Symbol Preaching in the Digital Age: From Symbol Recognition to Symbol Interpretation in Facebook Ads

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this is a quality article that adds needed quantitative data to the ongoing conversation regarding preaching and (digital) media.

Author Response

Thank you for your evaluation.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author presents a review of the interior responses to images on FaceBook, providing an argument for meaning communication and recognition through images as a tool for preaching and outreach. This paper would be improved by providing how the communicative act of image curation can augment mystagogy already undertaken by pastors and congregations. 

Author Response

You rightfully ask for information about methodology and research design. I have addressed methodology in a new section of my paper. Commercial advertising at Facebook is highly valued because it increases sales, but all the operations are the secret of the algorithm. One has no information or control about any variables; hence there can be no planned research. My paper is only an experiment that yielded important findings for preaching in the digital age. This was my only purpose.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper connects the theory of the symbol and its interpretation (Pierce, Saussure) with preaching practice, specifically with short evangelistic statuses on FB. The author shows that the use of the FB advertising tool is of great importance. He provides some practical experience with setting the audience, designing the status, using the image, content emphasis, etc.

The text is very comprehensible, concrete and brings new knowledge; it has the potential to find a professional audience and response in its field.

However, it is written in a popularizing rather than a scientific style – it contains oratorical/preaching elements (exhortation sentences, questions, examples, illustrations) and is intended as if for a popular magazine or as a chapter in a book about contemporary preaching, social networks, etc.

The author works with his own experience, which he does not present as research, but as his preaching practice. His findings are interesting and this procedure does not have to be rejected, but it would be necessary to at least add a methodological part to the text: what was the sample (number of posts in months/years), what were the post statistics (likes, shares, comments), how was the engagement rate of FB posts developed over time, what procedures were applied to set up the sample (trial/error)... Much of this is mentioned later "between the lines", but a separate concise methodological part is missing.

It would also be appropriate to expand the introduction part by developing the relationship between the interpretation (of the symbol) and the preach; theoretical anchoring of the preach/sermon genre, or a specific preach on social networks.

The author examines two things:

- how advertising on FB helped his preaches,

- how his preaches were helped by the shift from information and morality to transformation (mystagogy).

It would be appropriate to document these processes more precisely (especially the second one): show statistics, graphs...

 

In the Conclusion, it would be appropriate to offer not only practical recommendations, but also to summarize the original contribution to knowledge in the field of symbol interpretation, religious message interpretation, reception and decoding of a religious message, dissemination of a religious message through social networks...

Overall, the author's distinction of image centered culture/concept centered culture; objective symbols/cultural symbols; logos/bios is very clear, comprehensible, inspiring. I evaluate the text as content-quality, but it requires formal adjustments to be published in a scientific journal.

Author Response

You have two basic requests. The first is a request for information about methodology and research design. I have addressed methodology in a new section of my paper. Commercial advertising at Facebook is highly valued because it increases sales, but all the operations are the secret of the algorithm. One has no information or control about any variables. The age, religion, education, income, or nationality of the respondents are not given; hence, there can be no planned research. There is no published research about advertising on Facebook, but there are numerous blogs on Youtube.com on how to increase sales.

You ask specifically: what was the sample, what were the post statistics (likes, shares, comments)? There is no such thing as a “sample.” The computer selects–no one know on what basis–100 K viewers out of a total 8 million possible viewers, and each week it can be another 100 K. For each post, there are several statistics, and there is no reason to prefer one over all the others.  I just selected the same statistic every week and found trends of interest to preaching which I reported.

            You object to the “popularizing rather than a scientific style.”  Your previous questions suggest that you expected a “scientific” paper with a “scientific” methodology. This is not the purpose of this series on preaching in the digital age, as I understand it. Its purpose is to help preachers in their preaching practices, not scientists doing research about preaching. My paper describes an experiment that yielded important findings for preaching in the digital age. This was my only purpose. To call it popularizing would not be accurate.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing the concern of the reviewers.