Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

What about a person who when given evidence or data then endlessly redefines the question to mean something else so as to avoid the consequences?

When did you last give any evidence or data? Was it the VW sales stuff. My idea of evidence and data is where someone says here is VW’s marketing budget over 5 years and here is how it translates into increased sales - please note that the year the marketing budget was cut by x% sales dropped by y% but the year the marketing budget was increased by a% sales increased by b%. Consumer behaviour for car sales is similar to consumer behaviour in relation to religious affiliation for the following reasons.

Is that what you did when you tried to support your argument with data?

Endlessly redefining the question? That just sounds like a lazy excuse to not have to deal with challenges to your assertions.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm. Afraid cheerleading gets my goat.
Having said that . Go Gabriella Go Go Go!!!

I get it now. I don’t blame Blue for lapping this up  .

[ProfessorDavey]

Davey - I have to ask - are you even a professor,

Yes

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe he's this kind of professor.

Wrong

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

When did you last give any evidence or data? Was it the VW sales stuff. My idea of evidence and data is where someone says here is VW’s marketing budget over 5 years and here is how it translates into increased sales - please note that the year the marketing budget was cut by x% sales dropped by y% but the year the marketing budget was increased by a% sales increased by b%. Consumer behaviour for car sales is similar to consumer behaviour in relation to religious affiliation for the following reasons.

You’ve been corrected on this already, so why repeat your mistake? Clearly advertising works – that’s why it exists. What you’re trying to do is to retrench from, “it doesn't work for religion” to, “OK, by how much exactly does it change consumer behaviour then?” Let’s say just for funsies that I find some metrics from VW (or whoever) that says something like, “advertising spend X results in Y increased sales”. How would that help you with your basic assertion that it makes no difference for religion?   

Is that what you did when you tried to support your argument with data?

Endlessly redefining the question? That just sounds like a lazy excuse to not have to deal with challenges to your assertions.

No, what happened was that you just changed the question when you didn’t like the answer (“I just meant within the UK” etc.) You also failed to grasp that logic isn’t data apt. When I say, “If A > B and B > C, then A must be > C” and you say, “got any data for that?” it just makes you look stupid.

Look, it’s simple enough. Religions get shed loads of advertising for free. Advertising works – if it didn’t, there wouldn’t be advertising. If you think either that it doesn’t work at all or that it does but somehow not for religion, then you need to explain why. Demanding to know how effectively exactly it works is just a diversion from the basic principles. You can keep throwing mud in the hope it’ll go away if you like, but it’s doing you no credit when you do. Nor incidentally will the correlation of religious beliefs in adulthood with education types in childhood go away either just because you ignore it.
         

[ippy]

Gabriella,

What about a person who when given evidence or data then endlessly redefines the question to mean something else so as to avoid the consequences?

I found this is a tack that's used by more posters than you would think, it's an extremely divisive and dishonest way of behaving.

I'm inclined to try this type of post for a couple of times and then if they continue why bother with them it reminds me of the following:

I think there has to be more to the riddle for it to work, such as two paths, something like this:

"There are two men standing at a fork in the road, one path leads to your destination, the other to some key-logging gold seller website with false promises of rainbows and ponies and myspacedotcom. One of the men can only speak the truth, the other only lies, with only asking one question, how do you determine which path leads where?"

You ask either one "Which path would the other man tell me to take?". The liar would lie and say the wrong path, because this is not what the other man would say. The truth teller would tell you the truth and say the wrong path, because that is the lie the liar would give you. In effect, both men would answer by telling you the wrong path, so you would know to take the other one.

I may have over complicated it, but that's how I think it works.

I've decided until I see anything differing from this type of response, I wont be bothering with this type of post, from guess who?

Regards ippy

[Walter]

Wrong

you should have answered; as well as . Its bloody funny 

[ProfessorDavey]

you should have answered; as well as . Its bloody funny 

Actually I find Punch & Judy a bit creepy.

I imagine someone at some University worldwide is a Professor whose research focusses on the history and cultural significance of Punch & Judy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You’ve been corrected on this already, so why repeat your mistake? Clearly advertising works – that’s why it exists.  What you’re trying to do is retrench from, “it doesn't work for religion” to, “OK, by how much exactly does it change consumer behaviour?” Let’s say just for funsies that I find some metrics from VW (or whoever) that says something like, “advertising spend X results in Y increased sales”. How would that help you with your basic assertion that it makes no difference for religion?   

Endlessly redefining the question? That just sounds like a lazy excuse to not have to deal with challenges to your assertions.


No, what happened was that you just changed the question when you didn’t like the answer (“I just meant within the UK” etc.) You also failed to grasp that logic isn’t data apt. When I say, “If A > B and B > C, then A must be > C” and you say, “got any data for that?” it just makes you look stupid.

Look, it’s simple enough. Religions get shed loads of advertising for free. Advertising works – if it didn’t, there wouldn’t be advertising. If you think either that it doesn’t work at all or that it does but somehow not for religion, then you need to explain why. Demanding to know how effectively exactly it works is just a diversion from the basic principles. You can keep throwing mud in the hope it’ll go away if you like, but it’s doing you no credit when you do. Nor incidentally will the correlation of religious beliefs with education types go away either just because you ignore it.
       

Actually what happened was that we were discussing the situation in the UK, you jumped in with your assertion about and linked to one US psychologist who had coined a new name for a trauma that she called Religious Trauma Syndrome, though her ideas had not been peer-reviewed as far as I can see - and you presented absolutely no data to show that the trauma had been diagnosed in the UK or numbers affected in order to support your generalisations about my point relating to UK faith schools. Also, since the religion described by the US psychologist was an extreme version of Christian fundamentalism, rather than mainstream Christianity, it doesn’t support your generalisation.

Also I  agreed advertising worked for brand image purposes but it doesn’t necessarily increase sales - I linked to the Super Bowl advertising effect that showed that companies that advertise during the Super Bowl, advertising space that costs firms a lot of money,  don’t see an increase in sales from that advertising. Your point was that Cof E privilege was free advertising and resulted in influencing people to not be willing to revoke that privilege. My response was a link stating Islam was the fastest growing religion, without having the privilege that you claim is so vital to the CofE.

I think Susan’s cheerleading has gone to your head and made you think you can make lazy generalisations and get away with it. Sorry but you can’t.

My other point was that it should be possible for privilege to be revoked in a democracy such as the UK, when people in the UK are becoming less religious based on opinion polls and the ONS. So despite faith schools existing, the situation is that children as they became adults, or at some point before that, ware turning away from religion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Here’s a report from Campaign magazine of a study about the efficacy of advertising, broken down my media outlet types:

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/tv-ads-create-71-advertising-generated-profit/1450314

To quote:

“A study of over 2,000 ad campaigns has found that, pound for pound, TV advertising out-performs all other media investments.

The research commissioned by Thinkbox from Ebiquity and Gain Theory found that, all forms of advertising create profit to varying degrees. On average, advertising creates a total profit return on investment (ROI) over 3 years of £3.24 per pound spent.”

Is that enough data to demonstrate that advertising works? Cock-eyed optimist that I am I’ll assume for now that it is and that you won’t respond with a, “Ah, but by “advertising” I actually meant the small ads in the Carmarthen Bugle published every second Wednesday of the month – got any data for that then?” type reply.

OK then, so why would you think it gets people to buy in to the beliefs that VWs are better cars than Hyundais and Pantene is a better shampoo than Tesco own brand, but not to the notion that religious claims should be taken seriously?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Actually what happened was that we were discussing the situation in the UK, you jumped in with your assertion about and linked to one US psychologist who had coined a new name for a trauma that she called Religious Trauma Syndrome, though her ideas had not been peer-reviewed as far as I can see - and you presented absolutely no data to show that the trauma had been diagnosed in the UK or numbers affected in order to support your generalisations about my point relating to UK faith schools. Also, since the religion described by the US psychologist was an extreme version of Christian fundamentalism, rather than mainstream Christianity, it doesn’t support your generalisation.

No we weren’t. What actually happened was that you said you’d seen no evidence for something, so I found a paper that described it. You then narrowed to question to mean, “within the UK only” remember? You’ve also by the way narrowed the question a different way by focussing on the trauma aspect – the more extreme the religious belief, the more traumatic it is breaking away from it. That doesn’t though mean that it’s not just more difficult to do when it’s been fundamental to your schooling, your parents believe in it, your community and support network rely on it etc.   

Also I  agreed advertising worked for brand image purposes but it doesn’t necessarily increase sales - I linked to the Super Bowl advertising effect that showed that companies that advertise during the Super Bowl, advertising space that costs firms a lot of money,  don’t see an increase in sales from that advertising.

And I explained why you were wrong about this too. First, campaigns that backfire (you and your anecdotes eh?) tell you nothing about the overall efficacy of advertising. Second, efficacy can be just as much about slowing sales losses as about generating sales increases. That despite the huge free publicity church attendances are often in decline doesn’t mean that the free publicity isn’t there and isn’t working – to demonstrate that you’d have to show that the decline would be the same (or less) without it.     
 

Your point was that Cof E privilege was free advertising and resulted in influencing people to not be willing to revoke that privilege. My response was a link stating Islam was the fastest growing religion, without having the privilege that you claim is so vital to the CofE.

Good grief! Fastest growing where, for what reason (faith schools are free advertising too remember, and to boot to young people in a way that would never be allowed on TV) and why do you think that says anything to the efficacy or otherwise of the free advertising the CofE gets?

I think Susan’s cheerleading has gone to your head and made you think you can make lazy generalisations and get away with it. Sorry but you can’t.

I see that you don’t do irony as well as not doing answers.

My other point…

“Other”?

…was that it should be possible for privilege to be revoked in a democracy such as the UK, when people in the UK are becoming less religious based on opinion polls and the ONS. So despite faith schools existing, the situation is that children as they became adults, or at some point before that, ware turning away from religion.

Some people Gabriella, some people. What the evidence actually tells us is that that’s much harder to do when religions have got to them young (“cradle catholics” and all that ) than it is for, say, political parties that compete for an audience whose critical faculties are better developed. That’s why we don’t have voting until 18, but bizarrely we’re quite willing it seems to “educate” kids into “Christian children”, “Muslim children” etc.

Does that not seem to you to be loading the dice in favour of religiosity continuing into adulthood just a tad at least?

Seriously though?       

[ProfessorDavey]

Some people Gabriella, some people. What the evidence actually tells us is that that’s much harder to do when religions have got to them young (“cradle catholics” and all that ) than it is for, say, political parties that compete for an audience whose critical faculties are better developed. That’s why we don’t have voting until 18, but bizarrely we’re quite willing it seems to “educate” kids into “Christian children”, “Muslim children” etc.

That's right - you need to ask the question the right way around.

So it is true that not all kids brought up in a religious household retain that religion as adults. But turn it on its head and you get the key point - that virtually all religious adults were brought up in a religious household. So what that tells us is that to choose to be religious as an adult it is pretty well an essential requirement that you were brought up to be religious as a child, within a religious household.

[SusanDoris]

#411
Understanding that has come a long way since my childhood when, to dare to question beliefs was the height of bad manners, but, oh dear, there is still such a long, long way to go.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Here’s a report from Campaign magazine of a study about the efficacy of advertising, broken down my media outlet types:

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/tv-ads-create-71-advertising-generated-profit/1450314

To quote:

“A study of over 2,000 ad campaigns has found that, pound for pound, TV advertising out-performs all other media investments.

The research commissioned by Thinkbox from Ebiquity and Gain Theory found that, all forms of advertising create profit to varying degrees. On average, advertising creates a total profit return on investment (ROI) over 3 years of £3.24 per pound spent.”

Is that enough data to demonstrate that advertising works? Cock-eyed optimist that I am I’ll assume for now that it is and that you won’t respond with a, “Ah, but by “advertising” I actually meant the small ads in the Carmarthen Bugle published every second Wednesday of the month – got any data for that then?” type reply.

OK then, so why would you think it gets people to buy in to the beliefs that VWs are better cars than Hyundais and Pantene is a better shampoo than Tesco own brand, but not to the notion that religious claims should be taken seriously?     

I have already pointed out your mistake to you in trying to pass of lazy generalisations as valid arguments. Advertising works except for all the businesses that it doesn't work for that fail:

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/woolworths-provides-case-study-not-manage-brand/866330

You still have not provided any evidence to show that people choose a religion the same way that they choose a car nor supplied any data on the advertising elasticity of demand for the CofE. No evidence about the effectiveness of CofE privilege or free advertising in retaining congregational numbers or public support?

The numbers are falling despite faith schools and nothing you have said so far persuades me that they won't keep falling until it reaches the point where it will become possible for the public to decide to revoke CofE privilege if that's what they wish to do. If they don't wish to do that, it may be that they feel they derive some value from retaining that privilege - even if that value is nothing more than a sense of tradition or heritage rather than an actual belief in God that adds an additional layer or perspective to their thinking.

Or possibly some people think that tradition and heritage and church community balances the growth of Islam or alternative cultures in the UK, and at the moment they may think that atheism just doesn't cut it.

And by the way, companies can figure out how advertising has impacted on sales - people are paid to figure that stuff out because it's important. Most prudent business owners will only put money into a particular advertising campaign if they know how the campaign is intended to appeal to their key demographic and have a forecast of expected returns based on historical data from advertising campaigns run by other businesses in the same industry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/01/26/millennials-hate-ads-but-58-of-them-wouldnt-mind-if-its-from-their-favorite-digital-stars/#4294e9bb6ad7

"According to a recent study conducted by the McCarthy Group, 84% of millennials stated that did not like traditional marketing and, what’s more, they didn’t trust it.

And they really are not viewing or listening to it either. They don’t watch traditional TV, preferring instead livestreaming, video-on-demand on such platforms as Netflix and Anime. And YouTube is actually the most-viewed platform for video. In fact, another recent study from Defy showed that 85% of their Millennial respondents regularly watch YouTube. "
 
So church buildings and Radio 4 programmes  and seats in the HofL doesn't seem like the type of advertising that will appeal to this group, which is probably why support for the CofE is falling.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No we weren’t. What actually happened was that you said you’d seen no evidence for something, so I found a paper that described it. You then narrowed to question to mean, “within the UK only” remember? You’ve also by the way narrowed the question a different way by focussing on the trauma aspect – the more extreme the religious belief, the more traumatic it is breaking away from it. That doesn’t though mean that it’s not just more difficult to do when it’s been fundamental to your schooling, your parents believe in it, your community and support network rely on it etc.

One paper about the effects of extreme fundamentalist religion, by one US psychologist who appears not to have been peer-reviewed, is not evidence of a generalised phenomenon. I was talking about the UK because we were discussing faith schools in the UK. You broadened it to talk about a syndrome produced by extremism coined by one psychologist in the US.

And I explained why you were wrong about this too. First, campaigns that backfire (you and your anecdotes eh?) tell you nothing about the overall efficacy of advertising. Second, efficacy can be just as much about slowing sales losses as about generating sales increases. That despite the huge free publicity church attendances are often in decline doesn’t mean that the free publicity isn’t there and isn’t working – to demonstrate that you’d have to show that the decline would be the same (or less) without it.

I already explained why you were wrong about this. You made the claim that free advertising will prevent the CofE from losing enough support to have its privilege revoked despite more and more people in England not identifying as religious, it's up to you to justify your claim.       
 

Some people Gabriella, some people. What the evidence actually tells us is that that’s much harder to do when religions have got to them young (“cradle catholics” and all that ) than it is for, say, political parties that compete for an audience whose critical faculties are better developed. That’s why we don’t have voting until 18, but bizarrely we’re quite willing it seems to “educate” kids into “Christian children”, “Muslim children” etc.

Does that not seem to you to be loading the dice in favour of religiosity continuing into adulthood just a tad at least?

Seriously though?     

Religions have risen and died for centuries, regardless of how young people were when they learned about them. Religion is part of a culture that children are brought up in and cultures and beliefs and institutions change over time. It's not that difficult to grasp is it? Seriously though.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella


In my opinion, it would be nice to read a post of yours which did not contain a note of derision.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella


In my opinion, it would be nice to read a post of yours which did not contain a note of derision.

Try that yourself and then we'll all get the hang of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I have already pointed out your mistake to you in trying to pass of lazy generalisations as valid arguments. Advertising works except for all the businesses that it doesn't work for that fail:

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/woolworths-provides-case-study-not-manage-brand/866330

Your fondness for thinking exceptions disprove the rule is getting weird now. What next, Gabriella’s disproof of the flu jab on the basis that little Timmy had it and still got flu? How about Gabriella’s, “a building in Japan fell down, therefore architecture is rubbish” for your next effort?

It’s simple enough. Businesses spend trillions worldwide on advertising for a reason – it works. That sometimes businesses who do it will fail changes that as a demonstrable, measurable phenomenon not one jot of an iota of a tad of a…   
 

You still have not provided any evidence to show that people choose a religion the same way that they choose a car nor supplied any data on the advertising elasticity of demand for the CofE. No evidence about the effectiveness of CofE privilege or free advertising in retaining congregational numbers or public support?

Bless. As despite your best efforts even you have to concede now I think that advertising works in principle, surely it’d be for you to tell us why the CofE would be an exception to that - a Woolworths rather than one of the 99% or whatever that do benefit. You’d also need to show by the way the free advertising isn’t at least propping up a failing brand (ie, it’s still “working”) that would collapse even more quickly without it.     

The numbers are falling despite faith schools and nothing you have said so far persuades me that they won't keep falling until it reaches the point where it will become possible for the public to decide to revoke CofE privilege if that's what they wish to do. If they don't wish to do that, it may be that they feel they derive some value from retaining that privilege - even if that value is nothing more than a sense of tradition or heritage rather than an actual belief in God that adds an additional layer or perspective to their thinking.

Perhaps that will happen, perhaps it won’t. The point though is that religion as a social phenomenon has a huge leg up compared with, say, private members’ clubs because of its embeddedness in the instruments of state  and of the media. It’s also demonstrably the case that adults who attended faith schools are more likely to be believers in their various faiths than those who didn’t. The extent to which family vs school vs community etc play a role in that is hard to tell (because parents who send their kids to faith schools are likely to be religious themselves in any case), but it'd be otiose to suggest otherwise.   

Or possibly some people think that tradition and heritage and church community balances the growth of Islam or alternative cultures in the UK, and at the moment they may think that atheism just doesn't cut it.

That’s a false binary. Atheism is just the finding that there are no good reasons to think there to be gods. It makes no claims to community etc.   

And by the way, companies can figure out how advertising has impacted on sales - people are paid to figure that stuff out because it's important. Most prudent business owners will only put money into a particular advertising campaign if they know how the campaign is intended to appeal to their key demographic and have a forecast of expected returns based on historical data from advertising campaigns run by other businesses in the same industry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/01/26/millennials-hate-ads-but-58-of-them-wouldnt-mind-if-its-from-their-favorite-digital-stars/#4294e9bb6ad7

"According to a recent study conducted by the McCarthy Group, 84% of millennials stated that did not like traditional marketing and, what’s more, they didn’t trust it.

And they really are not viewing or listening to it either. They don’t watch traditional TV, preferring instead livestreaming, video-on-demand on such platforms as Netflix and Anime. And YouTube is actually the most-viewed platform for video. In fact, another recent study from Defy showed that 85% of their Millennial respondents regularly watch YouTube. "
 
So church buildings and Radio 4 programmes  and seats in the HofL doesn't seem like the type of advertising that will appeal to this group, which is probably why support for the CofE is falling.

Where did that “so” come from? Of course businesses use metrics to determine how effective their advertising is – and guess what? That’s why they keep investing in it! As for the C of E, who can say? It’s all for free so they have no great budgetary incentive to measure its effectiveness. Possibly someone there has looked at what would happen if it did compete on equal terms with commercial brands but no-one seriously suggest that massive and free PR isn’t good for their brand. Consider party political broadcasts pre elections for example – the minor parties actively fight for equal time, and you don’t see the main ones turning it down. Why? Because it changes peoples’ behaviours. Funny that.       

One paper about the effects of extreme fundamentalist religion, by one US psychologist who appears not to have been peer-reviewed, is not evidence of a generalised phenomenon. I was talking about the UK because we were discussing faith schools in the UK. You broadened it to talk about a syndrome produced by extremism coined by one psychologist in the US.

Yes – and you’ve missed it again. I’m not suggesting that every child who tries to break from its parents’ and school’s religious beliefs will suffer a trauma with a syndrome attached to it. What I was saying was that it’s a spectrum – get ‘em early, get ‘em vulnerable and the faith beliefs will be much harder to shake than, say, political positions arrived at as teenagers. If you knew it would break your Mum's heart to tell her the beliefs she taught you at her knee (and that perhaps were taught as facts at the school you went to too) were a crock are you seriously suggesting that that would be as unfettered an emotional choice as would be which tiles to pick for the bathroom?     

I already explained why you were wrong about this.

And I’ve explained why your “explanation” is wrong.

You made the claim that free advertising will prevent the CofE from losing enough support to have its privilege revoked despite more and more people in England not identifying as religious, it's up to you to justify your claim.

No I didn’t. My “claim” was just that huge free PR makes it harder or slower for religion to wither on the vine than would otherwise be the case. Whether it finally will collapse (presumably under the weight of its ludicrousness) nonetheless though is another matter. The point here is that your line of, “it doesn’t matter because people will make up their own minds” is clearly wrong when their minds are as susceptible to that brand’s (for free) PR as they are to any other. Do people make up their own minds to buy a VW? Well, yes to a degree. Is that decision influenced though by the branding? Clearly yes too, at least often enough to make VW’s investment in it worth doing.   
 
 

Religions have risen and died for centuries, regardless of how young people were when they learned about them. Religion is part of a culture that children are brought up in and cultures and beliefs and institutions change over time. It's not that difficult to grasp is it? Seriously though.

For you, yes it seems to be. What’s so hard about grasping that brand loyalty increases by magnitude when the religions can get to them young (ideally very young)? That the great tectonic plates of competing faiths will shift over the millennia is entirely irrelevant to that simple (and unarguable) point.

Good grief. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella


In my opinion, it would be nice to read a post of yours which did not contain a note of derision.

Susan

It would be nice to read a post of yours about my posts, that actually explained which line of my post you thought contained a note of derision. Otherwise I am none the wiser if you just generalise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Susan

It would be nice to read a post of yours about my posts, that actually explained which line of my post you thought contained a note of derision. Otherwise I am none the wiser if you just generalise.

They're derisive because of your fondness for inserting pejorative adjectival prefixes ("lazy" etc) in place of arguments. It just makes you look bitter and childish - dummy spitting in place of reason. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Your fondness for thinking exceptions disprove the rule is getting weird now. What next, Gabriella’s disproof of the flu jab on the basis that little Timmy had it and still got flu? How about Gabriella’s, “a building in Japan fell down, therefore architecture is rubbish” for your next effort?

It’s simple enough. Businesses spend trillions worldwide on advertising for a reason – it works. That sometimes businesses who do it will fail changes that as a demonstrable, measurable phenomenon not one jot of an iota of a tad of a… 

Your inability to grasp that it works except for all the times it doesn't work and numbers start falling is getting weird now. It's simple enough, if numbers are falling the advertising campaign is not working, unless it was the goal of the business to lose market share or lose brand loyalty. Advertising working for some businesses doesn't support your claim that free advertising works for the CofE, which is losing numbers.
 

Bless. As despite your best efforts even you have to concede now I think that advertising works in principle, surely it’d be for you to tell us why the CofE would be an exception to that - a Woolworths rather than one of the 99% or whatever that do benefit. You’d also need to show by the way the free advertising isn’t at least propping up a failing brand (ie, it’s still “working”) that would collapse even more quickly without it.

Bless you too. You're still trying to make lazy generalisations that don't work for your claim about the CofE's privilege and advertising. You have failed to present any evidence to support your claim that the trend in falling numbers for the CofE isn't an indication that the CofE will continue to lose public support for its brand, which may well result in its privileges being revoked.

ETA: If that isn't your claim, then I'm not really sure what we're arguing about. 

Perhaps that will happen, perhaps it won’t. The point though is that religion as a social phenomenon has a huge leg up compared with, say, private members’ clubs because of its embeddedness in the instruments of state  and of the media.

Which has little effect on Millennials in terms of advertising. And you seem to be ignoring the number of children who learn their religion without attending a faith school because it is part of their parents' culture.

It’s also demonstrably the case that adults who attended faith schools are more likely to be believers in their various faiths than those who didn’t. The extent to which family vs school vs community etc play a role in that is hard to tell (because parents who send their kids to faith schools are likely to be religious themselves in any case), but it'd be otiose to suggest otherwise.

It's demonstrable that adults - voters - are becoming less religious.

That’s a false binary. Atheism is just the finding that there are no good reasons to think there to be gods. It makes no claims to community etc.

I am just pointing out the value that some people derive from not being an atheist. 

Where did that “so” come from? Of course businesses use metrics to determine how effective their advertising is – and guess what? That’s why they keep investing in it! As for the C of E, who can say? It’s all for free so they have no great budgetary incentive to measure its effectiveness. Possibly someone there has looked at what would happen if it did compete on equal terms with commercial brands but no-one seriously suggest that massive and free PR isn’t good for their brand. Consider party political broadcasts pre elections for example – the minor parties actively fight for equal time, and you don’t see the main ones turning it down. Why? Because it changes peoples’ behaviours. Funny that.

Bless - you finally admitted you don't have any evidence to back up your claims about CofE advertising. But regardless of an absence of metrics of the effect of advertisng on CofE brand loyalty, I have noticed that some of the free advertising they get comes from the publicity of them claiming they are being silenced - it creates headlines and makes their brand more visible, even if they are losing support. 

Yes – and you’ve missed it again. I’m not suggesting that every child who tries to break from its parents’ and school’s religious beliefs will suffer a trauma with a syndrome attached to it. What I was saying was that it’s a spectrum – get ‘em early, get ‘em vulnerable and the faith beliefs will be much harder to shake than, say, political positions arrived at as teenagers. If you knew it would break your Mum's heart to tell her the beliefs she taught you at her knee (and that perhaps were taught as facts at the school you went to too) were a crock are you seriously suggesting that that would be as unfettered an emotional choice as would be which tiles to pick for the bathroom?

Bless - so no evidence of generalised trauma then. Ok.   

No I didn’t. My “claim” was just that huge free PR makes it harder or slower for religion to wither on the vine than would otherwise be the case. Whether it finally will collapse (presumably under the weight of its ludicrousness) nonetheless though is another matter.

That's fine.   

The point here is that your line of, “it doesn’t matter because people will make up their own minds” is clearly wrong when their minds are as susceptible to that brand’s (for free) PR as they are to any other. Do people make up their own minds to buy a VW? Well, yes to a degree. Is that decision influenced though by the branding? Clearly yes too, at least often enough to make VW’s investment in it worth doing.

Actually what I said in #212 "VW's huge publicity budget is still resulting in falling VW sales so it doesn't seem to be having an impact on reversing the trend for people to make up their own minds and buy other cars." 

Before that I said in  #142 "When there is enough of a drop in the number of people wanting faith schools or when enough people want to reform the legislature etc  - when the demand drops, so too will the privileges."

Then I said, based on the falling numbers of religious people in the UK, in #161 "Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families."

And in #181 I said "We're not talking about theoretical classical economics, we're talking real world where markets are not completely free and where people are influenced to consume all kinds of ideas by lots of different factors.

As I said if the consumer finds value in religion, they will buy. I am not implying anything is impossible - I am saying we live in a relatively free, democratic country and while consumers exist who derive value from religion, they will keep buying and they also may or may not keep privileging religious entities if they derive value from doing so. When they stop deriving value from religion those religious privileges will be revoked. Not sure why consumer behaviour is a difficult idea for you to grasp. Yes it is influenced by prevailing culture but that holds true for most goods and services, not just religion."

Followed by #186 "So however it's "rigged" it doesn't seem to be working to recruit more children into religion or into a particular mindset. I don't see the problem in me expecting people to be less and less influenced by the CofE."
 

For you, yes it seems to be. What’s so hard about grasping that brand loyalty increases by magnitude when the religions can get to them young (ideally very young)? That the great tectonic plates of competing faiths will shift over the millennia is entirely irrelevant to that simple (and unarguable) point.

Good grief.

And that's relevant why exactly? Given what I actually said was something along the lines of you can't stop children being brought up in their parent's culture, which includes religion, and given that brand loyalty for the CofE is falling amongst adults - religious children are not reversing the trend of falling numbers for the CofE amongst adults in England, despite CofE privilege.

If sufficient numbers of voters want faith schools, in a democracy we get faith schools, until sufficient numbers don't want faith schools.

Before you jump in with your "rigged game" mantra again - see above for #181, where we don't live in completely free markets and consumers are influenced by lots of factors and #186.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

They're derisive because of your fondness for inserting pejorative adjectival prefixes ("lazy" etc) in place of arguments. It just makes you look bitter and childish - dummy spitting in place of reason.

I think your vivid imagination deserves a round of applause.

[ippy]

I think your vivid imagination deserves a round of applause.

Gabriella, back to my original assessment of how your posts run, they amount to a slightly more polished version of Vlads's style.

To answer someone like yourself would require an in detail analysis of every word used and not only that another analysis of how each word sits in its particular place within each sentence. (By the time, if anyone did that, it would make them consider ending it all).

It wouldn't matter how many acceptable generalisations made by whoever happened to be trying to get some sense out of you made, whatever the were, they wouldn't be good enough.

It's no wonder people are inclined to get fed up with more your writing style than the content of your posts.

An argument about people's use of language does nothing for any case you may be trying to put forward, in exactly the same way that Vlad's posts don't amount to much more than just another load of jumbled up word soup.

Gabriella/Vlad/Gabriella/Vlad/Gabriella/Vlad/Gabriella/Vlad?

The main difference between your posts and Vlad's, please note I'm not saying exactly similar to Vlad's, is Vlad's use of naughty five year old boy's words.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Your inability to grasp that it works except for all the times it doesn't work and numbers start falling is getting weird now. It's simple enough, if numbers are falling the advertising campaign is not working, unless it was the goal of the business to lose market share or lose brand loyalty. Advertising working for some businesses doesn't support your claim that free advertising works for the CofE, which is losing numbers.

Try reading what’s actually been said here. Advertising still works – ie, has a positive effect – whether it’s increasing sales or decreasing losses. What’s hard to understand about this?
 

Bless you too. You're still trying to make lazy…

And the misplaced derision continues…

…generalisations that don't work for your claim about the CofE. You have failed to present any evidence to support your claim that the trend in falling numbers for the CofE isn't an indication that the CofE will continue to lose public support for its brand which may well result in its privileges being revoked.

Bless again. At some point you’re going to have to make up you’re mind as you’re all over the place just now.

1. Either you think that advertising and PR as commercial phenomena work or you don’t. If you don’t though, you’ll need to tell us why you know better about that than the professionals who spend big bucks on it.

2. Either you think that exceptions (Woolworths etc) disprove the rule or you don’t. If you do though, then you’ll need to explain why the same principle doesn’t apply generally (eg little Timmy and his flu jab).

3. Either you think that metrics for advertising apply equally for increased sales as for decreased sales losses or you don't. If you think they don’t though, you’ll need to explain why you know better than the professionals about that.

4. Either you think that other brands benefit from advertising but for some unknown reason the C of E is exempt from that or you don’t. If you think it is exempt though, then you’ll need to explain why (while remembering that falling attendances don’t give you the answer).

5. Either you think that people “make up their own minds” unfettered by the deeply embedded position religion has in the legislature, the constitution, education, media etc or you don’t. If you do though, you’ll need to explain why religious beliefs are exempt from that enculturation effect whereas other beliefs (political for example) are not.

I know you don’t “do” answers, but if you insist still on prevaricating and distracting you’ll be doing so only for your private amusement.             

Which has little effect on Millennials in terms of advertising.

Something you could only know to be true if you compared the religiosity of the millennials who went to faith schools, attended churches etc with those who didn’t. That millennials as a cohort find traditional advertising routes less persuasive than their parents did is just another of irrelevance.   

It's demonstrable that adults - voters - are becoming less religious.

Another irrelevance. We were talking about the factors that caused brand stickiness for some (education type etc) and not for others remember? 

I am just pointing out the value that some people derive from not being an atheist.

You can if you like, but it still has no relevance to the issue at hand.   

Bless - you finally admitted you don't have any evidence to back up your claims about CofE advertising.

Not sure why you think misrepresenting like this helps you, but ok. Ask a stupid question then when you don’t get the answer you want claim your “victory” eh? If you want for some reason to exempt just one brand from the efficacy of advertising when prima facie there’s no reason why it would be then the job is all yours to tell us why. Demanding to know with statistical data how effectively exactly the advertising is working is still a red herring, however often you repeat it.   

Bless - so no evidence of generalised trauma then. Ok.

Further evasion noted.   

That's fine.

It’s also a correction of your misrepresentation of what I said. Why not have the decency to acknowledge that?   

Actually what I said in #212 "VW's huge publicity budget is still resulting in falling VW sales so it doesn't seem to be having an impact on reversing the trend for people to make up their own minds and buy other cars." 

Before that I said in  #142 "When there is enough of a drop in the number of people wanting faith schools or when enough people want to reform the legislature etc  - when the demand drops, so too will the privileges."

Then I said, based on the falling numbers of religious people in the UK, in #161 "Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families."

And in #181 I said "We're not talking about theoretical classical economics, we're talking real world where markets are not completely free and where people are influenced to consume all kinds of ideas by lots of different factors.

You’ve also said on several occasions that people will make up their own minds as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them. Doesn’t wash, any more than thinking that not reversing VW's sales meant their advertising didn’t work – falling sales were due to a huge emissions scandal, and whether the advertising minimised the fallout in terms of lost sales is the relevant metric there.     

As I said if the consumer finds value in religion, they will buy. I am not implying anything is impossible - I am saying we live in a relatively free, democratic country and while consumers exist who derive value from religion, they will keep buying and they also may or may not keep privileging religious entities if they derive value from doing so. When they stop deriving value from religion those religious privileges will be revoked. Not sure why consumer behaviour is a difficult idea for you to grasp. Yes it is influenced by prevailing culture but that holds true for most goods and services, not just religion."

That’s very conflicted – on the one hand you’re saying, “people will make up their own minds”, while on the other you’re indulging in the whataboutism of, “OK, “prevailing culture” does affect that but other brands do it too". Which one do you want to argue for?
   

Followed by #186 "So however it's "rigged" it doesn't seem to be working to recruit more children into religion or into a particular mindset. I don't see the problem in me expecting people to be less and less influenced by the CofE."

Except of course it’s precisely “working to recruit more children into religion or into a particular mindset”, and it works too  – that’s exactly why so many of them retain
loyalty to the religious brand of their faith schools they happened to attend. Now compare that with adults who didn’t go to faith schools.   

You’re all over the place here.   
 

And that's relevant why exactly? Given what I actually said was something along the lines of you can't stop children being brought up in their parent's culture, which includes religion, and given that brand loyalty for the CofE is falling amongst adults - religious children are not reversing the trend of falling numbers for the CofE amongst adults in England, despite CofE privilege.

It’s relevant because it corrects your mistake. Big shifts in religions over long periods of time tells you nothing about the influence faith schools have in the here and now. And again, “not reversing the trend of falling numbers” still tells you sweet FA about the brand loyalty effect of faith schools.     

If sufficient numbers of voters want faith schools, in a democracy we get faith schools, until sufficient numbers don't want faith schools.

And what influences whether and when those “sufficient numbers” will occur would you say?

Before you jump in with your "rigged game" mantra again - see above for #181, where we don't live in completely free markets and consumers are influenced by lots of factors and #186.

As they’re both still wrong, why? Of course it’s a rigged game – when you permit by law some schools to segregate children according to their parents’ faiths in which you teach various claims as facts that the teachers cannot know to be facts before the pupils' critical faculties are sufficiently formed to know that, what on earth do you think the effect will be? That's what these schools are for - new recruits.   

Good grief. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Try reading what’s actually been said here. Advertising still works – ie, has a positive effect – whether it’s increasing sales or decreasing losses. What’s hard to understand about this?
 
And the misplaced derision continues…

Bless again. At some point you’re going to have to make up you’re mind as you’re all over the place just now.

1. Either you think that advertising and PR as commercial phenomena work or you don’t. If you don’t though, you’ll need to tell us why you know better about that than the professionals who spend big bucks on it.

2. Either you think that exceptions (Woolworths etc) disprove the rule or you don’t. If you do though, then you’ll need to explain why the same principle doesn’t apply generally (eg little Timmy and his flu jab).

3. Either you think that metrics for advertising apply equally for increased sales as for decreased sales losses or you don't. If you think they don’t though, you’ll need to explain why you know better than the professionals about that.

4. Either you think that other brands benefit from advertising but for some unknown reason the C of E is exempt from that or you don’t. If you think it is exempt though, then you’ll need to explain why (while remembering that falling attendances don’t give you the answer).

5. Either you think that people “make up their own minds” unfettered by the deeply embedded position religion has in the legislature, the constitution, education, media etc or you don’t. If you do though, you’ll need to explain why religious beliefs are exempt from that enculturation effect whereas other beliefs (political for example) are not.

I know you don’t “do” answers, but if you insist still on prevaricating and distracting you’ll be doing so only for your private amusement.             

Something you could only know to be true if you compared the religiosity of the millennials who went to faith schools, attended churches etc with those who didn’t. That millennials as a cohort find traditional advertising routes less persuasive than their parents did is just another of irrelevance.   

Another irrelevance. We were talking about the factors that caused brand stickiness for some (education type etc) and not for others remember? 

You can if you like, but it still has no relevance to the issue at hand.   

Not sure why you think misrepresenting like this helps you, but ok. Ask a stupid question then when you don’t get the answer you want claim your “victory” eh? If you want for some reason to exempt just one brand from the efficacy of advertising when prima facie there’s no reason why it would be then the job is all yours to tell us why. Demanding to know with statistical data how effectively exactly the advertising is working is still a red herring, however often you repeat it.   

Further evasion noted.   

It’s also a correction of your misrepresentation of what I said. Why not have the decency to acknowledge that?   

You’ve also said on several occasions that people will make up their own minds as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them. Doesn’t wash, any more than thinking that not reversing VW's sales meant their advertising didn’t work – falling sales were due to a huge emissions scandal, and whether the advertising minimised the fallout in terms of lost sales is the relevant metric there.     

That’s very conflicted – on the one hand you’re saying, “people will make up their own minds”, while on the other you’re indulging in the whataboutism of, “OK, “prevailing culture” does affect that but other brands do it too". Which one do you want to argue for?
   
Except of course it’s precisely “working to recruit more children into religion or into a particular mindset”, and it works too  – that’s exactly why so many of them retain
loyalty to the religious brand of their faith schools they happened to attend. Now compare that with adults who didn’t go to faith schools.   

You’re all over the place here.   
 
It’s relevant because it corrects your mistake. Big shifts in religions over long periods of time tells you nothing about the influence faith schools have in the here and now. And again, “not reversing the trend of falling numbers” still tells you sweet FA about the brand loyalty effect of faith schools.     

And what influences whether and when those “sufficient numbers” will occur would you say?

As they’re both still wrong, why? Of course it’s a rigged game – when you permit by law some schools to segregate children according to their parents’ faiths in which you teach various claims as facts that the teachers cannot know to be facts before the pupils' critical faculties are sufficiently formed to know that, what on earth do you think the effect will be? That's what these schools are for - new recruits.   

Good grief.

Briefly - you haven't established a rule that all advertising works. Some advertising campaigns are effective and therefore work and some some are ineffective and don't.  To describe something as working you have to establish a metric to demonstrate it is working.

You repeatedly asserting that you are slowing down losses and this is down to your advertising campaign, unless someone can show that your losses would have been the same without the ad campaign is not a business strategy that would be described as working. If you have a metric to show us that losses have been slowed down, feel free to present it.

Some religious people want faith schools because they want to send their children to schools that reflect the culture and beliefs within which they bring their children up at home. That's why faith schools continue to exist.

Could you link to where I said "that people will make up their own minds as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them"