Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
doc.fixit

Fairy tales?

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

No doubt RC will remind us again how important he is before waffling on about the benefits to the island these fairy houses have brought

Aye.... a political member for fairies is not a position that I'd put my hand up for when HRH Chief Minister is handing out the shillings!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Declan said:

That's a braindead question. 

Not really.  Bettison's question: How many of the views of the fairy houses story have prompted visits to the Island; and how his Department assesses such economic benefit? is presumably just meant to expose the bullshit "This publicity is worth £X zillion to the Island" nonsense that we have been putting up with for years.  Whether it will do any good is another matter as these people seem to be immune to embarrassment.

5 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

No doubt RC will remind us again how important he is before waffling on about the benefits to the island these fairy houses have brought

He won't because it's a Question for Written Answer.  Which rather spoils the fun of hearing Skelly trying to make sense of things (Callister wouldn't have answered anyway unless Skelly was absent)..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody comes to the Island just to see fairy houses, any more than they come just for the Laxey Wheel or the horse trams, they come from for the whole package. 

It’s really embarrassing that an elected MHK can ask such a wilfully stupid question. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Declan said:

Nobody comes to the Island just to see fairy houses, any more than they come just for the Laxey Wheel or the horse trams, they come from for the whole package. 

It’s really embarrassing that an elected MHK can ask such a wilfully stupid question. 

Not at all. It's a perfectly reasonable request to establish a breakdown of the claims made by DfE who are otherwise happy to spout figures ad infinitum to justify their activities and expense with little or no firm evidence to back them up in any way.

I bet they don't even give a straight answer when it eventually comes, written or otherwise. It will just bullshit its way around and dodge the question as always. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Has the broken one been mended yet ?

No Jason Moorhouse is still there. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Not really.  Bettison's question: How many of the views of the fairy houses story have prompted visits to the Island; and how his Department assesses such economic benefit? is presumably just meant to expose the bullshit "This publicity is worth £X zillion to the Island" nonsense that we have been putting up with for years.  Whether it will do any good is another matter as these people seem to be immune to embarrassment.

He won't because it's a Question for Written Answer.  Which rather spoils the fun of hearing Skelly trying to make sense of things (Callister wouldn't have answered anyway unless Skelly was absent)..

This is Self Promoting Rob Callister we are talking about. The guy would go to the opening of an envelope if he could get his name in the paper

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hissingsid said:

Has the broken one been mended yet ?

no, they are still trying to get the highest quote from somewhere else in the world.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 5:13 PM, Non-Believer said:

Not at all. It's a perfectly reasonable request to establish a breakdown of the claims made by DfE who are otherwise happy to spout figures ad infinitum to justify their activities and expense with little or no firm evidence to back them up in any way.

I bet they don't even give a straight answer when it eventually comes, written or otherwise. It will just bullshit its way around and dodge the question as always. 

And so it turned out to be.  One and a half pages of pure blather from Skelly[1].  I won't try anyone's patience by quoting it all.  I won't even recommend reading it to bore yourself to sleep as the dullness of the prose may be countered by irritation that someone was paid to produce this ridiculous nonsense.

In so far as Bettison's question is answered it's in the shortest paragraph:

Quote

The coverage surrounding the project is estimated to have reached over 6.5 million people, with an Advertising Equivalent Value (AVE) of £367,570. The return on the investment is 14 times the cost of the initiative if measured in these terms.

Now AVE is basically nonsense - there's a demolition of it here.  It dates back to the days when most advertising was print and you just measured the area of the article that mentioned you product and calculated how much the newspaper would have charged you if that was an advert.  They then multiply that by a magic number (up to 12) because look over there a squirrel. 

Even in the days of print it was something that PR companies only used to bamboozle their stupider clients.  But when so much is now done via the internet, it's really meaningless.  Especially because internet responses are much easier to measure - you can see how many users visited a page, where they came from and so on.  Especially given that this 'campaign' was supposed to be an internet sensation and 'gone viral' and all the rest, you would expect they would have all the metrics.  They obviously don't and are left with dated mumbo-jumbo.

There's a rather telling final paragraph as well:

Quote

The Department would add that a trail map highlighting Manx folklore, including the “little people” installations and other folklore activities and sculptures, will be launched in summer 2019. The aim of the map is to promote our culture through an enjoyable interactive activity for families, creating a new and interesting way to explore the full breadth of the Island’s landscapes while providing a further incentive for those considering visiting the Island

You'd have though the time to do that was when they were planning this project a year ago.  In reality you suspect that nothing was actually planned at all.  Someone commissioned these off the top of their head and they've spent the time since running around like headless chickens trying to justify it.

 

[1]  Well with Skelly's name attached.  He certainly didn't write it and for all we know he may not have even read it.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 3:23 PM, Declan said:

That's a braindead question. 

Pitched at the correct level for that department in that case !

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

You'd have though the time to do that was when they were planning this project a year ago.  In reality you suspect that nothing was actually planned at all.  Someone commissioned these off the top of their head and they've spent the time since running around like headless chickens trying to justify it.

That's certainly the impression I get.

When the cost found it's way into the public domain the attempt to justify it by putting a £number on it of benefit to the tourism bottom line was quite rightly met with mockery and derision from all sides.

Then all of a sudden it's part of a "strategy" that previously no one had ever heard of!

It would be laughable if it wasn't public money....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, asitis said:

Pitched at the correct level for that department in that case !

Well I think that the response Roger has linked to proves the adage - "Ask a stupid question, get  stupid answer". 

The opening paragraph - "It is important to emphasise at the start that the Fairy House project was not designed to prompt visitors to visit the Island in isolation. It was part of a broader and ongoing campaign to raise the awareness of the Island as an extraordinary place for people to visit and have a wide appeal to a range of target markets. Consequently we have not sought to capture any data on any visitors that have simply come to see the houses and it is unlikely to be a material number." 

Answers the question. Other than, perhaps adding the words "You idiot" at the end no more is needed. But they have to blather on about Advertising Equivalent Value. 

The degree of stupidity in Tynwald, the press, here and in social media about this is staggering. All focusing on the cost (which is minuscule, compared to other tourist projects like the TT or Heritage Railways) or why they weren't knocked up locally by cub scouts or pensioners in sheds. 

It's been done to death, so why now is Bettison asking an unanswerable question, one that is guaranteed to produce headlines saying the Department of the Enterprise say the houses generated no tourist visits and subsequent social media teeth gnashing? Was there something else on the Tynwald agenda that we needed distracting from?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P.K. said:

That's certainly the impression I get.

When the cost found it's way into the public domain the attempt to justify it by putting a £number on it of benefit to the tourism bottom line was quite rightly met with mockery and derision from all sides.

Then all of a sudden it's part of a "strategy" that previously no one had ever heard of!

It would be laughable if it wasn't public money....

Here we go again....there's that word "strategy"!

I have to say that IOMG (DfE in particular), are masters of the art of stratagem even when there's no need for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Declan said:

Well I think that the response Roger has linked to proves the adage - "Ask a stupid question, get  stupid answer". 

The opening paragraph - "It is important to emphasise at the start that the Fairy House project was not designed to prompt visitors to visit the Island in isolation. It was part of a broader and ongoing campaign to raise the awareness of the Island as an extraordinary place for people to visit and have a wide appeal to a range of target markets. Consequently we have not sought to capture any data on any visitors that have simply come to see the houses and it is unlikely to be a material number." 

Answers the question. Other than, perhaps adding the words "You idiot" at the end no more is needed. But they have to blather on about Advertising Equivalent Value. 

The degree of stupidity in Tynwald, the press, here and in social media about this is staggering. All focusing on the cost (which is minuscule, compared to other tourist projects like the TT or Heritage Railways) or why they weren't knocked up locally by cub scouts or pensioners in sheds. 

It's been done to death, so why now is Bettison asking an unanswerable question, one that is guaranteed to produce headlines saying the Department of the Enterprise say the houses generated no tourist visits and subsequent social media teeth gnashing? Was there something else on the Tynwald agenda that we needed distracting from?

 

In which case Skelly and his heroes responsible for this should be brought before PAC to answer why they spent money on something that can't be justified. 

You might think the amount is minuscule but it's public money and needs justifying.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't get the fuss over the cost of the fairy houses, it was a good idea, I bet they spunk even more money on stuff that never gets anywhere near as much exposure, and it did not even require the shutting of the Mountain Road for a change.

The main issue is the general public don't understand this was always just a publicity stunt and so the houses were never built to last, and was not part of some bigger plan other than fitting in with the fairy tale story theme they are using in adverts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...