• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How effective is/was "Stop Sylvia Browne"?

RSLancastr

www.StopSylvia.com
RSLancastr
Joined
Sep 7, 2001
Messages
17,135
Location
Salem, Oregon
Or, put another way: How much of a part (if any) did the site play in Browne's apparent decline in popularity in the past few years?

I would (obviously) like to think that the site played a large part in it, by bringing attention to many of her major failures and contradictions, and by serving as a place where people could direct friends to learn the skeptical side of her story.

Of course, the fact that her popularity waned after my site went up does not necessarily mean that my site was the cause of that waning.

Browne seemed to at least think that my site had the potential to hurt her in the pocketbook: she tried (but failed) to have the site taken down via attorneys, and bragged that she had hired a private detective to "dig up dirt" on me.

Forum user Brattus has posted more than once his opinion that my site has had little, if anything, to do with her decline in popularity, that the decline was just the end of the natural arc of a long career, brought on by her poor health and advanced age.

I'm not asking this to get high fives and pats on the back. I would really appreciate hearing all opinions, and any reasoning behind them.

Thanks,

-RSL
 
It's impossible to know for sure, isn't it?

I certainly don't think it helped her career. Montel closing down probably has more to do with it, but your site existed before that.
 
RSL:

Firstly, I can probably speak for all skeptics in saying that we deeply appreciate the time and effort you have invested in stopsylvia.com - I think it's a model.

Unfortunately it's probably impossible to measure the specific impact of the site in isolation from all the other factors affecting her business. The only thing I can think of is surveys, and you'd need a large sample to get meaningful stats.
 
You can be sure it had an effect, but you can't be sure how much or on who. But it is better the site was there than if it were not.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
It's impossible to know for sure, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Sadly, yes. How then are we, as skeptics, to decide what is and is not an effective strategy in skeptical activism?

I certainly don't think it helped her career. Montel closing down probably has more to do with it, but your site existed before that.
Click to expand...


Montel's how tanking played a huge part in it, which raises the question: Did StopSylvia.com play any role in his show tanking? The connection, if any, is even more tenuous,
 
RSLancastr said:
Sadly, yes. How then are we, as skeptics, to decide what is and is not an effective strategy in skeptical activism?
Click to expand...

I have brought up the same question over the years as CFI and other sketpical-related organizations conduct their campaigns... I have to assume there are criteria for defining success built into the campaign plans since they're spending buckets of donors' money.

The mechamisms for measuring success will depend on the properties of the campaign.



RSLancastr said:
Montel's how tanking played a huge part in it, which raises the question: Did StopSylvia.com play any role in his show tanking? The connection, if any, is even more tenuous,
Click to expand...

Actually, that might be easier to measure... Montel had other regular guests that were using his show as free promotional time. How did Sylvia fare compared to other guests who were competing in her marketspace?
 
I will tell you from my personal experience that when I have tried to research something on the interwebz, skeptical sites were always welcome. For example, after watching something on PBS about Shakespeare authorship questions, I found a couple of very well written skeptical sites that dissected the claims of the Oxfordians quite well. When sitting on the fence about some things, having an informed and unbiased source makes it easy to come off the fence on the right side.

I can't say how many people were converted by your site, but I'll bet a lot of people had their questions answered and their suspicions confirmed. And not just for questions about Sylvia either. I'm certain it introduced them to an entire perspective that allowed them to critically examine OTHER claims. Your site, and sites like it are invaluable. They promote critical thinking.

Also, I have to laugh at Sylvia hiring a PI. What the hell, she's supposed to be a psychic!
 
Last edited:
Also, I have to laugh at Sylvia hiring a PI. What the hell, she's supposed to be a psychic!
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that falls into the "it doesn't work that way" category, just like predicting lottery tickets or Superbowl winners.
 
If one person stumbled on the site while looking into Sylvia while dealing with the grief of a lost loved one, and your site spared one person from having their grief exploited and capitalized on, then it's a success. And I have little doubt it has achieved this.

Randi never "stopped" Geller despite showing him to clearly be a fraud on national television. It's buckets against a sea. But if a few people are saved from becoming victims, a few people become better critical thinkers and they spread that around, bit by bit there will be less room for this kind of nonsense.
 
RSLancastr said:
Sadly, yes. How then are we, as skeptics, to decide what is and is not an effective strategy in skeptical activism?
Click to expand...

We have seen, through the correspondence you posted, that your site was effective. We know that some people changed their mind about Sylvia because of what you did. We know some of these once gave her money, support and fame, but are not doing so anymore.

I am not sure if your site had a great effect on her overall success. But maybe that's not the best measure for the success of your site at all? The little dents that you made in her fame and income might not have made much of a difference to her - but I am sure they made a bigger difference to the people that would direct their hard-earned money to her.

And if that's not good enough, I am sure she wouldn't have gone up against you if the site truly hadn't made a difference to her.
 
Rasmus said:
We have seen, through the correspondence you posted, that your site was effective. We know that some people changed their mind about Sylvia because of what you did. We know some of these once gave her money, support and fame, but are not doing so anymore.

I am not sure if your site had a great effect on her overall success. But maybe that's not the best measure for the success of your site at all? The little dents that you made in her fame and income might not have made much of a difference to her - but I am sure they made a bigger difference to the people that would direct their hard-earned money to her.

And if that's not good enough, I am sure she wouldn't have gone up against you if the site truly hadn't made a difference to her.
Click to expand...

Yes, these are all worth repeating. But most importantly, every skeptic site out there makes a little dent. Yours made a big enough dent to have motivated Sylvia to try and shut you down.
 
If all it did was cause a pain in her backside (which it clearly did), then it was worth it.

Some people are just richly deserving of pains in their backsides.
 
joesixpack said:
Yes, these are all worth repeating. But most importantly, every skeptic site out there makes a little dent. Yours made a big enough dent to have motivated Sylvia to try and shut you down.
Click to expand...



We can be sure that SB tracked her business pretty closely, and she considered SSB a big enough threat to personally address it. That says a lot, in my opinion.
 
However small the site's impact on Sylvia might have been, it wasn't zero, and for that, you are to be commended. As to the implicit question "was it worth it?", to my mind any effort spent in the service of truth is not wasted. For every e-mail you got, there may have been one or two or five more people who read the site, shut off Montel, and never went back. You won't ever know for sure, but you can take pride in having fought the good fight, even with one hand tied behind your back, so to speak.
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
You done good, boy. You'll be patted on the back and like it!
Click to expand...

I'll take it like a man, RB - thanks!

blutoski said:
I have brought up the same question over the years as CFI and other sketpical-related organizations conduct their campaigns... I have to assume there are criteria for defining success built into the campaign plans since they're spending buckets of donors' money.

The mechamisms for measuring success will depend on the properties of the campaign.





Actually, that might be easier to measure... Montel had other regular guests that were using his show as free promotional time. How did Sylvia fare compared to other guests who were competing in her marketspace?
Click to expand...

I don't know that he had any other psychics on.

joesixpack said:
I will tell you from my personal experience that when I have tried to research something on the interwebz, skeptical sites were always welcome. For example, after watching something on PBS about Shakespeare authorship questions, I found a couple of very well written skeptical sites that dissected the claims of the Oxfordians quite well. When sitting on the fence about some things, having an informed and unbiased source makes it easy to come off the fence on the right side.

I can't say how many people were converted by your site, but I'll bet a lot of people had their questions answered and their suspicions confirmed. And not just for questions about Sylvia either. I'm certain it introduced them to an entire perspective that allowed them to critically examine OTHER claims. Your site, and sites like it are invaluable. They promote critical thinking.

Also, I have to laugh at Sylvia hiring a PI. What the hell, she's supposed to be a psychic!
Click to expand...

Precisely the point I made in the article about it!
 
You do not ask this same question about stopkaz (at least not publicly). I think you can assume that your effect was similar. Sylvia just had more money, followers and media presence before you started. With Kaz, you got in on the ground floor. With Sylvia, you are battling against a going concern. I suspect that your impact, percentage-wise, is smaller with Sylvia than with Kaz, but your impact based on pure volume must be much larger with Sylvia. Problem is that Sylvia's a mountain and Kaz was a molehill. But as Ira Gershwin said, "The Rockies may crumble, Gibraltar may tumble."

Keep the waves crashing against her shore.

Ward
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom