i’m not a big fan of the term “branding” when used by churches. i understand what is meant and i am definitely not opposed to churches having good looking logos, fonts, and colors but the term “branding” really rubs me the wrong way. part of the reason for this is the apparent view of “branding” by some churches as the ultimate way of attracting people to their church. this blows my mind. why in the world would a non-follower of CHRIST go to a church because of a cool logo (most of which in my opinion predictably shout “hip CHRISTian”). i’m betting that they wouldn’t. CHRISTians, on the other hand, well we are pretty much idiots for new logos and such.
richard reising has a great post on the issue of “re-banding on momentum.” he hits pretty hard on the tendency of some churches to think that a new logo and look are what they really need to reach people and therefore they change their look without changing anything beyond the surface. reising states:
What this represents is surface re-branding. It is an epidemic. It is the concept that if we are not attracting people, it is because we do not have the right name or image, and therefore, we need to change it and re-design our look. With all the love I can muster, if you are not growing what you have, it is not because of your logo. If you are not connecting with people that come through your doors in a way that causes them to come back and bring others, no amount of design can create a long term fix. If you do have momentum however, the right brand can be a catalyst to new levels of growth.
it’s a pretty good post and worth the read. i’m not sure that our “branding” (oh how i hate this word) says much to the world outside the church other than someone in the organization likes graphic design. since i like graphic design i’m ok with that but i’m not going to waste a lot of tapestry’s resources on it.