. A lot of church planters I talked to ask the random public what they want to see in a church. According to what Gladwell said, people don't know what they want.

So what is the taste test equivalent of church marketing?

And unlike selling spaghetti sauce, where numbers are all that matter, how do measure depth, involvement, and reproduction?

I guess one of the thoughts behind my point was that if we accept and focus on unity in the body across congregational lines, then the idea of having multiple styles in one congregation would be either a non-issue or a relatively small one. If we are teaching our people that our way is not the only way and that the church down the road, although they look different, is really a part of the greater brand, then when we introduce a more traditional service or a house church network or an "emergent" service, no one will think twice about it. And whether those new things are a part of the local congregation or whether they are new plants under new leadership will be irrelevant as well.

My experience is with multiple service times at one location but completely different styles of worship and preaching. We weren't as intentional as we could have been in encouraging unity, but for the most part people continued on in about the same level of involvement as before. The snag was what Billy mentioned. the more services you have, the more resources you need. If those services (or other programs) are significantly different where you can share those resources easily, than it is going to require more work.

We are back to one service. Our overall unity is a little tighter than with two services, but our volunteers are a lot less tired and more interested in hanging for the long haul. With a larger congregation and more volunteers, I see us going back to two (or more) services with different styles and targets.

I think the thing that is missing from this conversation is the issue of brand.

In the case of the spaghetti sauces, Ragu was competing against Prego. Who was going to have the better brand and therefore reach the largest percentage of people (dollars).

In terms of church, the brands that should be competing are God's Brand (the gospel) and Satan's Brand. But if you surf around the internet, you might get the impression that it is the Mega Church vs. the smaller traditional church vs. the house church vs. the emerging church. (The intro to this post suggests this kind of thinking).

We need to realize that we are all the same brand. We are all representations of the gospel to the world. Our brand, The Church, has many different locations, many different preachers, etc... We are all Ragu and instead of seeing each of us as a new brand that needs to figure out all the varieties we should be offering to reach the whole world, we need to realize we are a variety within a larger brand and we should be doing our best to be the best we can be as that variety.

We need focus on the question of Unity. Not unity within a church that is running multiple services with multiple varieties but unity within The Church representing countless varieties. If we are all working together to represent One Brand how much more can we accomplish.

----

Another thought.... often brands compete with themselves. Large corporations buy smaller companies and end up owning 2 or 3 companies who offer similar, if not identical, products. Imagine if all the churches in a given town were marketing their communities as if they were the only chance someone was going to have to find Christ but they were actually pooling resources and working together. Instead of trying to be more like the cool church across town, we could just be us and send the 40% who are connecting with Christ under our variety to a church where they will connect. And vice versa, of course.

I have had the opportunity to speak (and preach at church) somewhat regularly over the last few years. I have also sat through a ton of these same kind of lectures. This is something I am still struggling with, but the short answer is Conversation Wins.

BUT... very hard to pull off. And the biggest obstacle is me getting over myself. I am much more comfortable lecturing. It requires less preparation to lecture well than to engage in a conversation poorly. I have to OWN my topic to have a conversation whereas I can get away with only knowing the pertinent facts if I am up on stage and you are forced to listen.

I think the long term solution would be to use a little of each and use the right tool for the right job. There are times and places where the only way it is going to work is to get up on stage and lecture. But maybe there is another way to go about this.

I like what you said about allowing people to feel clever. What if it was lecture followed by planned facilitated conversation by members of your team. People will get to interact with the material (although not necessarily you), and you get the opportunity to present in a way that can reach the whole audience at once.

How about everyone seated at round tables with a table host? Presenter speaks from stage, conversation and community happen at the table, and then maybe a Q & A with the presenter with more thought out questions that came from the community time.

Still struggling with this myself, but there's my thoughts. Keep up the good thinking.

Another one you might want to check out is invisible children. More of a documentary, but they are showing it at House Blend on the 28th.

www.invisiblechildren.com

"A man who refused to hate because he knew love would do a better job."

Wow! What a powerful line!

On a lighter note... I always find it weird when people quote song lyrics in a speech. Weirder yet is when Bono quotes himself in his speech. Very Surreal.

Is it meant to be a logo, a poster, etc???

Only initial comment would be the text at the top almost bleeds off, otherwise very nice.

Any other comments would be effected by what your intenetions are.

This is/was almost surreal. We've waited so long for this announcement that it seemed almost anticlimatic when it came. Can't wait to have you back in ministry and out of Moe's. We'll make a Tijuanna Flats fan out of you yet.

I don't watch the news, so I am probably not the best person to comment on this, but the flip side, and why the US may be hesitant to enter, is that it is often hard to tell the difference between legitimate internal conflict and genocide, from an outsiders perspective. Again, I haven't even watch the skewed news reports, but just giving a thought.

Then again, wasn't Clooney lined up as one of the people who pitched a fit that we went into Iraq against UN "orders" and now he suggests that we intervene when the UN isn't?

Just to be clear, I am not saying we shouldn't do something, I am just tired of pop politics.

Hey Man,

I love your bar at the bottom. We have got to get together and talk css and wordpress soon. My new theme is done, graphically, but I need to think through some stuff and work it out in css.

BTW...your reply box floats over the thing and looks weird. Looks great, though.

I started to think, "what kind of person dreams about coffee cups?", but then realized that I am one of them.

Does it work? Have you tried it? And while mosquitoes may fall for it, will they like it more than my blood? Just wondering.

I mostly agree with you, although I am not generally bothered by titles before names. I prefer to just be Chris or Mr. Marsden, but I don't mind Pastor Chris or Pastor Marsden anywhere near as much as people calling me pastor. Just pastor. thanks painter. Thanks plumber.

I do have to say, that sometimes titles do make life easier though. When I was 19, I worked at Radio Shack and sold expensive electronics to people who know way more than me because I had a name tag and a tie. The same goes for titles some times. Parents listen to me and ask advice about their children because I am the Youth Minister. At 28 with two kids, this is a lot easier, but at 20 and just married, the title lent a lot of authority that I wouldn't have gotten without it.

I agree with you in general though, I just think sometimes it is a lot easier being introduced to a new family at the Church as the Youth Minister rather than just hey this is Chris. It's not that I need the title or recognition, it just jumps the conversation forward with just a few extra words.

David McCrickard and I tag teamed a sermon on this passage recently. The passage was the pivot point to transition from Point 1 to Point 2

The title...Friends Don't Let Friends go to Hell.

My point was that Christian Friends hold their Christian Friends accountable so that they don't fall away and lose the prize for which they are running. Then we talked about this passage. Then David talked about not letting our Non-Christian Friends go to hell because we don't share Christ.

It really is easier to judge new Christians and the world and therefore dismiss them because of their sin. It is a lot harder to hold accountable, and be held accountable by, our fellow Christians.

We all end up filtering as we go through life. We filter what we hear the preacher say. We filter the books we read. And we filter the Bible. No matter how right we think we are we need to look to scripture with an honest attempt to understand it as God intended it to be understood. This practice has reinforced a lot of what I learned in College, changed perspective on other things, left me totally confused on a few issues, and completely reversed my position a a couple issues. But it took me deciding that no matter how smart my teachers and preachers were, they weren't the authority that would judge me. God's word was that authority.