If thinking about audience is the issue here, just throwing this out in light of yesterday's meeting w/ Steve and what we've talked about for years at BP:
Yes, we need to know who our audience is (who's pulling), but also we need to think about who we want our audience to be (who to push, e.g. younger demographic).
Also, we do need to know what they want from BP, but as we're not pushing soda, we also need to give them what they need (i.e. teaching that the Church needs).
So that's my starting point from entering these discussions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Also, we do need to know what they want from BP, but as we're not pushing soda, we also need to give them what they need (i.e. teaching that the Church needs)."
Yeah, I think it's the nexus of "the teaching that the Church needs" and "how they best hear it and respond permanently" that is key. I think it is BP's heritage to be more concerned with the former. And it's the megachurches' tendency to be more concerned with the latter (well, the "how they best hear it" part anyway).
I think the key is to recognize that fighting against trends in how people relate is an enormous hill to climb. Not that we shouldn't work against the trend, we should. But, rather, concurrent with that, we should be be sensitive to how people hear/learn/relate now and - for their benefit and for the effectiveness of the Church - meet them where they're at, insofar as we can do so while still maintaining orthodoxy.
Finding that nexus, including understanding how people increasingly relate to organizations and causes, is what i'd like to learn much more about. Otherwise, we just keep doing what we do the way we've always done it. Pretty soon, you find yourself tragically irrelevant in the eyes of your current and potential constituents.
Quick clarification: When I refer to "BP's heritage," I'm not thinking of media/channel/programming used, but more the perspective from which its top leadership comes. There is an attitude (I don't say this negatively) as "This is what our audience needs to hear; I don't care if they don't like hearing it." It is a focus on teaching, less a focus on winning.
If one has to choose between them, one should certainly choose the former.
But that perspective, and perhaps an outlook by its leadership over the years, might be lagging behind the trends in how people best receive messages.
Maybe.
Or maybe not.
I've been known to be wrong every few years or so...
Oh, no. I agree. The channels we've been using for teaching are tired. Or at best reach a limited (aging) audience, and we do need to think about reaching a younger audience for more reasons than one. And though that article Martha shared (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10102992) has valid points about the limitations of Facebook/MySpace for promoting causes, as I noted in response to the NYT article she sent, it could have some value -- getting word out, being seen by those who might not have ever seen BP before, and possibly bring them in for a closer look at bp.org, and not just our space at MS or FB. So, yes, I'm advocating for a BreakPoint MySpace page and Facebook page, and anything else that may come along in online social networking trends.
Post a Comment