Measuring the Effectiveness of a Church's Off-line and On-line Marketing Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2006, in the context of declining membership, the United Church of Canada (UCC) launched an advertising campaign. The major components of the campaign wound down in the fall of 2009. The campaign featured a set of provocative ads that ran nationally in popular, high-profile print publications; it also featured an interactive website called The WonderCafe. Each of the ads posed a challenging spiritual or moral question, then asked readers to go online and discuss the issue on the website. UCC leaders said the goal of the campaign was to project a positive public image of the United Church and ultimately to convince Canadians to attend or join local congregations of the denomination. This study qualitatively explored the effectiveness of the WonderCafe ads and website as a means of promoting the UCC by probing the cognitive processing of viewers of those media artifacts. The overriding purpose of the study was to advance what is known about viewer reactions to, and the persuasiveness of, religiously-oriented ads and websites. Through a series of focus groups held in early 2009, a total of 62 religious seekers were asked to view the ads and then the website. After viewing the ads the participants were asked a series of open-ended questions to determine 1) how the respective artifacts affected their perceptions of the United Church and 2) whether the respective artifacts inspired them to possible action ( e.g., attend a United Church service). Similar questions were asked after the participants perused the website. With reference to the results of the analysis, the efficacy and limitations of religious marketing, especially religious marketing that employs the Internet, are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".