Alex, you're overstating it a bit. I'm not commenting on the validity of the Christian message, nor saying that people convert to Christianity solely because of how appealing the cross symbol is. What I am saying is that a simple, readily identifiable, easily reproduced logo has a lot to recommend it, particularly when used to represent a movement that aspires to be multi-cultural. Remember, the "logo" aspect of this discussion didn't start out by anyone saying that the symbol is all there is to Christianity -- it was simply a question of the use of the cross (occupied or unoccupied) as a symbol, as opposed to some other symbol (such as a winged orb or an empty tomb). The "decision" to have the cross represent Christianity, as opposed to having it represented by some other symbol, was probably part conscious choice and part folk process; people who were seeking a symbol probably recognized the value of a simple symbol like the cross (which could be scratched onto the back of slave tags, or drawn on a rock next to the doorway, or symbolized by the surreptitious crossing of the fingers), and then its value was confirmed when people gravitated to it and away from other, less universally appealing symbols (like the fish symbol, which has also been used to represent Christianity at various points in time).

People don't go to McDonalds because of the cute little golden arches logo, any more than people convert to Christianity because they like the symbol of the cross. But McDonalds is very successful at the marketing game, and they recognize that having such a simple and readily identifiable logo helps them with getting their product into the marketplace and having people recognize it. You may love McDonalds hamburgers, or hate them, but that really has nothing to do with the wisdom of their choice of logos. Same concept, different application. We needn't make such a big deal out of it, really.