Task Force proposes names for the "new and improved" Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins

Sources close to the name change task force initiated by SBC president, Bryant Wright reveal some interesting possibilities which may be presented to the Executive Committee  >>>

Consider some background:

On September 19, 2011 two occurrences took place which concerns us here. One, Baptist Press announced that SBC President, Bryant Wright had appointed a presidential “task force” the purpose of which was to advise him on a “name change” for the Southern Baptist Convention. Wright made his “task force” public to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention during a regularly scheduled report. Second, also on September 19, 2011, two domain names were purchased from godaddy.com. One was evangelicalbaptistconvention.com and continentalbaptistconvention.com. Both domains were registered “by proxy” which means the person who purchased the domains remains anonymous.

A third domain was purchased a week later on September 26, 2011—internationalbaptistconvention.com. On this domain, however, it was not registered “by proxy.” According to godaddy, the International Baptist Convention domain was purchased and registered by Brian Armas of Rogers, Arkansas. Who is Armas? According to his website, Brian Armas states:

I have been in web development for 9 years, graphic design for 13 years, and photography for 5 years. I have served as a brand and marketing consultant for numerous corporations and non-profit organizations, and am currently employed by The First Baptist Church of Springdale, Arkansas & The Church at Pinnacle in Rogers, Arkansas, where I serve as Director of Web Media (link added)

So, while Armas is not on Wright’s “task force” for a name change, he certainly has the ear of someone very close to the “task force”—Ronnie Floyd. In addition, Armas is not new in serving Southern Baptists nationally. Armas’ firm built and designed the website for The Great Commission Resurgence—www.pray4gcr.com. He profiled the site on his main website suggesting he started “from scratch on every aspect of branding.”  Of the pray4gcr branding project, Armas writes:

This project was a huge undertaking. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention met and voted to appoint a task force to address the need for a Great Commission Resurgence. This task force is chaired by Dr. Ronnie Floyd and I had the privilege to create not just a website, but start from scratch on every aspect of branding. Working late in to the night just days before the site was to be viewed by Dr. Floyd… the logo was born…and I am very proud (//link)¹ 

Are all three of these domains simply coincidental? Perhaps. However, the word I’m getting from very reliable sources is, Wright’s “task force” is going to propose as possibilities these three names.

One of the names is obviously a fluke. The term “continental” is so fundamentally archaic not to mention over-used, it has to be a “dummy” option the sole purpose of which is to give the appearance that “you have a choice,” but those proposing it obviously know few would find that choice attractive. Hence, the hope is, people “choose” the option opposite the “dummy” option.  That’s what some leaders do when they want one thing but also want the appearance of group involvement.

Reflect upon this:

If it turns out the web domain for the proposed name change for the Southern Baptist Convention was purchased and registered within a week of the announcement to set up a “task force” to “study” and “advise” Bryant Wright about the possibility of changing the name, there are profound implications about the integrity of those involved in pushing a name change. In other words, this seems to show that minds were already made up about name change which makes the “study” for “advice” on what to do about our name fundamentally bogus.

Consider further: What kind of actual study or research for counseling the president would be necessary if decisions about name change were already in motion? If true, one quickly gets the impression that these “task force” meetings may have been little more than round table discussions about how to proceed forward with a name change, not if a name change was necessary. Moreover, if name possibilities were already chosen, then the suggestion that the task force would be taking feedback over the web including possible names to consider for the SBC appears to be completely disingenuous.

As for the domain purchased and registered by a staffer at Ronnie Floyd’s church—a staffer who also happens to be a professional marketer and branding consultant—one can also see the connections between the name change task force and the GCRTF.

Alas, we’ll have to wait and see what is finally revealed to the Executive Committee.

With that, I am…

Peter    

¹please understand: no one should understand what I’ve written as implying anything negative about Armas’ work or his involvement with either the GCRTF or now his possible alliance with Wright’s name change “task force.” Armas and his firm was contracted for an assignment (i.e.GCRTF) and so far as I know, he fulfilled it and fulfilled it with outstanding results. Hence, whatever implications one may infer concerning the task forces Southern Baptists commission, it is misguided and wrong to assume that what I write about Brian Armas is intended to malign or cast aspersions against his character or company. The only reason I mentioned Armas by name is because it is public information anyone can obtain

Comments

[Mary]

The IBC? I love a good root beer.

[Mary]

And of course "evangelical" has as much baggage as "southern" so it looks like the sheep are being herded toward the "interntional" - maybe this Aras guy already has all the logos and website figured out?

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

According to Brother Armas https://twitter.com/brianarmas>twitter account he is now serving at The Church at Battle Creek in Tulsa, Ok. Of course TABC's Senior Pastor was once the Youth Minister at FBC Springdale. Small world isn't it?

Blessings,
Tim

[Max]

Whoops ... an International Baptist Convention (IBC) already exists. Formerly known as the European Baptist Convention. http://www.ibc-churches.org/

[lmalone]

"In other words, this seems to show that minds were already made up about name change which makes the “study” for “advice” on what to do about our name fundamentally bogus."

The way it was done proved this. It is just that so many did not want to see it. In fact, how much you wanna bet many blogs will be defending this and saying we are just stuck in the South.

Btw: The branding guys move around. We saw them all the time starting in a mega and following staff pastors to their new churches to get them "branded". It is a big business.

[David Hanna]

Wow, why can't we leave it alone? Or, do we have to be accomadating to everyone. Or, is it we need to be policticaly correct. Tell em,.

[lmalone]

I don't really care about a name change one way or the other except for the expense involved. I have a HUGE problem with how it came about as in the process. And this post only brings more light to the covert nature of our leaders. It is not who we are supposed to be as Baptists. But then, that has been changing for quite a while.

[Ron]

Well ... if they really want to change the name - let'em ... I know a large group of congregations that would like to start a new fellowship with the name of: The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

Ron

[Ron]

In other words, if the current leaders wish to move on with a new name, surely they will not mind a group of churches retaining the name of: The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

I've got a great name for our new SBC book stores: Baptist Book Stores. Mmmm ... we might get some Baptist authors in there again!

[John Wylie]

International Baptist Convention is already taken. They are an international group of English speaking Baptist churches, so unless there is some negotiation with them that one is definitely out. Of the three I prefer the Evangelical Baptist Convention, as it at least has some doctrinal implications. Continental, while certainly majestic, sounds like the association Roger Williams would have been a member of.

[Bob Hadley]

Ron,

I assure you, IF the SBC changes its name, Southern Baptist Convention will NEVER be available to be used by anyone else.

I thought about purchasing CalvinistBaptistConvention.com and org but decided against it for right now.

><>"

[peter lumpkins]

@Bob,

You probably missed the fiasco about a year ago when we discovered Founders Ministries was using the southernbaptistconvention.org domain and had been doing so for 10 years. They called it their “little known secret weapon”. When we publicized it here, it didn’t go over so well with Nashville. I’m told Frank Page hit the ceiling about it. Whatever the case, Ascol surrendered the domain in October of 2011. Nashville now has it. Perhaps whatever domain we end up with, we’d do well to keep an eye on similar domains Founders might buy up.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

It's not surprising that IBC already exists in some form. That's precisely one of the reasons offered from dropping the attempt to change our name that came out of the almost exhaustive study the EC did on the potential success of a name change several years ago. The truth is, the window is fairly well sealed shut on a name change, one legitimate reason of which is, all the good names are gone. We see that in trying to come up with a suitable name now. When all is said, the Moderates who left the SBC got the golden nugget for a name which, perhaps more than any other, captures the historic essence of the SBC--The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Hence, we cannot cage the loose tiger and we can't go back a century and choose a better name.

In addition, as someone else already remarked, "evangelical" has as much or more baggage attached to it than the SBC does. In Christian circles, it embraces theological Open Theism all the way to the strictest Fundamentalism. It further includes 7th Day Adventists. Evangelical also includes Inclusivists not to mention annihilationism.

Indeed we have evangelicals presently lamenting that the term "evangelical" has little to no usefulness. Nonetheless, we entertain embracing such a disastrous label?

But that's not all. Not only is "evangelical" fairly well recognized as worthless in Christian circles, in secular culture, "evangelical" is in many ways equated with uneducated hordes who hate culture. If one is an evangelical in high education, the university wants nothing to do with you. So we think that's better than "Southern Baptist"?

Add to this the $20,000,000+ price tag being sported as the cost of this change--a change mind you which only addresses the "name change" functioning as a DBA (the task force felt the weight of legal issues facing an actual "name-change" and apparently dropped it as a workable solution)--and one is forced to ask Bryant Wright and the task force, "What are you guys even thinking?" The world is going to hell and they are wanting to spend $20,000,000 (which, by the way, is obviously a conservative figure; everybody knows it will actually be substantially more than the estimated costs, a conservative figure often stated for promotional, "pass our recommendation" purposes) to get a sign, logo, website, and letterhead which, in effect, says,

"The SBC will now be known to the public as XYZ. We are still the SBC. All our legal transactions will be SBC. All our state conventions relate to us as SBC. All our affiliated churches are SBC. They have to be because we are still SBC. But, so we can have a new logo, new website, new signs, and new letterheads...in other words, so we can go through a rebranding process, we are prepared to spend from $20,000,000 to $40,000,000 to be rebranded even though we'll still be the SBC."

While I realize the above is hardly what we'd all like to think is the result of the task force's work with Bryant Wright, I'm afraid it nonetheless is going to characterize the work fairly well.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. By the way, where will all those missions-minded GCR advocates be who decried the pitiful amounts Southern Baptists were giving to missions if and/or when the name change task force proposes such mind-boggling folly? I can guess but will just wait for the champagne buckets to be passed before I say...

[lmalone]

"You probably missed the fiasco about a year ago when we discovered Founders Ministries was using the southernbaptistconvention.org domain and had been doing so for 10 years. They called it their “little known secret weapon”."

I did not know this. That, in and of itself, speaks to their love of "stealth" tactics.

[peter lumpkins]

Imalone,

Precisely. But listen to the protests about "where's all those aggressive Calvinists in the SBC? I've never met any."  No matter how much evidence is logged—and we’ve logged a lot here--some are so fundamentally prone to close their eyes to it, it is hopeless to get a fair reading from them. My hope is, the masses of SBCers who have not yet awakened to what’s going on will finally “get” what we’re doing here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[lmalone]

As Mary Kinney Branson kept asking in her book, Spending God's Money, about the proliferic spending in the SBC ranks, I will ask here:

How many missionaries would 20 mill send? for how long?

Whatever the amount, it is the appropriate use of money not, 'rebranding'. Those who are spiritually mature would know this.

But then, it is easy to spend other people's money. The whole issue is more about people who have lost proper focus if they had it. Lost kingdom priorities. They are not people to follow. Nor to listen to, anymore.

[Donald Holmes]

If "branding" is really an issue, why don't we just take a page out of KFC's playbook?

Everybody says KFC now instead of Kentucky Fried Chicken. "Fried" had an unhealthy association, so they rebranded themselves as KFC.

We could be The SBC.

One begins to think this isn't really about branding...

Donald

[Max]

"They called it their 'little known secret weapon'." I keep wondering when majority Southern Baptists will use our best secret weapon against this flood ... prayer. In this case, silence is not golden.

In regard to prematurely earmarking internationalbaptistconvention.com ... if the movers and shakers want charges of stealth, deception, and conspiracy to be dropped, they need to stop moving and shaking so much evidence in that direction.

[peter lumpkins]

Donald,

I think you have a great idea which could cost the least amount of monies and potentially gain the identical results name change advocates desire.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

One problem with using "SBC": In many minds of non Southern Baptists "SBC" is a phone company. AT&T still uses the domain sbc.com even though they changed their name from being a Bell company to the more widely recognized brand AT&T.

It would still take a generation or two for the un-churched to associate SBC with Southern Baptists and not Ma Bell.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

Well said and well illustrates the sheer complexity of a name change for an organization with over 150 yrs heritage behind it. To think that the name change task force could meet 2 times in a 6 month period and then propose a suitable solution remains stunning.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Louis]

Peter:

I have never commented on your blog, so I guess that makes me "first time caller."

First, as you know, I am a supporter of a name change. The existing name had its purpose in its day, one that we no long really believe in, and it has served us well. I believer it is time for a name change.

I don't mind Wright proposing a task force, but preachers often think that because they are good at preaching they are also good at decorating the church. They are not. This decision screams for more suggestions and input and time and thoughtful attention. Not only because that would be a right and good thing to do, but also it would probably produce a better name.

I am not impressed with the offerings so far. You say a branding guy is involved? I think they need another branding guy.

Continental? Seriously? Will we all start having to eat with our forks in our left hands and turned over? There is a song called "The Continental". It's catchy, too, but not very religious sounding.

Here is my best suggestion - it's simple, straight forward, it has our savior's name in it (now that's novel) and it projects the SBC as a large, mainstream group (which we are) and not a provincial, split off of some group - with ever increasing levels of distinction being projected.

"Christians Together - a Convention (or fellowship) of Baptist Churches". And the shortened name would be "Christians Together".

I know it has it's weaknesses, but it's better than that Arkansas branding guy came up with. Not that he's a bad guy, but I would go to the big branding guys and get ideas - not some friend of a pastor in Arkansas! It that where the best branding ideas come from? Really?

Btw, you have the best signature in the blog world.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Louis,

You write: The existing name had its purpose in its day, one that we no long really believe in... (bold mine).

I could not disagree more. I believe that a vast majority of Southern Baptists still believe in the name. But what about the Lifeway poll: As far as the polling data of the general population it possibly supports that view too. As Peter has pointed out, the poll does not ask the all important "what and why" questions of those that hold a negative view of the SBC. Personally, I think it is what we stand for that has the unregenerate lost world holding a negative view of Southern Baptists. It has little or nothing to do with the name itself. But, those type of questions were conveniently (in my opinion) not asked.

So I think the name change boils down to one of the following, neither of which is palatable to me:

We are letting the unregenerate determine whether we keep our name, much like many churches let the lost determine their modes and type of worship.

We are changing the name to satisfy an unsubstantiated belief that it is the name of our Convention rather than the name of Christ and Him crucified that is offensive to a lost and dying world. I think many are forgetting that the Gospel is an offense to the lost, so a name change is not going to resolve that.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Scott]

At the end of the day, whether we change or name or not isn't really a huge issue. The Gospel has the power to save, not the name of our Convention. I'm personally in favor of keeping the name, but wouldn't have a problem if we changed it to something else. The one thing that is certain is that a name change must take place the right way. Going around messengers, setting up shadow committees, and going through the motions of proper Convention processes won't cut it. The "Task Force" should be approved by the messengers at this year's Annual Meeting and then present a report for an up or down vote in 2013.

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

I'm almost inclined to agree with you. Even so, consider: 1) if it really is no big deal then why was it so important that a task force had to be set up and set up sideways around the SBC? 2) I'm afraid a cold $20million to who knows what the final price tag will be should be enough to cause pause--especially if it is no big deal one way or another.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Louis]

Ron:

I agree with you that if the idea is to change our name to win applause, that is a lost cause.

A name should reflect an organization's goals and purposes. It should be understandable, so communicating is part of the goal.

Do you really believe that the SBC should have a regional identification? If so, why?

It made sense in 1848 to have a regional identification. They were Southerners, trying to preserve their right to serve the Lord coming from a region of the country where slavery was practiced, and they were being excluded from service. So, it made sense that the newly formed group would be identified with the Southern United States (as it existed then - not including much of the West).

But I really do not believe that the reference to "Southern" is a purpose that I support today. I can see no reason for it. It's not who we are. By percentage, yes, but that's due to history. Not by outreach. We are all over the U.S.

Why do you believe maintaining the Southern description of our convention is important today?

Do you believe that it has any impact on starting churches in the North and West?

In other sites that I visit there are pastors from those regions who say that it is an impediment. How much of one? Who knows? But why not remove it altogether, especially if it has not purpose?

What do you see the purpose in the "Southern" reference serving today?

[Robert Vaughn]

The first two domain registrations might be explained as some speculator or speculators hoping to make some money off the SBC. "I already own that domain but I'll sell it to you for XX dollars." The other seems too close in relationships for that explanation.

Not only International Baptist Convention, but also both "Continental" and "Evangelical" are already used -- though not always with the word "convention". Some 25 or 30 Evangelical Baptist Conventions, Unions, Associations, etc. are in the Baptist World Alliance, and one independent fellowship in New England calls itself "Evangelical Baptist". Continental Baptist Churches is a small association of Calvinistic Baptist churches holding the First London Confession and New Covenant theology, and organized in June 1983. But they don't call themselves a "Convention". I don't know legal details, but the SBC probably could register in the U.S. under any of these names if they don't take the exact name of another group of the same name used in the U.S. (Maybe someone here has more knowledge in this area.) For example, there was already an "American Baptist Association" (org. 1924) when the Northern Baptist Convention changed to "American Baptist Convention" in 1950. The confusion such duplication causes is probably greater for the smaller, lesser-known body than for the larger one. But why create the confusion in the first place?

Don't anyone throw any stones at me, but IMO stealth is not new to the SBC or any such organization made up of fallen humans. It's just now so much harder to keep stealth a secret in the wide open information age in which we live.

[Brob.]

I heard Great Commission Baptist Convention? Remember your heard it here!!!!

[peter lumpkins]

Brob.

Yes and the names continue. The suspense should be over in a short period...

With that, I am...
Peter

[lmalone]

"Do you really believe that the SBC should have a regional identification? If so, why?"

The name means very little. in fact, many call it the SBC. Sort of like KFC. It is like Kleenex. We call them that but they are really tissue paper. I could ask you why you are so embarassed by it.

In this economy the fact we are even discussing spending 1000 bucks on it shows how off track we are in the grand scheme of things. How shallow and silly we are. If this name change is really so important to our leaders, then they should not be our leaders. We have made an error in judgement. Perhaps we should stop looking to mega churches for leaders. This is exactly how they think.

[Louis]

Well, despite my being in favor of a name change, it ought to be a good name change.

"Great Commission Baptist Convention" is awkward and does not communicate well. It begs for an explanation.

The "Great Commission" is known to all of us. It is not known to many outside our churches.

Why use a name that has to be explained? Let's just chose a Latin or Greek name and letters!

I predict if this is the name that is suggested, that it will be met with a collective groan or apathy. And I don't know which is worse.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Louis,

The Southern Baptist Convention as a brand is no longer a regional moniker. I would agree with that premise if we created that name today. But the SBC "brand" is one that is globally recognized and more than 160 years old. There are multiple examples of this: railroads, airlines, hospitality, restaurants, etc. For many of these companies, including the SBC, the brand transcended it's original regional (or other) appellation. For example, no one associates the telegraph with AT&T anymore, yet Bell changed their brand to the more valuable AT&T brand when they purchased AT&T. The Southern Baptist Convention is an invaluable brand. I would be curious if the committee commissioned a study on the value of our name. In order to be thorough they should.

Finally, regarding the view that the name Southern is a hindrance outside of the South. They only evidence of that is anecdotal. No study has been done that demonstrably validates that view. I grew up in Illinois, lived in Germany for three years, served as a HMB summer missionary in Nebraska, and lived in California for a year and half. My experience is that Southern has not been a hindrance to the Gospel or churches. What was a hindrance was Baptist. Because of what we Baptists believe. So unless we change what we believe, changing the name will have no impact.

Aaron Weaver (BDW) on sbcvoices made the following observation: The most fascinating part of that Lifeway survey was the finding that folks view the SBC unfavorably at a greater percentage in the South than in either the Midwest or Northeast.

So until a factual study is conducted regarding the name Southern, all of us our just spoutin' our opinion. I am not in favor of spending millions of dollars, taking away from Kingdom work, in an effort that can not be shown to actually have an impact for the Gospel.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

A name change will not cause people to forget that we are the Southern Baptist Convention.

When newspapers and broadcast media report about the Convention they still will mention that it is/was the Southern Baptist Convention. Every lead statement will say something to the effect:

"The Great Commission Baptist Convention, formerly known as the Southern Baptist Convention, which broke from Northern Baptists over the issue of slavery..."

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Zogby conducted a poll for the SBC in 2006. The bottom line was that Southern Baptists were viewed favorably where they had ministries touching lives.

***

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=24344

"Southern Baptists made the best impression where they are most prevalent, in southern “Bible Belt” states. Two out of three respondents in the South expressed a favorable opinion of Southern Baptists, compared to only half of respondents in the West and East, where Southern Baptists have a smaller presence."

***

Does anyone remember the NYT article after SBDR volunteers had been serving in Manhattan? One man learned that the team of Southern Baptist volunteers who had been working with him from Tennessee were going to be relieved by a religious group from the Northeast and he stated, "I want Southern Baptists."

Touch lives with effective ministry and the name issue solves itself.

[selahV]

Don't ya just love how a few big wigs with nothing else to do, come up with stuff to focus upon and create diversions from the Gospel message and sharing Jesus with the world? Like a name change to our convention is gonna change the cold hearts of liberal media bias, the politically correct, and the what? atheists and agnostics?

What are we little old ladies who give to support missionaries around the world to think of such waste of time and money?

Seems like folks are willing and ready to give a foothold to the one masquerading as a roaring lion seeking whom he may desire.

"Southern Baptists" have no one to blame but themselves if we allow this new "Wrightism" to pass and be made the law of the Southern Baptist Convention of churches. selahV

[dr. james willingham]

Selah V: You have it right. It is a waste of time and money. Some one stands to profit, benefit, or other wise improve their control efforts by this name change thing. Maybe the real reason for the change is to get separated from the Sovereign Grace concept. Make Baptists forget that they use to have freedom to wrangle and argue, and, for the sake of a false peace, some folks will never again be disturbed cause them dissensious folks will go elsewheres along with the Gospel and its true blessings. TSK! TSK! TSK!

[CASEY]

Frankly....don't lose sight of who initiated this(where the pressure came from)...the YOUNG and RESTLESS. There is a complete and total onslaught of the SBC and our beliefs.
This ALL comes from the 'crowd' who would rather see us being "more Evangelical" than "Southern Baptist"...a constant "watering down of core SBC beliefs"....I prefer they go somewhere else and let us be who we've always been .. THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION.

[Richard]

The CBF is looking better and better!

[Louis]

Ron:

Thanks for chatting. I see that you agree the word Southern is regional, and would not use it today. But that since it's been around for a long while, It's limiting effect due to its regional nature is nil.

I saw that you and others keep saying a name change will cost a million or millions. Where does that come from? I keep asking folks who say that to break down those costs, but I haven't gotten a response. Is there an estimate by someone who really would know that assigns the costs to various items? Or is it a total number that just keeps getting floated about?

[Louis]

Richard:

"The CBF is looking better and better!"

O.K. Run on over there. Hope it suits you.

[Richard]

Louis, Actually, I'm already over there. My comment was made in gentle criticism, but also with concern that the denomination of my spiritual birth is torn by a name-change controversy, calvinism, elder issues, you name it. The CBF could probably use a little stimulation from controversy, but their focus seems to be on doing for others, telling the story, and worship. They may be smaller but they really don't have time for theological battles, thank the Lord.

[Bob Hadley]

The issue of Southern Baptist is a simple fix. if a church believes it is a hindrance for any reason, then just dont use it in the name. To note on the church's web site that the church is affiliated with the SBC should not in any way hinder anyone from coming to the church and being fed by the Holy Spirit.

This is indeed a lot of friction for nothing as I see it!

><>"

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Here are some good talking points I excepted from a White Paper about the traps of rebranding.

---------------------------------------

http://www.kuraoka.com/branding.html

======================================

Yes, you need a brand.

First, branding is a key defense against commoditization - a situation in which a company’s products and services become perceived by buyers as being interchangeable with those of other companies, so buying decisions become driven by price. Branding is a long-term holding in which your marketing communications are relatively short-term investments.

Your brand is a tangible corporate asset - an end toward which all your business efforts should work.

The problem is, companies are turning to branding as a panacea. Equally problematic, are the self-proclaimed “branding experts” who are happy to sell you this expensive snake oil. In inexpert hands, branding becomes a way to obfuscate relative sameness, instead of to communicate relevant uniqueness.

======================================

Mindshare is nothing; market share is everything!

The fatal fallacy, for many companies, is confusing “brand-building” with real results. Mindshare is nothing; market share is everything. Branding is an important tool to gain market share, but for most successful companies branding is only one part of brand management.

Cold, hard fact number one: branding will not create a spike in cash flow or market share. Quite the opposite in fact: it costs time and money to build brand equity whether you’re launching a new brand or re-launching an old one. If you’re rebranding, by the time you’ve spent enough time and money on advertising and marketing, the conditions that triggered your quest to rebrand will have changed.

Rebranding as reflex action to stem losses in market share is stupid.

======================================
Re-branding is almost never customer-driven, and almost always internally driven.

Cold, hard fact number two: rebranding costs you equity - and customers. This is significant, even if you don’t think your current brand has much of a positive image - or even a negative one. No mere sloganeering or banner-waving is going to make your customers think any differently about you.

More-important, your customers - and you do have them, even if in declining numbers - know what you have to offer. Indeed, they are probably coming to you for precisely the qualities you’ll walk away from by rebranding. Re-branding to polish your image will fool neither customers nor lenders.

In the meantime, while you implement your new brand image, you’ll suffer loss of continuity with your existing customers. This cuts off your most-cost-effective source of new or increased business: your past and current customers. The best you can hope for, is to do no harm; the reality is more bleak. Gateway learned this lesson the hard way, going through the expense of new packaging, store signage, stationery - in short, millions of dollars in unrecoverable hard costs. It was a great cash cow (so to speak) for a design firm, but a lousy decision for a brand manager.

======================================

If you want increased sales, ask for them!

Can a complex, high-level process like rebranding be replaced by a simple, low-level action like asking for more business, implementing a referral or frequent-user program, or improving customer service? If the primary goal of rebranding is pursuing more sales, then the answer is yes. It is far more cost-effective to pursue increased sales directly, by asking for them or by earning them, than indirectly, by rebranding the whole company.

======================================

That brings us to cold, hard fact #3: branding was cheaper and easier in the old days.

Television time was inexpensive enough to be cost-effective, especially at fringe times, even for small businesses. There was less competition in the media, less noise. People had longer attention spans. If you’re walking away from a brand that was built prior to the late-1990s (or, in fast-moving industries like web services, as little as two years ago), you’re throwing away a corporate asset that you simply cannot afford to replace.

So, what can you do with your brand, this corporate asset, if it no longer fits your corporate mission?

You adapt it.

You re-position your brand or your product or your service.

Through a change in positioning instead of in branding, you harness the power of your existing brand while at the same time re-positioning your company for growth. You have to think, mind you, but you’ve got a multi-million-dollar head-start by being able to reconcile the past with the future.

======================================

This is not to be confused with incrementalism.

Repositioning can be as fast a departure from business-as-usual as rebranding. More so, in fact, because it leverages the power of the existing brand.

As a positive example, look at Arm & Hammer. When Arm & Hammer decided to pursue baking soda sales outside of baking, it made a quantum leap in positioning but retained the market strength of its brand. Wow!

Reconciling the past with the future gives your brand a multi-million-dollar head-start!

======================================

Why don’t more people do this?

Simple: in today’s throw-away world, where solutions are short-term and everything is disposable, there aren’t many people who know how to repair clocks, let alone brands.
It is easy to throw everything away and start from scratch. Marketing executives can then make large-scale changes and advertising managers can feel like they’re taking action. The result, however, is often a proactive - indeed, passionate - flying of the company into the ground.

======================================

[lmlaone]

Louis, How much do you think it will cost?

[Scott]

Richard,
I was reading Associated Baptist Press earlier. (ABP and CBF are joined at the hip.) On ABP's website, there were articles arguing that the fight for gay rights is an extension of the civil rights movement. There was another article which said that Baptists with a truly prophetic voice support Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. I don't like seeing Christians in conflict with each other, but I would rather be part of a group that disagrees about Calvinism than part of a group that was affirming abortion and gay marriage. Whatever we may argue about in the SBC, we are united in the most important aspects of the Christian faith.

[Bob Hadley]

Hobart,

Excellent comment! I especially like the final statement: "Simple: in today’s throw-away world, where solutions are short-term and everything is disposable, there aren’t many people who know how to repair clocks, let alone brands.

It is easy to throw everything away and start from scratch. Marketing executives can then make large-scale changes and advertising managers can feel like they’re taking action. The result, however, is often a proactive - indeed, passionate - flying of the company into the ground."

Two thoughts... first the folks who are responsible for this rebranding are often the ones who believe they need to justify their positions and in doing so, often seek to make the "biggest splash" with no real thought to the ramificaitons of the slash. Change is inevitable. It is not always good.

Second, this tendency to do the easy work seems to me to be the driving force behind so much church planting as opposed to working with existing churches to strengthen them and get them headed in the right direction.

Just some thoughts to what I saw as an excellent comment.

><>"

[Richard]

Scott; Actually, I think my first comment came across as a little snarky, and I apologize for that. And, I don't want to steer this article into issues upon which we'll never totally agree, but just know that CBF leaves lots of freedom for associate churches and their members to decide on abortion and gay rights. It's not a matter of them affirming a position on these matters, and these ABP articles prove that. They simply provide information for believers on what is going on, and if they offer an opinion, it does not represent an official CBF position. What CBF DOES affirm is freedom of the individual believer to be informed and take personal stands on these issues. Therefore, when I worship in a CBF church, I will stand next to a fellow believer who is willing to discuss such issues and believe differently from me, and lo and behold, Christ has saved us both! This past week I sat in a committee meeting at church where at least three different sides were very vocal about such issues, and all three were very different in their view. It's about freedom without your church telling you how to stand, or , sometimes, coming dangerously close to telling you to vote Republican, or else you're a questionable Christian.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Bob,

I can only take credit for excerpting the comments from a White Paper on brands and branding by John Kuraoka. See the link above.

-- HMT

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Louis and lmlaone:

I apologize for interloping in your exchange. I looked into the possible cost of rebranding the SBC and found some information that might interest you.

I found that Pepsi spent 7.5 percent of brand value to rebrand its beverages.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.graphicdesignblog.org/rebranding-mistake-analysis/

Pepsi Rebranding – A comprehensive Analysis:

The Pepsi rebranding was handled by Arnell Group. Its three years strategy involves $1.2 billion, a complete packaging, merchandising and marketing overhaul of its soft drinks. Let me remind my readers that the total brand value of Pepsi is estimate around $ 16 billion as compared to Coca-Cola’s $68 billion. The rebranding amount involves all kinds of promotional and ATL and BTL marketing activities. Now let us analyze the impact of the rebranding. It has been one year since the overhaul took place. There are no figures of ‘out of the blue’ sales jump or consumer liking about the rebranding reported. On the contrary, Pepsi has received far more censure than any other brands for its directionless rebranding. The real question is…the sales that Pepsi is generating now, are they more than what they would have earned without the rebranding?

-------------------------------------------------

Using the Pepsi figure of 7.5 percent as a rule of thumb for the SBC, it would cost somewhere in the ballpark of $14.25 million just on the national level (using a CP threshold of $190 million as the brand value for national causes and not including any of the special offerings or developmental funds raised by SBC entities). On top of these national costs, 42 state conventions will need to rebrand in order to identify with the new national identity and 45,000 or so congregations will need to do so likewise.

The particular cases for Pepsi and the SBC might not be comparable, but there is a more relevant precedent from which to gage what an advertising effort might run on the low end.

In 2005, the SBC EC developed a television ad that aired in limited markets (Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Raleigh, Richmond and Washington, D.C.) during BCS football games (Nashville: Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl games, Atlanta: Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl; all others: Fiesta Bowl) -- http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=22376. Combined, the production costs and air time totaled about $120,000 for the one-time showings for these 8 market/game combinations (there are about 210 Television Market Areas in the U.S.; here is the list of the top 100 (http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets). In any case, this information should help give an idea of how much a television campaign might cost.

On top of what the “name-changers” might determine to spend on promoting the new brand, there will be considerable legal costs for the SBC apart from just registering a new name and new logos. The SBC now enjoys special status in Georgia (where the SBC is incorporated) because it was chartered prior to state legislation that regulates other non-profits (and enjoys “grandfather” status that exempts it). The SBC’s lawyers previously determined that a name change will abrogate the old charter and cause the SBC (as the new entity) to have to make significant business changes to come in line with current law.

For what it’s worth, here is some information about other branding and rebranding efforts:

-- Accenture spent $588 million to reorganize and rebrand itself from its previous name of Anderson Consulting.

-- Lucent spent $100 million in an intensive four-month effort to brand itself apart from ATT.

-- Cigna spent $25 million on television and print advertising, a new social media presence and softer, less corporate logo

-- Provo, Utah budgeted $60,000 in three stages for new messaging, new logo, changed website “look” and billboards on the freeway and new city entrance signs.

-- HMT