Gabriella,
So you finally admit that sometimes advertising doesn't work and you have no metrics to determine whether it works or not in the case of the CofE.
So you finally admit that sometimes the flu jab doesn’t work and you have no metrics to determine whether or not it works for left-handed ginger people?
Why are you doing this to yourself when it only makes you look foolish? You came up with a straw man (that the premise “advertising works” only applies when you add “all” before it) that I corrected you on, in response to which you’ve just ignored the correction and snuck in the absence of data on
how effectively it works for the C of E specifically as if that in some way undoes the premise.
Again:
Premise 1: Advertising plainly works otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Exceptions don’t invalidate the
premise.
Premise 2: There’s no reason arbitrarily to exclude the C of E from Premise 1. The only way to know how much religions’ huge and free PR builds their inter-generational brand loyalty would be to remove it from one faith and then to compare results several generations later. That no-one has done that doesn’t though invalidate
the premise.
The "Maybe and if" in your answer plus a lack of metrics, results in a don't know as to whether the advertising is working or not.
More wrongness. I was correcting your odd notion that slowing falling sales isn’t also metric for advertising. The “maybe and if” clearly were there to show you only that there can reasons for business failures that no advertising could fix.
I agree that people's backgrounds are one of the factors that influence their choices, along with information they pick up from other people's experiences and
changes in current values. Without data we are just guessing at the relative influence of these different factors.
Whether something causes brand loyalty and
by how much it causes brand loyalty are different matters, no matter how much you’ve been trying to conflate the two as if in some way insufficient data for the latter somehow invalidates the premise of the former.
I think many people choose brands they are familiar with but also choose brands that they think will meet the needs of each individual child. The culture of schools probably change as each generation passes through, and Ofsted inspection, league tables and word of mouth will give parents information on how a school is performing through qualitative and quantitative KPIs. I think these KPIs and word of mouth carry significant weight in influencing parental choice.
To some degree, but the incidence of Christian-educated parents sending their children to Muslim faith schools and
vice versa is vanishingly small. That’s the point you keep missing (or avoiding) here. Religions are substantially silos, and the more their specialist schools feed fresh converts into the hopper at the top the more that will continue. Why would it be otherwise?
Actually I linked to the report suggesting that faith schools only perform little or no better than non-faith schools once other factors were adjusted for, and this report was disputed by the Catholic Education Service for having incorrect data. Davey linked to data that non-faith schools are more popular than faith schools in his area. He asked me for evidence of popularity in relation to my anecdote so I linked to evidence that faith schools were more popular in Tunbridge Wells.
The Prof has put you right on this already so I won’t.
Ok please link to the several times I have said people will make up their own minds so I can see that comment in context.
You’ve done it frequently and regularly – only recently from memory in respect of adolescents.
Ok so the “as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them” is your own invention, which you are trying to attribute to me.
First how about an apology for misquoting me?
Second, I’m not “trying to attribute” it to you – it’s your thesis! Mine is that faith beliefs taught as facts in early years are exceptionally difficult to lose later on (which is why religions invest so much effort in primary-age faith schools); yours is that later on people can make up their own minds in any case. That is, you don’t seem to think the early years bit makes any difference to the adult choices whereas the data regarding the correlation of faith-schooled children to faith-holding adults (and almost always the
same faith to boot) falsifies you.
Question 1 - already answered - some advertising works, some doesn't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
Not answered before or here. I wasn’t asking you about specific ad campaigns – I was asking whether you accept that
as a general business practice advertising works. As it’d be idle to say “no” (ie, WPP should close their doors immediately) I’ll take your avoidance as a “yes”.
Question 2 - already answered - some advertising works, some doesn't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
Not answered before or here. I was asking you whether you thought the exceptions (eg Woolworth’s) somehow invalidated the basic premise that advertising as a general business practice works.
I’ll take your avoidance as a “no”.
Question 3 - already answered - some advertising campaigns help decrease losses, some don't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
Not answered before or here. I was asking you whether you now accept that slowing losses is a legitimate metric for advertising despite your previous odd claims that falling C of E attendances invalidated the role of their free PR.
I’ll take your avoidance as a “yes”.
Question 4 - already answered - some brands benefit from effective ad campaigns, while others don't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
Not answered before or here. I was actually asking whether you could think of a reason for the C of E in particular to be exempt from the general premises established so far.
I’ll take your avoidance as a “no”.
Question 5 - link to where I said about people making up their own minds so I can see it in context.
You’ve said it over and over. You can look up the various times you did it for yourself.
The "unfettered" is your invention.
That’s another of your misquotes – a very bad habit by the way. What I actually said (and you removed) was “as if” unfettered – which is your argument when you tell me that people will make up their own minds, presumably faith-schooled educated or not.
I've said, I think lots of different factors influence choices. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE to determine what has the most influence on parents choice of schools, given that more than half the British public say they are not religious?
Lots – the metrics are the correlative statistics about the incidence of Christian faith school children who become Christian adults, Muslim faith school children who become Muslim adults, Jewish….etc.
We can get to the specifics in due course but, for now, no matter how much you throw sand at it your “got any data?” is still entirely irrelevant
to the principle. Either you think that the huge and free PR religions enjoy in our society (faith schools included) will influence their brand loyalty or you don’t. It’s binary – either “yes” or “no”.
I suspect that, deep down, even you can’t suggest “no” with a straight face, which is why you’ve ducked and dived so much in response. So now (presumably) we have a “yes of course it makes a difference” now – but only now – does the data issue become relevant. What that’ll tell us is
by how much catching ‘em young creates brand loyalty, the basic principle that it clearly does at least to some degree having now been agreed tacitly at least.
