Christianity banned from cinemas

[Samuel]

Quite frankly I think it is unpleasant opportunism.

But isn't that what all advertising is?

I don't intend to pick on Rhiannon here. I'm just taking this quote as sort of representing a few of the opinions expressed in a similar vein

There are plenty of things I'm not interested in buying and yet I have to sit through shitty adverts about them. But that is a free market and rampant capitalism for you. Its annoying, but that's all. I can't believe an 'advert' about christian prayer in the cinema is going to do much more than give people a chance to go to the loo, or check their phones, or carry on chatting. I'd say that adverts for gambling websites or alchohol are far more ethically suspect than a fluffy advert that essentially says 'prayer is nice'... "Pfff... whatever. This Lynx advert is pretty funny though"

I suppose in rejecting the ad the cinema chain is at least showing some thought about what it shows, and not just blindly taking the cash with a 'thanks very much', but honestly, surely there are bigger fish to fry than the desperate CofE marketing department.
 

[Rhiannon]

You mean you actually still watch live TV rather than record it so you can skip the ads? The only TV I watch live is sport, and as the ad breaks happen when nothing's going on then I go and make a cup of tea or take the dog out

That's impossible in a cinema - you really don't want to get up and go to the loo once you are seated - and that is why I find it unpleasant in a way that I wouldn't if they'd paid for a minute in the middle of Coronation St.

[Shaker]

Returning to Rhiannon's comment about unpleasant opportunism on the part of the C of E, I've just read the story over again and am surprised that nobody has picked up just how opportunistic, in fact cynical, this was. A spokesman said:

The prospect of a multigenerational cultural event offered by the release of Star Wars: the Force Awakens on 18 December – a week before Christmas Day – was too good an opportunity to miss

As I read it this is an explicit admission that the advert was intended to piggyback on a film which they know is going to be immensely popular and pull in a wide audience - a captive audience too. We expect this sort of thing from the advertising people, but surely not a religious organisation. But then, how many rather grubby pies does the C of E have its less than clean fingers in already. The cynicism and, as Rhi said, opportunism is no less disagreeable though.

[Rhiannon]

I agree completely. It's not the content that is objectionable.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Ah yes!! the big question, is Dawkins Vlads agent or is Vlad Dawkins agent.

The unholy trinity, Vlad, Dawkins and Cox.

Anyway, no such thing as bad publicity.

From the Guardian a few years back.

Jeremy Vine has double cause for celebration. Not only is it 10 years since he took over from Jimmy Young, but the Radio 2 lunchtime show outperformed Radio 4's Today in the latest audience figures to become the most popular news programme on UK radio with 7.3 million listeners a week.

The CoE must be thinking, what a wonderful stroke of luck, or maybe, The Lord moves in mysterious ways

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker and Rhiannon, ( my two favourite pagans )

As I read it this is an explicit admission that the advert was intended to piggyback on a film which they know is going to be immensely popular and pull in a wide audience - a captive audience too. We expect this sort of thing from the advertising people, but surely not a religious organisation. But then, how many rather grubby pies does the C of E have its less than clean fingers in already. The cynicism and, as Rhi said, opportunism is no less disagreeable though.

I agree completely. It's not the content that is objectionable.

Yes!! totally despicable, to promote a message which they find highly important on the back of a Star wars film.

If Mohammed won't come to the mountain.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

As I read it this is an explicit admission that the advert was intended to piggyback on a film which they know is going to be immensely popular and pull in a wide audience - a captive audience too. We expect this sort of thing from the advertising people, but surely not a religious organisation. But then, how many rather grubby pies does the C of E have its less than clean fingers in already. The cynicism and, as Rhi said, opportunism is no less disagreeable though.

Well, targetting  a message to reach the largest audience makes sense, I suppose. I'm just amused at the irony of an organisation that decries consumerism and commercialisation using those tools to try to claim that the real message of Christmas isn't those tools...

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Off topic alert...
That doesn't matter, His birth was a historical event that occurred around that time.

It may or may not have been a historical event.

But even if it was, I'd grant that it was likely to be about 2016 years ago, give or take 5 years or so either way.

But there is nothing no evidence that the birth took place in December (let alone 25th Dec) compared to say, March or October, or any other time of the year.

[jeremyp]

So, why is it called Christmas?  I am not denying that previous traditions existed, though never, to my knowledge, on Dec 25th

This is a joke isn't it? What has December 25th got to do with Christianity? Where is the scripture that says December 25?

[Rhiannon]

Dear Shaker and Rhiannon, ( my two favourite pagans )

Yes!! totally despicable, to promote a message which they find highly important on the back of a Star wars film.

If Mohammed won't come to the mountain.

Gonnagle.

You know I nearly became a priest? I left the church long before I lost my faith, and the reason for that was seeing from the inside how the church had stopped serving God and had reached the point where it was serving itself. And that is ultimately what this is about - boosting interest in the CofE, not just prayer.

[2Corrie]

The C of E trying to reach a large number of people for Christ in the week of the celebration of His birth? How despicable of them 

[floo]

The C of E trying to reach a large number of people for Christ in the week of the celebration of His birth? How despicable of them 

Most of what is attributed to Jesus is more than likely a lie!

[ProfessorDavey]

This is a joke isn't it? What has December 25th got to do with Christianity? Where is the scripture that says December 25?

It says nothing.

But at the time when Christians first adopted 25th Dec for their festival, that date was the date of the winter solstice under the Julian calendar. That it has now shifted to the 21st/22nd is due to the inaccuracies in the Julian calendar and the approaches used to fix those inaccuracies under the Gregorian calendar.

[Shaker]

Well, targetting  a message to reach the largest audience makes sense, I suppose. I'm just amused at the irony of an organisation that decries consumerism and commercialisation using those tools to try to claim that the real message of Christmas isn't those tools...

O.

Don't get me wrong, it makes perfect sense from a marketing point of view; your second sentence is the point I was trying to make. I think it's fair to say that the advertising business is generally regarded as cynical and opportunistic or even downright amoral  - I haven't seen it myself but I gather that the series Mad Men is pretty much built around this. It's not what you expect of the C of E though, for the reasons given. I expect it and ignore it when people are trying to flog me cars I won't drive and make-up I won't (often) wear; it's the disparity between the commercial approach and the religion that says you can't serve God and Mammon both that jars.

Promulgating a message is one thing, but if this had been in the middle of August it would seem less objectionable to me - less crass. I think it's the naked opportunism of "Loads of people will turn out to see the new Star Wars film - go get 'em" that rankles.

But then, Christianity has never been any different.

[Gordon]

This campaign sounds very much like desperate marketing from a failing business - the only people it will resonate with are its existing customers.   

[BashfulAnthony]

This campaign sounds very much like desperate marketing from a failing business - the only people it will resonate with are its existing custome...

It is, of course, pure hypocrisy on the part of those who banned it, considering what they still allow.  But it matters not:  the idiots have ensured that the video gets more publicity than it ever would have done in the cinemas!  Thanks for that!         

[Shaker]

It is, of course, pure hypocrisy on the part of those who banned it, considering what they still allow.  But it matters not:  the idiots have ensured that the video gets more publicity than it ever would have done in the cinemas!  Thanks for that!       

Why is it hypocrisy? The media group has a policy which they're adhering to - wouldn't it have been hypocrisy to have had the policy and not followed it?

[jeremyp]

As I read it this is an explicit admission that the advert was intended to piggyback on a film which they know is going to be immensely popular and pull in a wide audience - a captive audience too.

That's the way advertising works. There's no point in showing an advertisement when nobody is watching. That's why critically successful programmes without good ratings often get canned on commercial TV channels, because the advertising slots can't be sold, or at least can't be sold at a good margin.

I would have thought the CofE would have to pay top dollar for that Star Wars slot. If not, the advertising company needs new management.

We expect this sort of thing from the advertising people, but surely not a religious organisation. But then, how many rather grubby pies does the C of E have its less than clean fingers in already. The cynicism and, as Rhi said, opportunism is no less disagreeable though.

The people who run the CofE think they are saving people's souls by converting them to Christianity. They regard it as their moral duty to reach as many people as possible. I don't see why they are any more worthy of condemnation than anybody else who wants to advertise in front of the new Star Wars film, so long as their advert doesn't make false claims.

[BashfulAnthony]

Why is it hypocrisy? The media group has a policy which they're adhering to - wouldn't it have been hypocrisy to have had the policy and not followed it?

Because they allow adverts for violent videos and others unsuitable for children to view.  Do they not consider those might give offence?

[Outrider]

It is, of course, pure hypocrisy on the part of those who banned it, considering what they still allow.

How is it 'hypocrisy' (never mind that it's not a 'ban'). They don't want to upset their customers, so they've decided not to take on that advert. It would be hypocrisy if they were to allow adverts they suspected might upset a number of their customers - do you have any evidence of that?

But it matters not:  the idiots have ensured that the video gets more publicity than it ever would have done in the cinemas!  Thanks for that!   

Indeed. The church can now look forward to three extra people still not giving a crap next year....

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

How is it 'hypocrisy' (never mind that it's not a 'ban'). They don't want to upset their customers, so they've decided not to take on that advert. It would be hypocrisy if they were to allow adverts they suspected might upset a number of their customers - do you have any evidence of that?

Indeed. The church can now look forward to three extra people still not giving a crap next year....

O.

Which is precisely what they do!  You ought to check before you post!

[jeremyp]

It says nothing.

But at the time when Christians first adopted 25th Dec for their festival, that date was the date of the winter solstice under the Julian calendar. That it has now shifted to the 21st/22nd is due to the inaccuracies in the Julian calendar and the approaches used to fix those inaccuracies under the Gregorian calendar.

Don't argue with me, I'm not the one claiming December 25th is Jesus' birthday.

I do remember having an argument with a Christian once before on this subject and he did try to use the point that December 25th isn't the solstice in his favour:

"Christmas is not a solstice festival because it happens four days after the solstice, ha!"

He learned something of the history of the calendar that day.

[Shaker]

Because they allow adverts for violent videos and others unsuitable for children to view. Do they not consider those might give offence?

I doubt it. I should think that most people have a reasonably good idea of what they're going to see in advance based on who is in the film. If I knew absolutely nothing else about a new film other than that Bruce Willis is in it, my expectation that it would be a light, frothy romcom would be low and my expectation that there would be some guns, shooting and a fair bodycount would be quite high. People don't exist and act in a vacuum.

[Shaker]

The people who run the CofE think they are saving people's souls by converting them to Christianity. They regard it as their moral duty to reach as many people as possible.

... which is precisely what many find objectionable in itself.

[Gordon]

It is, of course, pure hypocrisy on the part of those who banned it, considering what they still allow.  But it matters not:  the idiots have ensured that the video gets more publicity than it ever would have done in the cinemas!  Thanks for that!       

True - I agree with you that the debate on this has highlighted the video.

However, and in doing so, it also highlights (as others have said) the embarrassing irony of the CofE adopting a commercial marketing strategy that was intended to piggy-back on possibly the most hyped-up film in recent times: a bit like their earlier involvement in Wonga.

As I said they are a failing organisation, and this campaign show some aspects of why they are failing - I wonder which bright-spark thought that this idea would ever resonate outwith the CofE's existing (and declining) customer base?