In 2011, outside counsel advised our marketing team to use Result Source to market the Real Marriage book and attain placement on the New York Times Bestseller list. While not uncommon or illegal, this unwise strategy is not one we had used before or since, and not one we will use again. The true cost of this endeavor was much less than what has been reported, and to be clear, all of the books purchased through this campaign have been given away or sold through normal channels. All monies from the sale of Pastor Mark’s books at Mars Hill bookstores have always gone to the church and Pastor Mark did not profit from the Real Marriage books sold either at the church or through the Result Source marketing campaign.
To correct a statement in a recent article, Pastor Sutton Turner was the General Manager, not the Executive Pastor or Executive Elder as reported, at the time he signed with the referenced agreement with Result Source. In the time since this campaign we have established a new Executive Elder team, new Board of Advisors and Accountability, as well as a new marketing team.
Mars Hill's Board of Advisors and Accountability has not yet revealed who the "outside counsel" was that advised the Mars Hill marketing team to use Result Source.
Driscoll had at the time embarked into a partnership with Thomas Nelson
Driscoll was also being represented by Yates and Yates
but we're getting ahead of ourselves there. Precisely who came up with the idea for Mars Hill/Mark Driscoll to use Result Source Inc. has not yet been established. Nobody at Yates & Yates seems to have been game to talk much about Driscoll in 2014 and they dropped him from their line-up. Meanwhile, Warren Throckmorton's question at the link above has not been answered yet.
It turns out, available via Warren Throckmorton as of tonight, that a September 2011 memo expressed several concerns about the idea of using Result Source Inc. to promote a Mark Driscoll book.
IS IT OKAY FOR MARS HILL TO TAKE A FINANCIAL RISK WITH THE GIVING CAMPAIGN?
- If we decide to go full bore on the NYT campaign it would mean committing to 11,000 copies of the book. Of that at least 4,000 must be in bulk purchases, which we would have to sell through or bookstores or find organizations that would buy in bulk.
- If we do a less ambitious campaign the only risk we'd have to take on is not recouping the $30,000 consulting fee from result source (This is assuming that we have a minimum donation of >$20). The maximum loss on this would be only $30,000.
- For context of the effectiveness of the giving campaign: if we were able to have a huge success and 11,000 people gave an average of $25 Mars Hill would only have a profit of $17,300 out of a total of $275,00 brought in.
IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR MARS HILL TO PAY $20 FOR A BOOK WHEN ON MISSION IS PURCHASING THEM FOR $7 FOR THE REAL MARRIAGE EVENTS?
- If this information was ever made public it could be viewed by the IRS or someone muckraking that a large giving campaign was set up for the personal profit of Mark Driscoll.
- As a result of this giving campaign you will make a royalty of everyone of the books that is given away. So in a sense it could be conjetured that you're making money directly off of a Mars Hill fundraiser.
Fair questions. Something to note "$275,00" looks like it could have been intended to be $275,000. Since 11,000x25 is 275,000 Wenatchee is guessing the number is a typo from the document made available by Warren Throckmorton. But what's clear is that if the book were bought at $25 that even in the best case scenario of 11,000 people giving an average of $25 the profit would be 17.3k compared to a 275k "brought in".
Note particularly the concern about how of the 11,000 that 4,000 have to be bulk purchases. There was clearly a question about where to find bookstores to sell or where to find an organization that would/could buy in bulk. And by organization Wenatchee The Hatchet suggests we're looking at an information/infrastructural question but we'll get to that later.
Now that we've set the stage for a financial instrument and the idea of a contract we can proceed to ...