Marketing Maestros
About a year ago, I was at an event with two of the Wesleyan Covenant Association‘s Leadership Council members when one said to the other “You are always marketing, aren’t you?” to which the other affirmed with a smile. I filed away that casual comment in case it provided insight into their procedures and values, and it turns out it did!
We know now that the Wesleyan Covenant Association is, in fact, a master of marketing. It’s not just their slick website and catchy phrases. Several of the Leadership Council have degrees in marketing or business. Their originator even co-founded* a video production company, the same one that is hired to produce the videos for the WCA. And really, any large church pastor (as some are) has to have some marketing savvy to reach the masses at this scale. So it is safe to assume that, in contrast to the Council of Bishops or the Uniting Methodists, the WCA is head and shoulders above most of us when it comes to marketing savvy.
That awareness is crucial because it helps us better understand that some of their actions are marketing techniques to get Methodists to respond in the way they want (we saw them try this earlier in 2018).
But fear not, we can understand their most recent action by looking at a grocery store.
Grocery Store Marketing
At a grocery store, each item has a different profit margin, and it doesn’t depend on their retail price. An item that costs $5 may have a $2 profit margin, while a $10 item may only have a $1 profit margin. The cost of the item does not necessarily mean the amount of profit for the grocery store. So if they are selling multiple types of a single kind of produce, how do they encourage buyers to select the one with the highest profit margin?
The marketing technique of “decoy pricing” accomplishes this by knowing that humans don’t want to be cheap or spend too much, and consumers will often pick the middle of the road item. So grocery stores take their highest profit margin item and price them directly between a high and a low-cost item. For example, on the same shelf with three different versions of the same item:
- Item #1 costs $6 and returns a $1 profit
- Item #2 costs $8 and returns a $3 profit
- Item #3 costs $10 and returns a $1 profit
So you see how the store encourages the shopper to buy the middle option (Item #2) because it will presumedly be a reasonable balance between cost and quality. In reality, Item #2 costs the grocery store the same amount as Item #1, but they make 200% more profit off of #2. It may even be the same quality as Item #1, but the customer fell for the marketing and paid $2 more than they needed to.
In short, “decoy pricing” is a marketing technique to get people to select the middle option, knowing humans tend to avoid the extremes, and they pick the perceived “Golden Mean” as the best between two extremes.
Church Plans on a…Shelf?
Okay. Great? What does a grocery store have to do with the Church?
Consider the above lineup of the current plans for The United Methodist Church to vote on at the end of February 2019.
The spectrum is from progressive to regressive. The progressive side moves The UMC forward together regarding LGBTQ inclusion. The regressive side turns back the UMC away from growth and towards multiple denominations through chosen divergence or expulsion of progressives.
If the Plans were on a shelf in the grocery store, the average consumer would assume that the “moderate” plans in the middle (the Connectional Conferences plan and the OneChurch plan) would be most desirable because they aren’t strongly progressive or regressive. That gives them a boost when you consider the number of churches and pastors in the “Methodist Middle” and the everpresent “Golden Mean” appeals to moderation.
But the marketing problem for the WCA is that it supports the Traditionalist Plan, which is an extreme position. Thus, to get their plan to be perceived as “less extreme” requires a rearranging of that shelf. Enter marketing to save the day!
Decoy Plan
So now we can better understand a recent action by the WCA, and how it is more like a “decoy price” than a real hoped-for conclusion.
The Wesleyan Covenant Association recently pitched a Plan of Dissolution on its website (here’s the PDF). It dissolves The UMC entirely and renders the connectional properties to the different annual conferences. It’s not just regressive but completely dissolves The UMC’s existence!
So when you add that Plan to the lineup, see how it shifts in the graphic above?
The most progressive stays the same, but now the most regressive is the Dissolution Plan. Both ends may be unacceptable to the average Methodist as “too extreme.” But suddenly now there are three plans in the center: Connectional Conferences, OneChurch, and the Traditionalist Plan. No longer is the WCA’s preferred plan the most extreme, but it is now an acceptable “more moderate” plan. They have successfully changed its perception without changing its content one iota.
Do some in the WCA want the Dissolution Plan to pass? Of course—their President sent in a version of it in 2016. But many more want the Traditionalist Plan to pass, so this decoy plan’s purpose is to move their preferred plan to a better position.
Coming storm
The coming months are the selling periods for the various plans, and the average United Methodist would do well to be aware of marketing and spin to keep the focus on the real deal.
- The Simple Plan is unashamedly progressive, was proposed first in 2016, though it also makes space for Traditionalists not to confess doctrine they do not agree with.
- The two moderate plans (OneChurch and Connectional Conferences) occupy the center of the conversation, making space for progressives and traditionalists alike.
- The Traditionalist Plan is unashamedly Traditionalist (regressive), and does not make space for the continued existence of Progressives in The UMC.
Any decoy plans that tilt this lineup should be viewed with suspicion, especially if their purpose is not passage but to make regressive Methodism more palatable.
The marketing is already happening. One of the WCA supporters pitched it to me on Twitter as a “fifth plan” to add to my lineup, hoping I would take the bait with usual progressive outrage. I didn’t take the bait, and I hope the delegates to the General Conference 2019 don’t either.
Your turn
One side note is that a person could look at the progressive Simple Plan and say that it is the same effect as the decoy pricing: that its purpose is to make the One Church Plan be less on the extreme. But the lack of a genuinely progressive plan is precisely why there’s so much enthusiasm behind the Simple Plan. Whereas Traditionalists would want the Traditionalist Plan to pass instead of Dissolution, Progressives would want the Simple Plan to pass instead of OneChurch. So it is not a “decoy plan” but is the actual hoped-for goal. That’s the difference between them.
Thoughts?
Thanks for reading, commenting, and sharing on social media.
Editor update: changed “co-owner” to “co-founder” per comments below.
Jeremy, this makes so much sense and it’s the height of manipulation. I asked a few members of the Commission how the Simple Plan might be manifested differently than the One Church Plan, but they “simply” said it would never pass. So much fear and so much at stake. God, help us.
Manipulation has been occurring for quite some time on both sides. To say the WCA is the beginning of the manipulation aspect is just wrong and shows a large memory gap. I wish that I could submit a plan that would work but that is above my present pay grade. I simply want to be as respectful as I can while resisting any casting of stones. When I hear any phrase that has United Methodist in it, I do my best to remember the saints that drew me in years ago and the children/youth who depend on us now. To me that is where we need to focus. Many prayers and thank you for the very interesting article on marketing.
Thanks for making these points. Both extreme left and right are actively trying to manipulate “and market “ their particular viewpoint. Each has mud on their hands from the slinging …. and frankly, I am one UMC clergy who is tired of being splashed by that continuous mud battle
One side thinks heresy is the problem.
The other side thinks homophobia is the problem.
Has anyone considered that RACISM and ELITISM might ACTUALLY be the problem?
A few thoughts:
1) I agree with Jeni that the Simple Plan and the One Church Plan don’t functionally feel that different. I think that how they are framed – including how YOU put them on a spectrum – only adds to the thought that they are.
2) I actually think the Plan of Dissolution is more like the Connectional Conferences plan. Yes, it would mean we are all no longer United Methodist – however it functions to separate us into various groups based on theological perspectives. Maybe it’s Solomon splitting the baby into pieces… or maybe it is allowing us to bless one another on our journeys in separate ways. To frame it as the far right option in the way you have makes it look as if the traditionalist plan is more centrist. However, it you put the Plan of Dissolution closer to the middle on your spectrum, it would frame the conversation differently. As you said, marketing matters. How we frame things matters.
I have no clue how legislation will be presented at GC. I don’t know if we’ll start with one option and go from there or if we will do some kind of polling to determine a starting location. But I think based on what we currently have legislatively, I would lean more towards supporting dissolution that allows for the formation of something new than to watch my beloved denomination focus on the law/enforcement and not be able to stay.
Agree with Katie Z. on the Plan of Dissolution not being more radical than the Traditionalist Plan.
The Plan of Dissolution is an even split, along the lines of “no fault / collaborative divorce,” whereas the Traditionalist plan is a highly contested divorce in which the abuser keeps the house and the kids, and the next generation is in therapy for years because of the trauma.
(Note that I only skimmed the Plan of Dissolution, so maybe there are details there that are even worse than in the Traditionalist Plan —- but my quick read indicated that it has more in line with the Connectional Plan [which, to continue the divorce metaphor, is more like a “legal separation” while continuing to live in the same house and coparent])
Since my initial comment, I feel compelled to explain my use of the word “abuser” to describe anti-LGBTQIA authorities in the UMC. I realize that the word “abuser” can sound like a fighting word, and in general, labeling others is not our call as Christians.
However, the situation in the UMC is one of abuse —-whether it is intentional or not. We as a denomination have acted abusively, even when we couch it in concepts like “it’s for your own good.”
When I have church members attempting suicide because they are trans* —and the church & society do not accept them— then this is abuse. When I have church members who are unhoused because their families of origin kicked them out due to their sexual orientation — then this is abuse. When the church conducts a witch hunt against “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” (a nonsensical phrase), then this is abuse. We gaslight LGBTQIA people: “You are of ‘sacred worth’ and you are ‘incompatible.’ All are welcome — but you are not welcome. It’s not homophobic to kick out all of the out queer clergy. We love you but…”
So, sure, any reply commenters can call me out on using the word “abuser.” But I think it’s much worse to do the abusing than to call out the abuse.
You reflect my experience and therefore my position on the need to remove our ban on same-sex marriage. I want to copy your posting to send out to my FB Friends. How do I ? Can you send it to my FB ?
Diane, I’m far less concerned by your use of the term “abuser” than I am about the numerous false statements in your reply. No one is incompatible. Behaviors are incompatible.
No one would be kicked out except those who violate church discipline. Should there be no discipline in the church?
Do you really believe that acceptance of trans people in church and society would prevent suicides? If so, you are being deceived.
Let me ask you this. UMC discipline is and has been clear for many years. If people in the LGBTQ community feel like they are now being excluded because traditionalists expect all clergy to uphold church law, who is the abuser? Is it not the progressive who has been misleading that community for some time? There are several denominations that openly accept the LGBTQ community. Wouldn’t it be better to avoid continued “abuse” by attending one of their churches? You are welcome to try to change the rules but until they change, we are expected to live by them.
Sadly, the “abuser” rhetoric is simply charged. When we are talking about events that are not mandated by the Book of Discipline and then seek to blame the Book of Discipline for them, that is simply false witness.
Is the mid-point of eleven million UM laity truly a “do what you want” position or is a majority (perhaps a very strong majority) in favor of maintaining (and enforcing) our current ordination standards? That seems to be the major disconnect here. Leadership wants something different than the led and is then continually “shocked” when General Conference goes in another direction.
Of the plans you name, I am a strong supporter of the Simple Plan. That said, it is not a fully progressive plan either. My own variation on the Simply Plan includes a constitutional protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. If you need a plan to make the Simple Plan appear more middle of the road, consider adding this:
Total Number of Pages: 1
Suggested Title: End Discrimination (1 of 7);
Discipline ¶ 4;
General Church Budget Implications: None;
Global Implications: Yes
Amend ¶4 to read:
… no conference or other organizational unit of the Church shall be structured so as to exclude any member or any constituent body of the Church because of race, color, national origin, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or economic condition nor shall any member be denied access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of the Church because of race, color, gender, national origin, ability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or economic condition.
Date: 5/30/2018
Signature of the Petitioner: Sean McRoberts
Identification of the Petitioner: Elder, Iowa Annual Conference
I am with you Sean, and there is no valid scriptural basis to preclude it.
Yes, please.
Dear Pastor Smith.
I was recently informed that you referred to a WCA “Originator” as a co-owner of the Provisum Group. It also appears you referred to the Provisum Group as a “Video Production House”. As a Pastor and I am sure a man who lives for truth, you would never make a claim that you knew to be untrue. As such, I offer to you today the truth and give you the opportunity to correct your error.
No one owns the Provisum Group. If you would have simply looked at the bottom of the website to which you linked your opinion piece, you would see that the Provisum Group is a 501C3 accredited by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. Had you googled the ECFA, you would have seen that the ECFA is one of the most respected accrediting agencies in the United States when it comes to financial accountability in churches and faith based charities. As I am sure you are aware, no one can own a charity.
Secondly, as a 501C3, the Provisum Group’s exempted purpose is to offer administrative services to churches and faith based charities. We offer virtual administrative services to our clients in the form of accounting, finance, treasury, IT, communications, web development, smart phone applications and donor database management. We offer the services to churches and faith based charities all over the country. As I must assume you are not aware, while churches (and denominations) are allowed to discriminate based on religion and theology, charities are not. As such the Provisum Group serves clients whose ideologies cover every inch of the social, theological and political spectrum including issues of LGBTQ inclusion. Our board mandates this practice and to do otherwise, would be a violation of the law.
Pastor Smith, as a brother in Christ, I encourage you to be more careful with your handling of facts and ask that you correct your opinion piece to reflect the same. The world is watching how I treat you and you treat me. I choose to treat you as my brother for whom I only want goodness and grace. I hope for the same from you.
Be blessed.
Don Corder
President
The Provisum Group
Hi Don, thanks for your comment. I did misspeak. I changed it to “co-founder” instead of “co-owner” to better reflect his role on your listing of staff.
I believe the rest is accurate even if it does not encompass the breadth of your services. I am confused as I didn’t allege any anti-LGBTQ discrimination to which you seem to indicate that I did. Honesty goes both ways. Blessings on your day.
Pastor Smith, It is my understanding that the Simple Plan has been formally submitted for the 2019 Conference but it will have to decided by the Conference whether it is ‘in harmony’ with the purpose of the conference before it is actually accepted as one of the plans to be considered. Has this Plan of Dissolution from The Wesleyan Covenant Association actually been submitted as an option or is it just being tossed around as, as you mention, a marketing ploy to drive the discussion in a certain direction?
Hi Chuck! They said they submitted it, in the WCA President’s name, but we have no way of knowing until the ADCA is released this Fall.
So what would be so bad with the dissolution of The United Methodist Church? You would not have anybody to discredit? I know you see this as fighting for what you believe in, but the reality is you do not have the right answer for everybody–all you have is the answer for yourself and those that think like you do. Wake up and realize that even progressives are an exclusive group you have to continually work to exclude and discredit those who disagree with you.
Thank you for your ministry dear brother Jeremy. I’d only reiterate that the Simple Plan is actually a Centrist Plan with some compromises like “space for Traditionalists not to confess doctrine they do not agree with.” The One Church Plan is a right of center plan or regressive plan since it maintains explicit prohibitions and punishments against LGBTQIA+ and our allies.
We worked on a trully progressive plan but were counciled not to submit it.
Counseled by who? It seems ridiculous that we have no truly progressive plan to consider, or at least to advance an ideal to attain “some day.”
I think this essay over complicates the situation.
We really should start preparing for the schism because this is just not working anymore. If traditionalists strengthen the language in the BoD to make it more enforceable, liberal activists have already declared their intentions to occupy the church regardless. As a traditionalist, I have no interest in forcing liberals out of the UMC; however, moving forward with a new denomination with a new book of discipline will be forthcoming. Unlike liberals, traditionalists will not occupy a liberal church, they will gracefully leave. It’s pretty clear to me that most of the UMC leaders are not only liberal, they are extremists and Marxists in their beliefs. Many of them don’t even believe Jesus is more divine than you or me. This means their are many leaders in the UMC who aren’t even practicing the same religion as those in most of our congregations. It’s time for a schism because we are not one church, and we haven’t been one church for a very long time. This constant infighting over sexuality and liberal politics invading our commissions like a virus is not sustainable and mostly takes away from our real commission to make disciples of Jesus Christ.