Ad questions

19 comments on “Ad questions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   30 March 2009 at 11:07 am

   IMHO – Its to cover up the fact that local consumers are being rorted hard out by these industries – I suspect the PR blitz is designed to hook into some sort of patriotic emotion which makes us all feel less ripped off and more like we are part of the effort to damn the dykes as the depression rolls towards us. Also has a certain softening-up aspect in terms of environmental protection law being slackened.

   Was if Goebbels who said that if you want to tell the people a lie, tell them a big one?
   • SjS 1.1

     31 March 2009 at 8:36 am

     I think Hitler said that?
2. Lanthanide 2

   30 March 2009 at 11:12 am

   Raising their awareness in the general public so that forthcoming proposals to the government for preferential treatment have widespread public support?
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   30 March 2009 at 11:36 am

   I suspect that they’re trying the following

   1.) Persuade the people that those industries are vitally important to the NZ economy and should be subsidised by government (ie, GHG emission targets).
   2.) Push a patriotic feeling to buy local
   3.) To get ready to blame the government if/when they start laying off people
4. Kevin Welsh 4

   30 March 2009 at 11:43 am

   I saw the NZ Dairy one last night and wondered the very same thing. I work in advertising and was as confused as you Eddie.
5. mickysavage 5

   30 March 2009 at 11:43 am

   I thought the Dairy Industry ad was to respond to the release of various reports pointing out the environmental damage that Dairy farms are doing to the environment, especially waterways.

   I would have preferred action at a farm level by, for instance, the planting of native bush and trees around riparian margins rather than a fancy ad campaign.
   • QoT 5.1

     30 March 2009 at 2:00 pm

     That’s definitely my reading of it, micky – especially give how emphatically the speaker declares “We DO care about the environment!” as though daring you to disagree.
6. Ianmac 6

   30 March 2009 at 11:50 am

   Perhaps just a generous act to bolster the ad revenue to support TV? No? You mean Directors are not generous with other people’s munny?
7. insider 7

   30 March 2009 at 12:33 pm

   Dairy has been running for a while. It’s as much about promoting it as a career I thought. or is that another ad…?
8. ghostwhowalks 8

   30 March 2009 at 12:53 pm

   Insider, the dairy career ad was a while ago, and it actually had stories from people who had changed careers etc.
   This ad seems to pushing a number of buttons all at once, but overall seems to say the country depends on dairy farms.
   There probably is a policy change they are pushing that will pop up in the next 3 months, and with Key having a share of corporate dairy farms and a company who was trying a financial ploy to separate farmers from their shares in Fonterra.

   That really is the end game, to turn dairy farmers into ‘peasants’ and make Fonterra, with all those juicy overseas earnings that can be hidden in tax havens, just another corporate plaything
9. Kevin Welsh 9

   30 March 2009 at 1:37 pm

   Ok, have done some digging and the best answer I can find is that its pretty much about using up budget.

   I spoke to a colleague of mine who has been involved in this form of advertising for Government departments in the past and he said it is probably one of those typical end-of-year, use it or lose it budget decisions.

   The ads tell you nothing except “hello, we are the (insert organisation name here)”.

   Maybe a good topic to point out to the slash and burners. How did they let this slip through the cracks.
   • BLiP 9.1

     30 March 2009 at 2:53 pm

     That makes sense too – hahahaha – trust me to jump to some conspiracy theory. Still, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you 😉
   • Matthew Pilott 9.2

     30 March 2009 at 4:08 pm

     What kind of use-it-or-lose-it budget would those industries have – they aren’t centrally-funded by a larger governing agency, they’re industry groups. That answer doesn’t make sence to me.
   • ghostwhowalks 9.3

     30 March 2009 at 8:40 pm

     if the ads end after the end of march, you could be right. They may continue for say 2 weeks , as they could be invoiced before march 31
10. Stephen 10

    30 March 2009 at 3:35 pm

    I would have preferred action at a farm level by, for instance, the planting of native bush and trees around riparian margins rather than a fancy ad campaign.

    Better yet would have been an ad campaign telling us about the riparian margins they’ve been fixin’ up.
11. Doug 11

    30 March 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Councils are worse than Farmers by a long way read and weep.

    http://publicaddress.net/5784#post5784
    http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/dunedin/45621/sewage-visible-dunedin-beaches
12. nick 12

    30 March 2009 at 9:25 pm

    The common denominator here is that all three are sunset industries who see the writing on the wall for intensive environmentally destructive extractive industries. It’s time to start patching up the green wash before the truth shows through and they are exposed as the blight on our land (and sea) that they really are.
13. Chris G 13

    30 March 2009 at 10:17 pm

    Funnily enough I was just talking to my friend 10 minutes ago about this very subject after watching the Seafood ad.

    I can only think it is a textbook case of greenwashing by these industries as all have their dubious environmental records.

    PR work. Disgusting really.
14. Contrarian 14

    31 March 2009 at 1:02 pm

    The best answer may be the simplest. There seems to be a lot of boosterism to counteract ‘unpatriotic’ news of a looming economic downturn – as if a few PR releases from the Beehive will prevent it. All the positivity from the “property industry” could not prevent the Royal Bank of Scotland from withdrawing funding of a recent development in Wellington.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS