Comments on: Brand Management vs. Member Missionaries

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:06:06 +0000

I think we should spread our message by shouting at people in public parks and city buses, and then assuming that anyone who does not pay attention is not elect. That’s the way it works in Brazil, and they’ve been pretty successful down there.

By: Mormon Mission Prep

Mormon Mission Prep — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:32:28 +0000

To me, PR falls under the Missionary work umbrella. I think marketing and brand perception is something the Church needs to focus on much more. The Church’s reputation management tends to be more reactive than proactive, and that’s got to change if we are to make headway. As for the Mormon.org banner ads and paid search ads that I have seen, I have not been impressed with most of them. But with a little refinement and better landing pages, these advertisements could be much more effective.

By: Nate R

Nate R — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:39:50 +0000

In response to Mormon ads being geared for Mormons. Here is a non-member’s, I assume, response to a Mormon ad.

http://cdashnaw.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/make-your-readers-take-notice/

I found it funny to see what someone else thought of the ads.

By: Mytha

Mytha — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:20:53 +0000

I’m sure interest in the church quadrupled everywhere in the US. We were in the news constantly, of course people want to know more about us. Whether the interest is positive or negative depends entirely on the views that those people already hold.

By: queuno

queuno — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:15:37 +0000

Re 82-86:

It’s all anecdotal, but a sibling who returned from an AZ mission last month reported that interest in the Church doubled (by almost any conceivable number) after Prop 102 last fall…

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:52:58 +0000

Frank (#103), if you have only heard that principle 2 or 3 times in 61 years, I propose that you have not been listening very closely.

By: Ann

Ann — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:48:00 +0000

Count me among those who sees the PR people as a net negative. I remember what a wonderful thing I thought Henry Eyring’s talk at Mountain Meadows was. I saw it as a transitional event. The next day, an AP article quoted a church PR person (unnamed, IIRC) as saying “that should not be construed as an apology.” “Profound regret” is not an apology?

I remember my response to that article so clearly: Every time I think the church is doing the right thing, I’m wrong.

By: Frank Bisti

Frank Bisti — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:22:22 +0000

In my long (61 years) experience in the church, I have heard only 2 or 3 times the use of a key, true principle with regard to this topic. That is, if you “love” your friends and neighbors you will naturally “share the gospel.” So, the only sincere, righteous method is to first get to know and love them.

As I came to grasp this core truth, I saw all the local and SLC “PR” efforts as wrong-headed. Remember when the church used to set up opportunities to showcase famous Mormons (Steve Young, Johnny Miller, etc)? In short, I no longer take part in Stake “service projects” that are only PR projects–to show that we Mormons are nice, giving people. And, the supposed kudos or improvement in our image is our reward–think “sounding brass and tinkling cymbals” (as if “rewards” even exist).

By: m&m

m&m — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:20:07 +0000

Oh, yeah, and I forgot to include a link for that quote...it's different from the talk linked in the OP. (He's given a few.) You can find the one that includes the quote above here.

By: m&m

m&m — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:03:05 +0000

“In short….” Ha. That was a looong comment!