Written By: - Date published: 4:50 pm, September 7th, 2008 - 85 comments
Categories: greens -
Tags: billboards
I’m impressed with the Green’s new billboard campaign and I’m pretty certain it’ll work as it is clean and effective marketing and reminds me of the best work that was coming out of Saatchi when they were at the peak of their powers.
One thing about the billboards disquiets me however, and that is that they are too brand aware. It’s an old saw of mine that the political process is becoming too commodified. That politics is being treated too much like an exercise in marketing a product that is related to the voter only in terms of their “purchase” in the polling booth.
The effect of this style of politics is that it treats voters like consumers and consequently disengages voters from partaking in the political process.
As ‘Sod pointed out in his “Brand Key” post this method of engaging voters is extremely effective but unlike ‘Sod I don’t like the implications it has for our democracy and it makes me uncomfortable to see the Greens indulging in it (especially as they have done it so well).
Call me old-fashioned but I don’t believe political participation should begin and end in the polling booth and I think that this kind of marketing works to enforce the idea that it does.
That’s why I’m pleased to see a group like Vote with Both Eyes Open appearing on the scene: it aims to take political action back from the spin doctors and admen and put it in the hands of citizens. I highly recommend people from the left sign up and get involved and if you’re from the right then you might want to consider starting your own version. After all, this democracy is supposed to belong to all of us.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Beaurecrats is one of those words I can never spell (see, I know that one’s wrong as well), but I conceed that was one of my worse attempts.
I didn’t even proof read that first one: might not be able to spell it, but do know it’s got two a’s in it.
—
‘course, I’m posting on a blog. Were I printing off a 6m wide billboard I’d use a spellchecker. There’s making mistakes, and then there’s spending thousands of dollars to advertise them.
I have to say I’m unaffected by the billboards though. I already thought National were largely incompetent – flawed grammar doesn’t really change my opinion of them at all.
Has anyone thought about how they’d view these “awesome” Green billboards if instead of the Green logo, they had ACT or National on them? I would expect quite a lot of sneering…
Stephen,
See T-Rex’s comment here:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2960#comment-85668
and work it out for yourself.
The objective of most advertising today is not to ‘sell’ anything directly, but to build awareness of a brand. The Greens (despite my fervent hope they sink without a trace come election day) have nailed exactly what a billboard is supposed to be – very well done.
You’ve got it wrong Irish – I never said the brand approach was a good thing I said it was the appropriate response for the current cultural condition.
The Greens have done bloody well with these billboards and like Phil says (probably the first time I’ve ever agreed with him and hopefully the last) this is exactly what billboards are for.
It’s nice and all, but I have an irresitable urge to push that girl off the jetty and straight in the drink.
It makes me have an irresitable urge to Paty Vote Green
So the Green Billboards convey the core values of the Greens. And they do that effectively (emotive without being sentimental).
How many ’rounds’ of billboards are to be expected? I mean, would a second series be expected or is that it? If a second series hones into specific policies, then I’d say they’ve nailed that aspect of campaigning pretty well.
Now if they could get the media coverage on other substantive day to day issues, rather than being wheeled out for a sound bite on environmental issues…
Stephen – it depends on whether anyone believed National policy would help children. Hmm, there was something about involuntary boot camps, and a general impression that National thnik they’re all taggers. Oh yeah, they want to adjust zoning so rich kids can go to nice schools. Yep, I’d sure be sneering.
So, have the Greens ‘sold out’? Basically, you have to look at what a billboard is for. It’s not an effective method of communicating a detailed message at all – so if any of you think they’ve sold out because of this billboard, you’re wrong, it is because they’ve used billboards per se. It’s not as if they can put their manifesto on a billboard just to satisfy you lot – no one else would take a second glance!
Then you’re arguing that using a fairly traditional method of communicating a simple concept, and effective means of raising awareness, is selling out. I don’t think so.
Interesting variety of opinions though.
Matthew – yeah ‘it depends’ is right…but I guess that’s the point, they’re targetting people who already have at least a semi-favourable opinion of the Greens with this, rather than trying to convince anyone with an unfavourable opinion with ‘policy’.
Stephen – read my piece on “brand key” (Irish linked to it in this post) and pay particular attention to teh analogy I draw with the marketing of Coke.
You don’t lure voters with policy as well as you do with branding and IMHO this billboard will do exactly that. It’s not targeting people who read and analyse policy it’s targeting people who consume ideas through associative narratives – people will look at these billboards and feel that they represent a halcyon narrative of New Zealand they identify with (ironically, not one that is based on their own everyday lives). A fair few of them will associate the green brand to this narrative and cast their votes simply because they feel this is a brand that best fits their own. Or rather, what they wish their own to be.
Zigactly! I think my above post wasn’t too original in the context of this thread, but I just thought ‘screw it!’
I don’t really like it, but it’ll work.
if thats the case then why dont ‘we’ set up re-education camps and force people to read the history of all the party’s and their manifesto’s, have a compulsory 3month digestion programme and then vote?
Nice, simple and effective. Says a vote for The Greens is a vote for the next generation and vote a for the well being of your children.
Of course this is reducing the Green message to a ‘brand’ but this is a billboard, you have 0.5 seconds to read it and get the message.
I thought that the Greens media at the last election was below par, their TV ads in particular were appalling. I hope that this election that they are more polished and professional, there are plenty of young, environmentally conscious film makers out there so lets hope we see some of that drive, passion and creativity from The Greens during the election campaign.
Also nice to see a picture of a person in The Greens billboard ad, if politics is not about people what is it about? Compare that to the National Party’s cartoons and slogans.
Randal – 1987-1990 was the last time the major parties published detailed manifestos. Then they realised they’d be held accountable, and pre-election policy discussion should be confined to soundbites, slogans, and pledge cards. (not to say they didn’t actually have policies of course)
I think these billboards are great, remember that they are not the only part of the campaign. If anything should have less substance it’s the bit that people quickly drive by.
George: http://www.labour.org.nz/policy/manifesto_2005.html
220 pages by my count.
I understand why you might have issues with Labour, I have them myself. But they do at least tell the voters what they stand for.
I wonder if the little girl in the ad realises that if the Greens had their way she would be wearing a hemp sack and living in a cave.
Crank and if the Right had their way, she would be too busy working in a factory for this pic.
With you, crank?
If the right had their way, she would be learning about personal responsibility at school, and that the government doesn’t owe anyone a living, you owe yourself.
What did JFK say?
Ask, not what your country can do you for, but what you can do for your country?
That is what the left USE to be about.
if the right had their way it would be her CHOICE to go to university or become a sex slave in the arabian gulf!
Randal – Even though this thread has become fatuous in the extreme, you’ve reached a new low.
randal, aren’t you banned?
Billy – you should know better.
To be banned you have to fulfil both of the following criteria.
1. Be perceived as being to the right of the political spectrum
2. Perform a misdemeanour
IrishBill says: I banned Randal for two days. I have also banned the ‘sod a couple of times. You’re from the right. Have I ever banned you? I think you should reassess your prejudice in light of the evidence.
[lprent: hs: The criteria is behavior on this site, there are a number of things that will raise the ire of the moderators.
Foremost of course is to attack the site (ie attack me) or to attack the writers at a personal level (which attacks the site). Those cause some very long bans or outright total bans and generally without bothering to warn, because that is really impolite and shows a seriously bad set of social behavior. I prefer to keep writers over commentators.
For lesser behaviors that don't add to the comments, we'll usually warn, and usually put in lesser bans as required. Some ignore warnings from the moderators and get bans. 'sod, Randal, and a few others tend to be the only ones on the 'left' who ignore gentle warnings occasionally, and pick up a ban.
Yes, it appears that the 'right' commentators often value the continued running of the site less than the 'left' because they try to trash the comment stream more without adding anything of significant value. They also seem to be intent on disruption because they seldom read the warnings of the moderators. The modus operandi seems to be to write inflammatory comments and never look to see what response they get.
That could have something to do with the avowed intent of the site expressed in our About. For some reason some people can't abide having a effective voice of the labour movement on the web. Thats fine, because I don't like having ineffective voices of the right here either. You should be able to argue coherently and with other people on the site.
The smart ones learn - notably BDTR who actually looked to see what daft words and silly phrases I had in the auto-moderation list.
The more socially inept (defined as stupid) find out about our "evolution in action" attitudes. ]
That is interesting Tane, but I can’t find Labour’s 2008 manifesto anywhere. Do you know where it is? If they haven’t released it, why not? Where are the policy documents that Labour is releasing for the 2008 election? I haven’t seen them either.
I don’t think Labour can credibly argue that National is devoid of policy when it has made 25 policy releases this year so far against zero from the Labour Party, and has far more policy material on its website from both 2005 and 2008 than Labour has ever had. I know you’re not a spokesperson for the labour party Tane, but in light of this how credible do you think Labour’s attacks on National for not releasing policy are?
OK, randal, I see you’re time is up:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2943#comment-85355
I look forward to more of your thoughtful comments.
You want sotty nosed kids in barefeet and hand knits running the country? VOte Green. Putting the village into global since 199mumble.
Tim: 25 policy releases? You’re not confused with 25 bullet-points of policy perhaps?
I really don’t remember 25 releases this year, if you could link me to say… fifteen of them then I’d take your word on the last ten.
And it is said time and again that Labour are actually enacting their policy plans, right now. If you want to know roughly what they’d do next year if they were in power then read the budget – I gather it’s fairly hefty.
Billy: “You’re time is up” – ‘Sod would hide his face in shame.
Tim. I understand Labour are currently working on their manifesto. It’ll be out, just as it is every election.
I’m not a Labour Party member, or even a Labour voter, so I can’t speak for them. But I think National’s line that Labour has no policy is absurd on the face of it – what on earth do you think all this urgency over the Emissions Trading Scheme has been for? What’s that Real Estate Bill that passed the other day? Didn’t they just pass a meal breaks and breastfeeding amendment into the ERA? And close a loophole in Kiwisaver?
The point is when you’re governing you’re issuing policy all the time. People know what Labour stands for – they’ve spent the last nine years delivering policy, they’re delivering policy right now, and they’ll no doubt have a detailed manifesto full of policies going into the election.
National, on the other hand, has a few pages of bullet points and a strategic vacuousness to hide their true agenda. People simply don’t know what they stand for, and I strongly believe that’s the way National wants it to be.
The billboards show just how much the Green Party is becoming just another bland, apolitical, PR-controlled organisation. They are trying to sell their “brand’ in the same way that a marketer sells coca cola or Pepsi.
Disagree, name any organisation, Greenpeace, World Vision, churches, etc, etc. They are all “brands”. Not all “brands” are a commericial goal entity. In fact, these billboards are a fraction of the marketing process that any organisation uses and they all do.
Question to the above, “what is The Standard 2.01 then?
[lprent: The name of a 1930's/40's labour movement newspaper. It saved time thinking about a banner if we could just flog it and add a "version 2" to it. The 2.01 was because I'm a programmer and I always increment version numbers.
Of course it was pretty easy to roll TheStandard off the tongue when telling people the URL - pity that most kiwi's don't know that there is a org.nz.
Brand - well I guess it is these days - it is consistently the biggest search phrase used to find the site.]
[deleted]
[lprent: goodbye Rob.]
VE,
Oh no. What horror. That’s twice in two weeks. I may just have to accept the fact that I am not as clever as I think I am.
Tim have a look at them at http://national.org.nz/policies/policies.aspx . Some of the things are speeches, rather than policy documents, but there are two dozen policy documents released. Labour hasn’t released any policy documents or manifesto. I don’t think they can use the excuse that they’re in government and the budget has a lot of policy, because they released a manifesto in 2005. Where is their policy this time?