Rick Warren's Secret Weapon: Killer Marketing Instincts
Dear Rick Warren,
From one marketer to another, my hat's off to you. You've built one of the world's most successful franchises: The Purpose Driven Life. I suspect you didn't set out to be a marketer. I assume that you wanted to be a preacher, but somehow the mega-church concept became so darned doable for a person with your savvy that, well, why not? And then it just made sense to write the book. Who knew it would become the recipe for work-a-day ministers who wanted to emulate your success, but whose flocks were just not that into them. They preached your message to their congregations, held Purpose Driven Life book groups in church basements, and book sales skyrocketed.
Then came the appearances on Oprah and at the influential TED conference. Grasping the potential that campaign media coverage might deliver for your brand, you strategically hosted the candidates at your Saddleback Church. Brilliant! Now you'll be gracing the stage at the inauguration--talk about a mega-watt boost for you.
But it seems there's a heavy price to the Obama brand for the symbolic gesture of tapping you to give the prayer. Barack Obama traded in quite a lot of brand equity as a fair-minded progressive in exchange for a piece of your market share, with its vast army of followers. When brands take actions inconsistent with their positioning, in other words, when they don't walk their talk, it smells inauthentic. Keep in mind that today's consumers are deeply cynical--so all this idealism is a bit of a paradox. Hell hath no fury like an idealist scorned, is a good rule of thumb.
Furious is my relative out in California who doesn't share my point of view and feels you deserve nothing but his contempt. He and his partner were big Obama supporters out in L.A. They got married this past summer, like so many other gay couples and I flew out to share in their joy. When Proposition 8 heated up, their car was badly vandalized for sporting a Prop 8 bumper sticker. I think it spooked them to personally experience that level of hatred for being different. Rick Warren is just a symbol, a token, I told him. It's not as if he's being given a cabinet position. Symbols are important in these fights, he lashed back. His point is taken.
Recently Advertising Age magazine proclaimed Barack Obama Marketer of the Year. I agree wholeheartedly. It's time we all accept the possibility that you were not selected because of your piety, but your reach. So I wouldn't anticipate adding a West Wing prayer circle to your calendar any time soon, if I were you. Dude, let's face it, you've got millions of peeps. And I notice your book is killing on Amazon, no doubt a boost from all the brouhaha. Astonishing leverage! So with all due respect to my California relative, and despite what my progressive colleagues say about your known prejudices against gays, I just wanted to write and tell you that your talent as a marketer is not lost on some of us.
In a down economy, and in a culture where money still talks, it's clear you have something worth saying.
Yours truly,
Patricia Martin
Follow Patricia Martin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PatriciaMartin
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am not forgetting that Warren is also anti-choice. Warren represents the two most divisive partisan Republican issues used to separate voters from their rationality. And whatever he -- and Bush -- say they've done for AIDS in Africa, the strict "abstinence only" stance they have taken has done more harm than good, notwithstanding all the money that's been given to this cause.
I’m worried. If every gay man, woman and child spoke out today in favor of their self evident inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it wouldn’t be enough. There just aren’t enough of us.
I’m worried our strength – our diversity – is also our weakness. We don’t share a common skin color, language or other outward characteristic to bind us together. We are dispersed evenly, thinly and, for the most part, quietly – tough to organize. An easy-target for people like Rick Warren and… the Pope – people looking for convenient demons.
I’m worried we’re one of the last best easy-targets. And bad economic times have never been good for anyone’s civil rights…
This is bigger than an invocation, or even gay peoples’ right to marry; this is about the kind of country America wants to become. This is symbolism. Do we have more in common with Canada, England and the Netherlands (where homosexuality and gay marriage is legal and accepted), or Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq (where homosexuality is still punishable by death)?
Our cause rests in the hands of our straight friends and family.
Sadly, I think this whole issue confirms that those at the top, in religion and poltics, view their base as a commodity who can easily be bought and sold, especially when your vote or money is needed. Warren will write another book about this very subject and make millions and Obama will throw a bone to those needed to support his mandate and eventually carry him back in 2012. It's all about power and money folks and that, in turn, breeds greed and corruption, which negativly impacts those who lack the necessary rights and advantages to achieve it.
Right On!
What a bunch of baloney. What matters is what Obama does in office. Not who he invites to give a dumb 2-minute prayer. By the way, interesting you don't mention that a gay rights supporter has been chosen to deliver the closing prayer.
JimR, you sould like someone who enjoys all of the rights and protections that the US laws have to offer. There will be many people on stage with whom I agree on most issues, but the fact that Obama is HONORING someone who compares me to a pedophile and just actively campaigned to TAKE AWAY my rights makes his other choices obsolete. Oh, and the gay marching band doesn't sway me either.
Ouickly, can you tell us who did the last invocation? The outrage about a 2 minute prayer is ridiculous. Warren' beliefs are just that his beliefs and just because O asks him to do the prayer does not mean that O agrees with him. This is stupid and has no significance at all.
Thank you!!! I am an atheist and I could give a flying frock about this.
Obama does not understand the price he'll pay for this move - or the price that his gay constituents will pay. As a 63 year old gay man I've been around the block a few times in this fight. He's made a huge mistake and it will haunt him - and us, sadly.
He had my absolute support. He has frozen that totally - an possibly permanently. This move chills me to the bone.
It needn't have been this way.
And I don't think the LGBT community understands the potential consequences of making too big a deal out of this... they risk turning away moderates who support gay marriage.
The LGBT community won't scare off anyone who understands the issues - just people who pretend they are with the community.
Gay people these days are being told not to protest - it will scare away their supporters. Its hogwash. Just homophobia justification.
Warren and Obama are both master marketers and both recognized the value of their relationship very early on. Both are risking the wrath of some of their more extreme followers in exchange for delivering their message to a broader audience, and both share one other thing... the confidence that they have the ability to win back those they lost through their future actions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying gays and lesbians are "extreme followers" of Obama. I am hardly extreme. I'm an average citizen who pays taxes, teaches school, works hard and donates time and money to worthwhile charities and organizations. Oh, and I'm lesbian. Does that make me extreme?
But in practical terms, how effective is this wished-for brand synergy? In other words, how many of Warren's "peeps" are won over by his selection? How many Obama voters have been lost in 2012? How good is your crystal ball?
Rick Warren was always a marketer. The entire church was based off of a model used by Indian missionaries who had the main purpose of converting as many Indians as possible. Same thing with Rick--his only goal is to grow Saddleback. This scares me more than his actual positions. But anyways. You want to get gay marriage? You have to make Rick's opposition a roadblock to expansion.
It's clear the the big winner here is Rick Warren. Barack Obama just gave him a place in the history books. As a footnote maybe, but he wasn't going to be there before. Until now, he was just another preacher in America. True, a hugely successful one, but just another preacher all the same.
Thank you Mr. President elect.
Care to share a footnote where historians have been interested on who gave the inauguration 's invocation? It's by making it a huge issue that Obama's supporters and others are giving Warren a place in history books as historians will find themselves compelled to mention it caused a rift between the president and its constituents. The staging of a big protest against Rick Warren on January 20th should do the trick.
Yes. The pastors chosen to deliver invocations when a president is inaugurated go on to everlasting fame, such as.... um.... and.... uh... then of course there was.... uh...
Hmm.
I said it during the primaries and I'll say it again here, "Obama doesn't like gays. Obama will not do right by the LGBT community.
I saw it too. Now there is no doubt.
He does and will work to improve gay rights, even if you are too blinding by hate and rage to see it.
We will see - the only blinding hate and rage I see is from Obama supporters who won't even listen to gay people who are offended by this.
I see. So what you're saying is Barack Obama is the same-ole, same-ol BSing politician looking to gain "market share" like it's a frigging business.
OHHHHH yah...chan
This guy is a huckster who you "liberals" bought hook, line, and sinker. What a pathetic tragedy this will be.
What's your point? Wake me when we elect someone for president who isn't a politician. Electoral politics IS marketing. If you don't like it, you don't like democracy. Maybe Stalin is more your style. There's change you'd better believe it - or else.
oh, not that old strategy, if someone disagrees with you, they are a communist? Please, differing views are important, and I think Ms. Martin's post is interesting and takes a peek at this subject from a perspective that at least I, have not seen on this topic.
The majority of Americans did not just us liberals
This is precisely wrong:
"Barack Obama traded in quite a lot of brand equity as a fair-minded progressive in exchange for a piece of your market share"
Conservatives will always hate Obama and he gains nothing by sucking up to them. His intention was to piss off the left because having the left attack you is how you get accepted by the elites. It's the standard Clinton formula. So-called Progressives will vote for him anyway because they are cowards and can always be told that the other guy (the Republican) will always be worse.
Since the Progressive vote is guaranteed due to their cowardice, any sensible politician will attack them. For Democrats it's like kicking the dog that always comes home to you anyway. And by attacking the left Obama curries favour with those in real power --- which is what he has always done as a politician.
Everyone knew this would happen.
You think that Progressives will always vote Democratic, no matter what? I think Obama and his crew are in for a shock two years from now. And then possibly four.
Bingo, Californians elected Arnie, and it took most of the Democrats to put him in office. Barack blew this one bad.
I disagree. Progressives pushed for Nader in 2000 and this shocked and scared the rulers of the Democratic party. When they still received major criticism and suffered a loss of votes in the 2004 election (and Nader developed a following again), the Democratic party finally started to have some ideas and principles again. They also made Obama a rising star in response to progressive activism from 2000-2008. They have finally started to being in more progressive politicians as opposed to defenders of the status-quo. The changes in the Dem party are remarkable from 2000 until now. This is due to progressive agitation. We have a long way to go, but we have changed things for the better. Even our commentators who are brought on TV to discuss viewpoints are improved. Our spokespeople have ideas and convictions. We should be congratulating each other for such strides. We just need to keep going.
I don't think you get it. Talk about how the conservatives hated Clinton but that's not the point. Clinton is the only president to serve eight years who left office with a higher approval rating than when he entered. This is because he appealed to *moderates*.
Huh? A good marketer doesn't necessarily have anything worth saying. And President-elect 'Marketer of the Year' has just made his first serious misstep.
Obama has lots of things he wants to accomplish. Yes, symbolism *is* important. That's why *including* Rick Warren is a *good* thing.
You see, people like your cousin are naturally going to support Obama's agenda of increasing government intervention to fight AIDS, to go green, to counter Global Warming, to fight for the working class and to fight for GLBT rights. Even if they are mad at Obama for including Warren in a symbolic event. But folk who are influenced by Warren will not support these *unless* we reach out to them and *win* them over. The reality is that we can't accomplish these things without the help of the more "moderate Evangelicals" (who still may not be moderate on abortion and GLBT issues, but are becoming "moderate" on economic, foreign policy and ecological issues.)
Obama is not taking an action inconsistent with his position. His position has always been about working with people that we disagree with, even vehementally disagree with on important issues, but working with them on the issues that we can agree on. Then on the issues we disagree on, talking about how we can find common ground that we do agree on and working together towards that. This has always been the fundamental change that Obama has proposed.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one." -John Lennon
Your logic falls apart when you realize that the right NEVER "reaches back" when progressives "reach out". They spit on or bite those reaching hands from the left.
Religion allows people to indulge their prejudices and fears while feeling justification for doing so. People aren't going to open their eyes and wonder if they were "wrong about Obama all along"; they'll either cast out Warren as a traitor or rationalize it all away as meaningless.
The left has been reaching out to the right for decades. All we've gotten for it is a stained, slashed, broken hand. What it's called again, when you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?
Wonderful post. Very well put.
No, my logic does not fall apart if you realize I'm talking about the average people out there and not the leaders who mix politics and religion. It's those average people we must reach out to and win. I stand in a long line of folk who have held this logic: Mel White, Dr. King, Ghandi, Thoreau, Fox, St. Francis, Jesus, Buddha, and Lao Tze.
Despite Warren's despicable position on GLBT marriage and his exclusion of GLBT frolk from his church, his views are common in the Evangelical world. What isn't common about Warren is his committment to fighting AIDS, his support of Al Gore and green ecological views and his openness to working with people on the left. This is a change and it promises more change in Evangelicalism.
I still believe that including Warren will result in reaching out to the ordinary Evangelical. It will help Warren be more a leader in the Evangelical world. Now you may autmatically be repulsed at that. But I'd much rather have someone like Warren be seen as the Evangelical leader than Dobson, Robertson and whoever is now running Falwell's empire.
And as far as the Evangelical right never responding. I have two examples that prove you wrong. Tammy Faye and *me*.
This Pastor is a man who says that his views are identical to those of James Dobson's. He compares gay people to pedophiles and incestuous family members. He BANS gay people from his congragation. How, exactly, is that "inclusive". Since the GLBTI community was shut out of the last eight years, might it not have been more symbolic to include us in the inaugeration? After all, this is a historic inaugeration, made possible by the various civil rights movements that have taken place in our country. Why not have an openly gay minister give the opening prayer? Or someone who is Muslim? Or Buddhist? If this is truly about "inclusion", then why give this honor to a man who bars people from his church?
There are political motives behind this choice, motives that many are concerned about. The evangelical right has ruined this country. It has shut down women's health clinics, made abortion virtually inaccessible. It wields its power against the poor, the oppressed, and those who are marginalized within our society. Despite its tiny numbers, it has been given extraordinary power by politicians and the media, power denied to mainstream religions and to non-believers (not to mention those who support separation of church and state). This choice is alarming on many levels. Particularly coming from someone who ran for office as an agent of change.
Look at it like this. in the past few days with all the hoopla that has been made about this homophobic R. Warren. People have opened their eyes and seen him for what he is.
He has been put under a microscope. Since yesterday hid church website has been scrubbed of the "No homos allowed to join" There has to be a reason, but who knows what it could be.
I was in no way myself thrilled with him being offered invocation, But it is a done deal. Maybe something good will come out of it.
Gotta have HOPE.
"This choice is alarming on many levels. Particulary coming from someone who ran for office as an *agent* *of* *change*" (emphasis added)
Obama's concept of change has always been a new politics that works with everyone despite our disagreement and seeks common ground rather than division. I do understand (even if I disagree) the concern of some over working with Evangelicals and the symbolic inclusion of Warren in the inauguration. But to say it is inconsistent with Obama's message of change is inaccurate. I assume this is only due to ignorance of what Obama's message has always been.
Up until now the way of dealing with these folk has been to vocally oppose them, but then not really do anything effective to stop them from getting what *they* want when it comes to legislation. Obama's method is the opposite: vocally find common ground and then find effective ways to find common ground with them to achieve what *we* want.
I think the problem here is that GLBT folk and others in the progressive community are seeing only two options: opposition or capitulation. If that is the case then if Obama isn't opposing them he must be capitulating. But there is a THIRD way. It's constructive engagement that isn't compromise (mix win & lose-mix win & lose) but is mediation (win-win).
I implore my GLBT brothers and sisters and other progressives, give Obama a chance to try this new THIRD way to get us what we want: full & equal rights.
More I wanted to say in the comment above:
Think about it. Waren says he is for GLBT rights including civil unions, just not for marriage. Well if a leader of the anti-GLBT folk will actually work with us on these things, we can accomplish a lot. Imagine no Evangelical backlash to ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. Imagine no Evangelical backlash to national protection of civil unions. Imagine no Evangelical backlash to national laws against GLBT hate crimes. Imagine no Evangelical backlash to ENDA. Then imagine Evangelical leaders working with progressives on the issues they agree with us on and slowly having their consciousness raised on the issues of GLBT marriage and abortion.
It seems to me that a lot of my brothers and sisters are asking Obama to exclude someone just because he offends us, even if including that person does us no harm other than offending us. Having Warren included in the Inauguration no more hurts Obama's committment to advancing GLBT concerns than having me and the person I love getting married hurts the marriage of the straight couple down the street. I actually think excluding Warren actually does us more harm.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one." -John Lennon
He doesnt just offend us, he worked against the rights of Californians.
I am laughing at your ironic handle.
I'm glad I made you laugh, laugher's healthy for the soul. (sincere smile)
I don't believe being willing to work w/ folk I disagree w/ makes my handle ironic. You see I am actually very for to the left. I'm for same sex marriage as a *national* law, single payer, universal health care, ending the military industrial complex w/ massive cuts in military spending, ending the war on drugs by legalizing of all drugs, ending the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, ending NAFTA & pulling out of WTO, removing "under God" from the pledge, prosecuting Bush for war crimes, a carbon tax, repealing the *Reagan* tax cuts, open borders & legalizing undocumented workers, bilingual education, Affirmative Action, free universal daycare, a new WPA, Pagan chaplains in the military, sex education in elementary school, subsidized contraceptives for teenagers, immense increases in spending on education & social services, increasing the minimum wage drastically, the re-unionization of the workforce, card check, & ending the fiction that corporations are "persons." I'm against the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Drilling in ANWAR, offshore drilling, "clean coal," nuclear power, "welfare to work," the death penalty, even for terrorists, & English as a "national language." If none of these issues are to the left of you, I'm sure we could find something I'm to the left of most people who post on this blog.
But still I'll work with anyone I can on anything if we can find any common ground.
its easy to spout platitudes when it isnt your rights that were taken away. You think our forefathers settled for peace at the point of losing their liberty?
Try to please everyone and you'll please none.
I'd rather sit alone with ethics than to sell people down the river.
Ah...it was *my* rights that were taken away. As a T in the GLBT, I don't have the right to marry *anyone* unless same sex marriage is approved because the people who want to deprive us of marriage rights would say I'm marrying someone of the same sex whether I married either sex.
Also I support ENDA, even though most GL folk in the GLBT community have argued over and over that we T folk should be excluded from ENDA. Finally the percentage of T folk who are murdered in hate crimes is much higher than the other segments of the GLBT community, yet often we are purposely excluded from hate crime legislation.
So don't tell me that *my*rights are not being taken away. They are.
Yet I still am in favor of reaching out to Evangelicals and including Rick Warren.
Whether Warren delivers the invocation or not, that's not going to make bit of difference on your rights, or abortion rights, or farm subsidies or anythings. What will make a difference is what Obama does in office. Why don't we focus our efforts on that?
This glamorization of marketing is exactly why our country is in this mess right now. Convincing consumers to buy stuff they don't need with money they don't have and that produces products that pollute our precious environment. (Yes- I know that criticism does not apply to all businesses, and professionals promoting themselves - just the vast majority).
The late great radical comic and social critic Bill Hicks did a great bit about marketing and marketing professionals. To his standup audience: "Any one here in marketing or advertising? Really? Great - stand up, please so we can all see you. (Scattered applause) Pause.. "Kill yourselves NOW!" ..nervous laughter from those standing..
"You know last week I did this same bit and at the end of the show, one of the ad guys from the audience comes up to me and says 'Bill - great bit there on marketing. I get it, I really get what you are saying with that bit. Very deep, very hip. You know - that would make a great marketing strategy - we'll call it Anti-Marketing marketing. Convince all the young people out there how hip they will be if they buy our product' You know what I said to they guy? Kill yourself NOW!"
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
