UUA Trustee Linda Laskowski Asked Me To Do The Math Of The Bay Area Marketing Campaign So I Did
Pacific Central District UUA Trustee Linda Laskowski of Berkeley, California, actually published one of the comments that I recently submitted to her 'UUA View from Berkeley' blog after suppressing most if not all of my previous comment submissions. The published comment may be read on her 'Bay Area marketing campaign data' blog post however I will cross-post it here and now, along with PCD UUA Trustee Linda Laskowski's response to it, in case she decides to memory hole these comments some time later as some U*Us do. . .
Well I didn't quite do the math that UUA Board of Trustees member PCD Trustee apparently wanted me to do, although even that math may not be quite as promising as she makes it out to be. I did however do some additional math based on the information provided by Linda in her 'Bay Area marketing campaign data' blog post and submitted it in the following follow-up comment -
I don't think that I said that the campaign was only about money or even mostly about money but, amongst a few other things, it was supposed to attract new members to Bay Area U*U congregations and I was pointing out that it seemed to be costing more than a thousand dollars per *visitor* who specifically cited the marketing campaign as what brought them to *visit* a Bay Area congregation. I did *that* math and *that* seems to be a rather high price to pay to have someone visit a U*U congregation. How many of those visitors actually chose to join the U*U congregation that they visited? You don't know do you because Bay Area U*U congregations failed to do the math necessary to be able to figure out to what extent, if any, they gained some new members as a result of this $300,000 marketing campaign. Right Linda?
Here is some more math that I just did based on the information provided here.
"Over 5000 unique visitors went to the uuba website in the 90 days that covered most of the campaign. This was more than 3 times the average daily traffic before the campaign started."
OK Here goes. . .
5000 unique visitors in 90 days aka three months equals about 56 unique visitors to the uuba website per day. Interestingly enough 5000 unique visitors divided into three months equals 1,666.666 visitors per month. Since the $300,000 marketing campaign generated more than 3 times the average daily traffic than before the campaign started we can agree that traffic was somewhat less than 1,666.666 unique visitors per 90 day period prior to the advertising campaign. Let's say 1,500 or so (i.e. 500 per month or 16.666 per day), which would mean that approximately 3,500 additional uuba website visitors can be attributed to the marketing campaign. Right? Divided into $300,000 that would come to a cost of about $8.95 for each additional person who visited the website during the marketing campaign. . . Sounds like a fair bit of money to pay just to have someone look at your website Linda.
end quote
I had originally planned to submit the following additional paragraph as part of the comment submitted but thought the better of it because it would almost certainly have meant that the whole comment would be suppressed, whereas there is a little bit better than a snowball's hope in Hell that the above comment might be actually see the light of day on Linda's blog -
For the record, The Blog That Cannot Be Named gets about 1000 unique visitors per month, i.e. double the normal pre-campaign traffic of the uuba website, and it doesn't cost me a dime. And. . . The BTCBN aka the TEA blog is hardly attracting people to join UUA congregations is it? Maybe you and other UUA Trustees should do *that* math. . . Just how many dollars worth of $20,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members has the UUA lost as a result of a potential U*U deciding not to join a U*U congregation as a result of reading TEA blog posts? Even if it is only just one that's a $20,000 loss due to what is now a "less than little" screw-up in the part of the UUA isn't it? I am confident however that it is likely to be quite a few more than just one. All for want of an apology. . . Read this and weep Linda.
end quote
Pacific Central District UUA Trustee Linda Laskowski, and all other members of the UUA Board Of Trustees might want to ask themselves the following questions -
How many more $20,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members does the UUA want to lose, or fail to gain to begin with, as a result of standing on the side of "love" as in zero, nada, nothing, by abjectly failing, and even obstinately refusing. . . to respond in a remotely loving and responsible manner to my requests/demands for restorative justice for ALL victims of U*U clergy misconduct?
How many more $20,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members does the UUA want to lose, or just plain fail to gain, and thus remain a "tiny, declining, fringe religion" as a result of standing on the side of "love" as in zero, nada, nothing, by abjectly failing, and even obstinately refusing to deal responsibly with the anti-Christian, and more broadly anti-religious, intolerance and bigotry of the hostile "fundamentalist atheist" aka Atheist Supremacist faction of Humanist U*Us who repel no shortage of liberal Christian or otherwise God believing U*Us and/or like-minded visitors who are prospective U*Us from any number of Humanist dominated U*U "churches"?
How many more $20,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members, to say nothing of some potential $200,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members or even $2,000,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members. . . does the UUA want to lose, or just plain fail to gain, and thus remain a "tiny, declining, fringe religion" as a result of standing on the side of the anti-Republican hate of ever so "progressive" and "liberal" U*Us who make a total mockery of the meaning of the word 'liberal' in their rather inhuman human relations with Republicans and other political conservatives, thus repelling no shortage of politically conservative but none-the-less *religious* liberals from U*U "churches"?
That's all the math that I am going to do for now, but I will almost certainly do some more math later. . .
2 comments:
Well I didn't quite do the math that UUA Board of Trustees member PCD Trustee apparently wanted me to do, although even that math may not be quite as promising as she makes it out to be. I did however do some additional math based on the information provided by Linda in her 'Bay Area marketing campaign data' blog post and submitted it in the following follow-up comment -
I don't think that I said that the campaign was only about money or even mostly about money but, amongst a few other things, it was supposed to attract new members to Bay Area U*U congregations and I was pointing out that it seemed to be costing more than a thousand dollars per *visitor* who specifically cited the marketing campaign as what brought them to *visit* a Bay Area congregation. I did *that* math and *that* seems to be a rather high price to pay to have someone visit a U*U congregation. How many of those visitors actually chose to join the U*U congregation that they visited? You don't know do you because Bay Area U*U congregations failed to do the math necessary to be able to figure out to what extent, if any, they gained some new members as a result of this $300,000 marketing campaign. Right Linda?
Here is some more math that I just did based on the information provided here.
"Over 5000 unique visitors went to the uuba website in the 90 days that covered most of the campaign. This was more than 3 times the average daily traffic before the campaign started."
OK Here goes. . .
5000 unique visitors in 90 days aka three months equals about 56 unique visitors to the uuba website per day. Interestingly enough 5000 unique visitors divided into three months equals 1,666.666 visitors per month. Since the $300,000 marketing campaign generated more than 3 times the average daily traffic than before the campaign started we can agree that traffic was somewhat less than 1,666.666 unique visitors per 90 day period prior to the advertising campaign. Let's say 1,500 or so (i.e. 500 per month or 16.666 per day), which would mean that approximately 3,500 additional uuba website visitors can be attributed to the marketing campaign. Right? Divided into $300,000 that would come to a cost of about $8.95 for each additional person who visited the website during the marketing campaign. . . Sounds like a fair bit of money to pay just to have someone look at your website Linda.
end quote
I had originally planned to submit the following additional paragraph as part of the comment submitted but thought the better of it because it would almost certainly have meant that the whole comment would be suppressed, whereas there is a little bit better than a snowball's hope in Hell that the above comment might be actually see the light of day on Linda's blog -
For the record, The Blog That Cannot Be Named gets about 1000 unique visitors per month, i.e. double the normal pre-campaign traffic of the uuba website, and it doesn't cost me a dime. And. . . The BTCBN aka the TEA blog is hardly attracting people to join UUA congregations is it? Maybe you and other UUA Trustees should do *that* math. . . Just how many dollars worth of $20,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members has the UUA lost as a result of a potential U*U deciding not to join a U*U congregation as a result of reading TEA blog posts? Even if it is only just one that's a $20,000 loss due to what is now a "less than little" screw-up in the part of the UUA isn't it? I am confident however that it is likely to be quite a few more than just one. All for want of an apology. . . Read this and weep Linda.
end quote
Pacific Central District UUA Trustee Linda Laskowski, and all other members of the UUA Board Of Trustees might want to ask themselves the following questions -
How many more $20,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members does the UUA want to lose, or fail to gain to begin with, as a result of standing on the side of "love" as in zero, nada, nothing, by abjectly failing, and even obstinately refusing. . . to respond in a remotely loving and responsible manner to my requests/demands for restorative justice for ALL victims of U*U clergy misconduct?
How many more $20,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members does the UUA want to lose, or just plain fail to gain, and thus remain a "tiny, declining, fringe religion" as a result of standing on the side of "love" as in zero, nada, nothing, by abjectly failing, and even obstinately refusing to deal responsibly with the anti-Christian, and more broadly anti-religious, intolerance and bigotry of the hostile "fundamentalist atheist" aka Atheist Supremacist faction of Humanist U*Us who repel no shortage of liberal Christian or otherwise God believing U*Us and/or like-minded visitors who are prospective U*Us from any number of Humanist dominated U*U "churches"?
How many more $20,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members, to say nothing of some potential $200,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members or even $2,000,000 lifetime dollar value pledging members. . . does the UUA want to lose, or just plain fail to gain, and thus remain a "tiny, declining, fringe religion" as a result of standing on the side of the anti-Republican hate of ever so "progressive" and "liberal" U*Us who make a total mockery of the meaning of the word 'liberal' in their rather inhuman human relations with Republicans and other political conservatives, thus repelling no shortage of politically conservative but none-the-less *religious* liberals from U*U "churches"?
That's all the math that I am going to do for now, but I will almost certainly do some more math later. . .
"but we do know that 236 of these visitors specifically cited the marketing as what brought them to the congregation."
$300,000 divide by 236 visitors who claim to have responded to that marketing effort comes to $1271 per visitor. . . How many of the 322 people who actually joined did so due to the marketing effort is likely to be significantly less than the 236 visitors who indicated that they visited because of the ad campaign.
If you look at the objectives again, you will see this campaign was about a lot more than money. But if you want to stick to financial return, bear in mind that the lifetime dollar value (net present value) of a pledging member is somewhere over $20,000 in pledge payments alone -- not including time or other contributions, let alone the value of knowing they are not alone.
Do the math.