I’m back in the saddle after an awesome wedding and honeymoon! Praise God!
I’ve been trawling through my emails (as you do when you return from holidays), and came across an interesting email from Magnation. I subscribe to their emails for news on interesting magazine releases. Their e-newsletter this time around was promoting Valentine’s Day purchases, with some not-too-subtle references to sex – basically suggesting that buying a magazine for a loved one will lead to more sex. This approach isn’t particularly unexpected in modern marketing. What was unexpected was the footer at the bottom of the email which read:
“Complaints about our resorting to sexual references to sell a product can be directed to info@magnation.com.
Please put in the subject box “I am a prude and I deserve a spanking” and we will do our best to respond to you in an appropriate and sensitive manner. And if you want to unsubscribe you can do so here. We promise to not publicly ridicule you or publish your name in the obituaries columns, although you will of course, be dead to us.”
Was the insensitive work experience student steering the ship in the marketing department the day this email was sent out?!
I’m not sure how ridiculing your customers can ever be seen as a good approach to increasing sales or promoting good will. Sure, it might make you look edgy and cool to a particular demographic within your subscriber base, but it’s at the expense of alienating another (perhaps larger) bunch of customers. Is that worth it?
I wasn’t particularly offended by the email, but I was by the footer – though its font size was small, its impact was significant.
What’s the message for us as Christian communicators with many of our churches using email newsletters? Every part of the message, from head to toe, is important. Read and re-read what you’ve written. And if you’re going to offend, make sure it’s worth it.
i don’t know the company, but it sounds a little like they are ridiculing the people who *don’t* buy their product. Presumably, this gives a good feeling to their loyal customers, and persuades anyone (who might be wavering) to continue being a customer avoid being a ‘prude’.
Sadly, i think church messages (including sermons) often portray non-christians in a negative light – possibly with similar motives.
For a company it’s understandable (though not admirable) because they need only a particular demographic to sustain their business. But the church is not called to reach a certain demographic, or a certain sub-culture. It is called to reach all people.
ps. did you see where american churches are worried about new anti-vilification laws, because they are concerned it would restrict pastors from preaching ‘biblical messages’. Surely if a “sermon” has content that qualifies it as a ‘hate crime’, we should perhaps be looking to see just how biblical it is.
Hi David, I hadn’t come across those new laws – are you able to send me a link? I agree that if sermon content is classified as a hate crime we need to look at the content, although the definition of ‘hate crime’ could be quite telling. For example, could telling people that they are under the judgement of God be classified as a hate crime?
Hi Steven,
It came to me via email (from an american christian enewsletter i read). Sadly i deleted the email, but it seemed to be based on the inclusional of sexuality into the list of things that are already defined as hate crimes. There’s some background at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/julyweb-only/128-42.0.html
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/10/senate_passes_h.html
The email i got was headed with a picture of a preacher with his mouth gagged (like a hostage or prisoner). I understand the email was designed to evoke emotion, but it almost implied that american preachers had nothing to say if they couldn’t vilify homosexuals.
The connection to your original post was that the advertisement didn’t offend you as much as the footer. I figure a good preacher can deliver his message without offence (as the advertisement did for you) without resorting to haranging any particular group of people (like the advertisement footer did). Surely a good sermon can promote godly values, without vilifying those who fall short (which, by definition, is all human beings).
As I alluded to in my original comment, sometimes i think sub-standard sermons rely on giving hetero-sexuals a warm fuzzy superior feeling by speaking harshly about homosexuals. For me it’s reminiscent of Luke 18:11