The Poverty Of Religious Advertising

It is no longer news that Nigeria is the most religious country in the world. This finding is evidenced by statistics thus: 90% of the population believe in God, pray regularly and affirm their zeal to die for their faith; 91% attend religious services and; 95% pray (R.E. Lee 2004).

If Nigeria’s population is truly 120 million, which may comprise 60 million Muslims, 48 million Christians and 12 million Traditionalists (F.Awoyemi 2003); one can then understand why churches threaten to take over Nigeria’s airwaves. In its self-assessment vis-à-vis these statistics, the church probably believes it has, so far, failed to deliver on the Great Commission (Matt. 28: 19-20).

The biggest challenge to the church therefore is how to win the 72 million Nigerians that practise other religions. It is unlikely that in its search for a killer strategy, the church has decided to move beyond its walls into the marketplace.

According to Louis Schueddig, Executive Director of the Episcopal Media Centre in Atlanta, precision and persistence distinguish an effective religious advertising campaign from a flop (Clergy Notes 2000). He advises that the church should first identify the audience it hopes to reach, whether geographically or demographically, after which an advertisement is created. It is interesting to learn from Schueddig that it is only a matter of time and the advertisement will yield results. This is because, according to him, “decisions about religion have a ‘purchase cycle’ just like consumer products.”

I wonder if that can be said about our part of the world, where thinking of the USP as something the copywriter puts into the advertisement will not just work. In his book, Reality in Advertising, Rosser Reeves, 1965 Copywriters’ Hall of Fame inductee and creator of the USP acronym, i.e. unique selling proposition, posits as follows:

(i) Each advertisement must make a proposition to the consumer, not just words, not just puffery, not just show-window advertising. Each advertisement must say to every reader, viewer, listener- ‘Buy this product and you will get this specific benefit’;

(ii) The proposition must be one that the competition either cannot, or does not offer. It must be unique- either a uniqueness of the brand or a claim not otherwise made in that particular field of advertising and;

(iii) The proposition must be so strong that it can move the mass millions, i.e. pull over new customers to buy your product or patronize your service (TNE 2002).

While I agree that the church lacks a differentiating benefit from its ‘competitors’, I am convinced that ‘salvation’ is a benefit that cannot be offered by any human being (Eph.2:8-9).In sum, it should not be considered a unique proposition offered by the church. Ordinarily, congregations who advertise do so in order to attract new members. If there is a great church in the neighbourhood and people are not aware of it, how can it be patronized?, asks Bill Jenkins, pastor of The Church of Acts, an Indianapolis congregation with a moderate membership, but noted for sponsoring advertisements with messages that turn heads and stop people in their tracks.

In an attempt to dangle ‘miracle’ as the USP, the Nigerian church has got its advertising strategy all wrong. Miracle positioning is not unique as virtually every church offers it. But should miracle even qualify as a USP? (Lk.11:29). The poverty of religious advertising can better be understood within the context of our harsh economic environment, which renders most Nigerians financially helpless. Unable to afford the basic needs of life, these gullible citizens become potential prospects for miracle and prosperity marketing (Olukunle and Ayanniyi 2004).

The ban on miracle advertising by the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) last year stemmed from the fact that TV and Radio are too powerful to be used by miracle advertisers. That these media can reach, unfettered, right into homes of Nigerians who are vulnerable to religious manipulation, is enough justification for the commission’s decision. It is also unfortunate that most religious advertisements brazenly flout the relevant sections of the country’s Code of Advertising (Matt.22:21), while at the same time qualifying for ethical criticisms usually leveled against advertising generally.

It is instructive that the 40-year old ban on religious advertising in Ireland has served that country so well that it would rather have it that way than “throw open its airwaves to religious advertising, which could result in those with the deepest pockets presenting an unchallenged message” (M. McGonagle 2004). Ironically, in America, the home of liberty, most theatre chains have a policy of refraining from running on-screen advertising with a focus on any particular religion or religious establishment (T. Paulson 2004).

Religion is legally and freely available, and as such, it should also be legal to advertise it responsibly. Sadly, however, most of our religious advertisements are nauseating and simply irresponsible. Consider the following billboards: “Eradication of Witchcraft”, “Come for Treatment of all blood diseases”, “Miracles Galore”, “No more pain ever”, etc.

In advanced societies, it is believed that priests and politicians have failed the people. It was therefore not surprising when, in 2002, one of the World’s biggest advertising agencies declared that “brands are the new religions” (M. Corner 2002).

Consumerism has turned out to be a substitute for faith. This is buttressed by a recent survey in the UK which clearly shows that in the last 50 years, religious belief and adherence has declined steadily in that country. Today, about seven per cent of Britons attend church on an average Sunday, while 33 per cent of the population are non-believers. At the same time, 45% of the entire population do not have any particular religious views (NSS 2004).

Though our religious advertisements lack any USP, the church could do better by focusing on issues such as daycare or parenting classes, or special holiday services. Its advertisements should be positive and engaging, without glamorizing the “general overseer” and his “beautiful wife”.