Gabriella,
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.
That’s because establishing “a rule that
all advertising works” is a straw man entirely of your own invention. I haven’t established that
all flu jabs work either, yet still lots of people have them. Why is that do you think?
Clearly advertising works (as do flu jabs) in that there’s a huge industry dedicated to it and billions spent on it by hard-nosed businesses. You’re still locked in to the (frankly bizarre) notion that finding exceptions somehow disproves the general principle, which remains perfectly sound even when there are exceptions to it.
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.
It would be nice if you’d stop misrepresenting me. What I actually said was that increasing sales and slowing sales losses are both performance metrics for advertising. Whether the business ultimately fails for reasons no advertising could fix – a black swan event like Weinstein and Miramax for example – has no relevance at all to that.
That’s why your, “but C of E attendances are falling so the advertising can’t be working” is so hopeless. Maybe the brand is so compromised that no amount of free PR could save it, but if the free PR enables it to survive longer than would otherwise be the case then on that metric it is working. Jeez this is hard work.
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.
And that’s called begging the question. What led these “some religious people (to) 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” do you think? Did they just wake up one day and out of a clear sky think, “I know – faith schools” or could it instead be that they in turn had significant brand stickiness
precisely because of their backgrounds and education? And once they put their children through the same process and thereby substantially increase their likelihood of them being religious (having got to them so young), what educational experiences in turn do you think those people will pick for their own children in years to come?
Is any of this sinking in yet?
That's why faith schools continue to exist
That’s very funny. Faith schools don’t continue to exist on the off-chance that people will want to send their children there. They continue to exist substantially because they’re so effective at recruitment that they ensure future customers through the generations. (They also incidentally continue to exist in some cases for academic performance reasons, though again the actual data on that narrative tells a different story as the Prof linked to before you started insulting him too).
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"
She misquoted. You’ve said on several occasions that people will make up their own minds. The “as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them” was
my comment on that, as I suspect you well knew.
So, you may recall that I asked you some fairly simple questions in my last post and said too that if your continued to prevaricate and distract then you’d be doing so entirely for your own amusement. I see that that’s exactly what you have done, but let’s be charitable and say you just happened to miss them so here they are again:
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.
Would it really kill you finally at least to attempt some answers?
