"Women," "Christian": Labels That Hinder Communication
One of my guilty pleasures has been watching Lifetime, the cable channel that is geared toward women, but I suspect enjoyed by many members of the opposite sex as well. Lifetime is obviously programmed and its content produced with women in mind. Issues of abuse are commonly dealt with, as are other issues of particular interest to the fairer sex. Though its target is clearly and obviously women, I and millions of other men have a secret understanding with Lifetime: "Don't be in my face about the fact that this is really a channel for women and I'll keep watching."
The same is no doubt true for men who can't resist reading Good Housekeeping or Seventeen, and there is an important lesson to be gleaned for those who are in the business of promoting a product that is Christian-themed. Don't label it and the people will come.
While Lifetime successfully attracts men like me, another up-and-coming channel is taking the exact opposite tack, and will, I believe, see that their ratings suffer because of a lack of male interest.
The WE Network, or Women's Entertainment Network, recently launched to great fanfare, but committed the cardinal sin that most nice-marketers make: They failed to appreciate that there are millions of viewers outside of that targeted niche who will watch the programs so long as they're not made to feel unwelcome by labeling.
Lifetime and WE probably will end up broadcasting many of the same programs, or at least many of the same type of programs, but by labeling itself Lifetime, rather than "Lifetime for Women" or "Women's Lifetime" it is quietly signaling to viewers like me that my business is wanted. WE, on the other hand, is loudly signaling that I am not wanted as a viewer, because I am a man and they are producing entertainment for Women.
It's basically the same mistake that Christians have made for years. When a radio station announces that it plays "Christian music" it is basically telling the 60 percent of the population who are not serious Christians to get lost. Think of it the other way around: How many Christians would eagerly tune into a station whose tagline was "today's hottest Jewish hits" or "today's Buddhist hits"?
When terms like Buddhist, Jewish, women or Christian are used in this way, they become weapons that serve no purpose other than to keep away those who are not Buddhists, Jews, women or Christians from watching or listening to whatever product is being offered.
But when the product is presented without those terms, even when a clear worldview or agenda is present, viewers and listeners like me often stay around to be entertained and educated, and find ourselves open to the message that is being presented.
Unfortunately, some in the Christian community still insist on using the adjective "Christian" as a weapon, either not realizing, or not caring, that that very act frightens away those who are not interested in the message of the gospel.
For too many of these, making a buck is apparently more important than fulfilling the Great Commission, for, no doubt, they reason that adding "Christian" as a adjective to whatever work they are doing will bring more believers to their product. This may or may not be true. But even if it were true that using the adjective "Christian" to describe a product was good for business among the faithful, it may not be the right thing to do in light of eternity.
Originally published September 26, 2001.
