Advertising, getting it right and getting it wrong

62 comments on “Advertising, getting it right and getting it wrong ”

• Comments are now closed

1. yl 1

   3 November 2008 at 11:08 am

   is the act party ad a spoof?

   surely they cant run that on t.v.

   The labour party one is alright, it didnt blow me away, but i would imagine it would appeal to the middle class NZ. It is good that it targets those ideas of ‘time for a change’, and ‘john key cant be trusted’.

   But act party one looks like it is been recorded on a cellphone.
2. Janet 2

   3 November 2008 at 11:16 am

   And the Act one encourages drivers to take their eyes off the road to talk to the passenger – behaviour that really scares me.
3. Wellingtonian 3

   3 November 2008 at 11:22 am

   Im a little underwhelmed.

   It’s a nice ad, it’s solid, but not really one of the ‘best political ads’ i’ve seen.

   Putting the obvious ‘cheese’ top side, the ‘you may know a few things about trading currency mr key’ isnt really going to change any preconceptions. The argument that Helen knows how to lead the country better because she’s spent her entire working life in politics is already wearing thin.

   If that’s the final assualt im a little worried.
4. Steve Pierson 4

   3 November 2008 at 11:24 am

   yl. I know, that ACT ad is so bad, as I was watching it, I was also checking my watch and thinking ‘what the hell?’ who is watching TV1 at 8.45 on a Monday? a few tens of thousands of people max and not exactly the target audience for ACT.

   I think the Labour ad hits the spot, it’s uncomplicated and direct. it feels honest, and that’s why it works. Sure it’s not naturally catchy or iconic ad, like the Two Johns one is but it gets the message through. That’s what counts
5. Chuck 5

   3 November 2008 at 11:28 am

   Labour got $1m of taxpayer money to fund their TV and radio advertising.

   Act is getting $100,000.

   Parties cannot spend their own money on radio and tv advertising.
6. Wellingtonian 6

   3 November 2008 at 11:28 am

   Valid point SP, but im not that convinced that it does get the point across.

   Point: You cant trust John Key
   Backed up with : John Key was a currency trader

   Point: You can trust Helen Clark
   Backed up with: you can’t trust John key

   I just don’t think theyve given anything new here.
7. Killinginthenameof 7

   3 November 2008 at 11:28 am

   I’m the only strongly political person in my flat (with one moderately, 2 miniorly and 2 not all political) and when we first saw that add yesterday we were all sitting around having dinner, at the end of it every one was kind of shell shocked. “Dude, that was brutal”
8. Steve Pierson 8

   3 November 2008 at 11:36 am

   Chuck. That’s for the cost of placing the ads, not the cost of making them.

   Killing, you reckon it’s too far? It’s interesting because people say they don’t like negative ads but they do work. Look at the dancing cossacks ad, thats way over the top but it worked. Very few people will change their vote away from Labour because they think this ad is too hard (and if they do they’ll as likely go to the Greens as National). On the other hand, the meme of the ad will flow through to the voting intentions of many Labour Plus voters.

   This is the kind of hardedged politics that a lot of left liberals are afraid of.

   Wellingtonian. I don’t think ads are really for communicating a new idea, they’re for crystallising an existing idea into something very simple. Hence the success of the Green ads.
9. Chris G 9

   3 November 2008 at 11:37 am

   killinginthenameof,

   The labour one or act one?
10. Jeeves 10

    3 November 2008 at 11:38 am

    I watched the Labour ad last night, and everyone in the room (2 x hardcore Nats, 2 x moderate social democrats wavering between Labour and the Greens) thought the ad was patronising, insincere and mostly ineffective. The line it was trying to spin is probably the right line for Labour. It’s just that the ad was so blatant it didn’t really conjure up the right emotions.

    The quality of election ads this time around is low. Whilst driving in the weekend I listened to an ACT radio ad with Heather Roy talking about something (not quite sure what) about families. It was drivel. The National ads are mediocre. Frankly the only decent ad was the union ad mocking John and Bill wanting to sell everything off (and while it was hilarious, it was almost so outrageous that it was ineffective).

    What has happened?!
11. Bill 11

    3 November 2008 at 11:42 am

    Nah. Over directed and cheesy are my first impressions.

    “Give the other guy a chance.” (handing bottle to baby…JK?)
    “…my family’s future” ( redirect eyes to baby)

    and those sincerely insincere eyes trying to express fear of ‘the hard times ahead and the scipted sighs during the ‘talk up Nat good points to cut them down’ segment?

    last thing. Any lip readers out there who can fill in the deleted dialogue when she hands the bottle over?
12. Killinginthenameof 12

    3 November 2008 at 12:04 pm

    “Chris G
    killinginthenameof,
    The labour one or act one?”

    The Labour one.

    “Steve Pierson
    Killing, you reckon it’s too far?”

    I don’t think so, it certainly caught their attention, but I don’t think it makes a particularly outlandish claim, it kind of made me feel like yikes the gloves are really off now, but I don’t think the content of the ad is such that it reflects badly on Labour. I think part of the “shell shocked”-ness comes from the strength of the delivery of the speaking from the actor.

    I think its strength is that, while being a strong opinion, it is still one that is quite reasonable to hold, and having it delivered by an actor sitting there speaking, gains a lot more traction than a faceless voice over making an outlandish claim, dancing coassks style.

    The only other thing I would have liked to see Labour using in advertising would have been a series of Red\Blue graphs, of things like crime rate, average wage and stuff. While a lot of bill board campaigning is about branding rather than policy, some of the graphs that you guys have posted here are pretty darn compelling in the message they send. This does run the risk of course that its not too hard to mislead journalists with statistics, and it would only take 1 National party press release on the topic to be picked up and printed to potentially damage the whole series of ads.
13. Mike 13

    3 November 2008 at 12:11 pm

    “Mary the Mother” = “Joe the Plumber”
14. Chris 14

    3 November 2008 at 12:11 pm

    Unforunately Labours ad was patronising.

    Playing on the fact Key was a currency trader is ineffective as it then opens up the comparison about the raising a family comment.

    Only Key has done that. Not Clark.

    [lprent: Don’t be a offensive narrow-minded idiot. I haven’t had kids either. That doesn’t mean I haven’t been involved in the lives of the other kids in the family. I know that Helen and Peter are both involved in the lives of their extended families.

    You’re defining ‘family’ as some kind of micro unit. That tells me that you’re probably not kiwi (in my terms – 4 generations plus), maori, or polynesian. Family for us is extremely wide, and we’d find your comments offensive in the extreme.]
15. Ebolacola 15

    3 November 2008 at 12:13 pm

    You know in the long run negative campaigning is gonna depress voter turnout which is bad for the left, lets win the argument on policy instead of mounting personal attacks on Key.
16. DeeDub 16

    3 November 2008 at 12:15 pm

    The production costs of these two commercials would not have been wildy different IMHO. But man, there is paucity of talent in front of and behind the camera (actually all the way to the concept and the script) in the ACT advert!! How embarrasing for them…..
17. Daveski 17

    3 November 2008 at 12:26 pm

    The only thing they could have added to the add was the woman doing a Cossack dance on the kitchen table.

    And Helen knows all about families because … ?

    Now, if I tried that line, I would expect LP and others to boot me from here to KB. But this is Labour’s line of attack???
18. outofbed 18

    3 November 2008 at 12:30 pm

    and what about the ACT illegal Green party rip off ?
    
19. Felix 19

    3 November 2008 at 12:32 pm

    Mike.

    Is anyone pretending “Mary” is a real person?

    Is anyone unaware that she is being played by an actor?

    Do you realise that this is an advertisement in an election campaign?
20. tsmithfield 20

    3 November 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Unimpressed with Labour’s advertising efforts so far.

    Firstly, it is a well known maxim in marketing that any publicity is good publicity. Most of Labour’s ads have focussed on John Key but have not given any positive reason to vote for Labour. The result? People have their livingrooms continually filled with images of John Key. I think that most people tend to mentally switch off when the ads come on or mute the sound as we do, so they often may not pick up on the logic of the message. However, they will be constantly reminded of JK. So Labour may have actually been helping National.

    Secondly, Labour’s advertising strategy needs to be seen in the context of current events. Labour sending out messages that you can trust us but not the opposition is likely to be taken with a “yeah, right” attitude due to the rather public stuff-ups recently, Labour’s insistance of courting NZ First despite the strong wiff of corruption in that direction, and the fact that the “two johns” ads were judged to be misleading by the BSA. You can trust Labour? Yeah right.
21. Steve Pierson 21

    3 November 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Daveski. The question is which party has the best policies for Mary’s family, not who has the most children.
22. insider 22

    3 November 2008 at 12:46 pm

    But steve by personalising it about Key and his former job Labour makes it as much about who can be trusted to know what is best for a family, and the aging childless Helen Clark may not withstand that comparison too well. If they’d said “I thought which party was good for me, and just don’t trust National…” then they may not be open to the counter.

    And of course by saying things are going to get really bad my response is, well you’ve had 9 years to make us more resiliant and we are still going to crash, so your recipe hasn’t worked.

    It’s far from being one of the best ever political ads even in this campaign – I think it is sounding a bit desperate and very risky becasue Helen and Labour are not appearing that trustworthy at present. PS I thought it was Helen Kelly for a sec
23. renamed as Idiot troll 23

    3 November 2008 at 12:50 pm

    [deleted]
    [lprent: If you don’t know how to write a comment, then don’t write here.]
24. Rod 24

    3 November 2008 at 12:51 pm

    No, the Labour ad is too clever by half. An amateur effort.

    It openly portrays a very threatening future under Labour compared to the brighter future message out there from National. A silly thing to do in advertising.

    It leaves Mr Key’s name as the last name/brand you hear and think about afterwards, notwithstanding the Labour splash screen at the end. Bad advertising tactics.

    And it is so obviously trying to play up the Labour strategy of building fear of losing the DPB among single mothers that is is not funny – a factually wrong strategy – trading in fear, even.

    The ACT ad may have been made on the cheap, but it is on message and very clear. The listeners they are after couldn’t give a hoot about the cameraman’s competence.

    I think you are looking at the ads through the eyes of a committed Labour voter, not as either a swinging voter or an advertising professional.

    [but I’m not a Labour voter. SP]
25. Steve Pierson 25

    3 November 2008 at 12:55 pm

    tsmithfeild. It was the ASA, very different from BSA. And their decision is crap – Labour says National would cut Kiwisaver in half, in fact it would cut it by 44-49%.

    insider et al. watch any attack ad, it always mentions the other party predominantly. And, insider, as an insider you might be able to tell us how any government can totally fortify a country against the worst economic conditions since the great depression. Labour has done as well as it could have by getting unemployment down, government debt down, and having money ready for infrastructure investment.
26. r0b 26

    3 November 2008 at 1:04 pm

    And of course by saying things are going to get really bad my response is, well you’ve had 9 years to make us more resiliant and we are still going to crash, so your recipe hasn’t worked.

    If the global economy crashes NZ will be affected, there’s no escaping that. But Labour’s careful management over 9 years means that things won’t be as bad here as they could have been. The recipe has worked just fine.

    You don’t need to just take my word for it. See for example this Treasury summary:

    Economy well placed to meet challenges in 2008
    The New Zealand economy is well placed to meet challenges in 2008 but uncertainty and market volatility is likely to persist in the short term. In addition, the current high inflation environment further complicates the outlook for 2008. However, the sound fiscal position; the prospect of tax cuts; and the ability of the Reserve Bank to move quickly on interest rates, if growth and inflation drop more quickly than expected, mean that the New Zealand economy is well placed to meet potential challenges over the next year.

    Or how about Reserve Bank Governor Allan Bollard in January this year:

    New Zealand had responded positively to significant global shocks in the past few years, and there was no sign of those shocks abating, Dr Bollard said.

    “We have enjoyed a decade of growth, the longest period of economic growth since the post-World War 2 era. Inflation has been low, averaging 2.2 per cent since 1998. …

    “We have been able to absorb recent shocks reasonably well because of the improvements in our economic institutions and policymaking frameworks, avoiding the boom-bust cycles of the 1970s.”

    Though it is very early days even new policies like KiwiSaver are starting to show their potential in this respect:

    According to funds industry performance analyst FundSource, net outflows for the quarter of $48.6 million would have been much uglier without KiwiSaver inflows of $353 million. … Mr Atkins said the high voluntary uptake suggested a big proportion of the funds would be invested in growth assets. “This will provide a boost to the financial services industry, with greater funds under management also potentially boosting local equity markets.”

    In short, this ad is right to highlight concerns about possible difficult times to come, and right to portray Labour as well prepared and the most capable of getting us through them.
27. Rod 27

    3 November 2008 at 1:06 pm

    [but I’m not a Labour voter. SP]

    Oh, sorry SP, no offense intended.
28. Phil 28

    3 November 2008 at 1:07 pm

    OOB,

    Heather Roy explained that at the ‘meet the candidates’ event in Kelburn last night. They put two add’s together, and the wrong one got sent for broadcast. She agreed that it was a illegal and they were at fault – presumably it gets dealt with (or already has been?) between the two parties.
29. Wellingtonian 29

    3 November 2008 at 1:10 pm

    ok after watching the ad a number of times, and showing it round the office, the feedback was very similar:

    * The ad is extremely dark and depressing – it leaves you with a bad impression, which flows onto the labour party
    * Are economic times so bad that swing voters can’t afford lightbulbs? Paiting kiwi families as struggling – with more struggles to come – hardly flatters labour
    * It comes across as patronising – this may come from the sub-standard acting, or in the case poor direction of the talent
    *The way the actress pronounces “money.. trading” with a pause and the look of confusion on her face, makes it seem that labour supporters are confused by economics, and are unsure of what a ‘money trader’ is. It also paints a rich v poor mentality.
    * The line ‘you may be good a trading money’ scores points to key. It associates ‘key’ with the word ‘good’.
    * Clark will ‘be there for our kids and jobs” – we exactly does that mean?
    * ‘I can’t trust you’ is backed up only by painting Key’s past job in a bad light. Which fails.

    It’s a very amatuer contribution. While the 2 Johns ad was passable and in theory a good idea, this has just failed.

    And the negative, dark, depressing nature of the ad will not help the cause.

    I’m EXTREMELY disappointed by this. Labour needed a knock out blow, not a limp wristed tap on the cheek.
30. coge 30

    3 November 2008 at 1:13 pm

    The Labour ad looks awfully close to the anti-smoking advertising. I was half expecting her to light up. Overall I think it preaches to the converted. Or at best the apathetic voter, which is probably the intention.
31. outofbed 31

    3 November 2008 at 1:19 pm

    phil The one that they replaced it with is also illegal

    Party of law and order eh ?
32. insider 32

    3 November 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Steve/r0b

    Not debating the rights and wrongs re the economy, just pointing out there are really strong counter arguments that easily and quickly come to mind that go against Labour – so it is a risky ad from that pov and not that compelling. I’m not sure the community likes the politics of fear this tries to portray
33. Ianmac 33

    3 November 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Wellingtonian: It says more about the company you keep that a meaningful critique. Am I surprised?? NA!

    [play nice, wellingtonian is alright. they’re not trolling and they’re actually a leftie I think. SP]
34. Wellingtonian 34

    3 November 2008 at 1:43 pm

    the company i keep?

    of the people i showed it to this morning, 2 are national voters, 4 are labour voters, 1 act and im not sure about the others.

    Of which all 7 work for an ad agency.
35. vinsin 35

    3 November 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Wellingtonian while i agree this isn’t a knock out blow i think it’s still a very effective ad.

    – It appeals to its base support very well.

    – It manages to walk the very thin line between fear-mongering and negative criticism of Key.

    – It’s easy to empathize with the mother – this can’t be said for Key’s current adverts.

    – It moves the issues into the home without actually expressing anything new and it manages to have all the right images and clues that work on people without them knowing it.

    I think the best thing this ad does is it manages to contrast Mr Key’s ads. If you were to play the ads side by side you would have Mr Key walking around shaking hands and smiling, looking incredibly well off surrounded by other rich looking people. Then you have the labour ad, you have a mother feeding her child, talking realistically and genuinely about the current situation of the world, and why she can’t trust John Key. When she says, ‘you may be good at trading money,’ it works as an insult wrapped in a false compliment, then at the end when she says, ‘when it comes to my our family, i just can’t trust you,’ that compliment becomes a slap in the face.

    Wellingtonian
    *The way the actress pronounces “money.. trading’ with a pause and the look of confusion on her face…

    Don’t you think this is meant to infer that perhaps John Key is shady, i think people will get it instinctually without even knowing it.

    Rod
    It leaves Mr Key’s name as the last name/brand you hear and think about afterwards, notwithstanding the Labour splash screen at the end. Bad advertising tactics.

    Bad advertising? Possibly. But what is the overall message you get at the end of the ad? “You can’t trust John Key,” sure it mentions him but only after saying, “You can’t trust him,” so it leaves the viewer with a negative impression of him. This is better than not mentioning him at all.

    It’s a very good ad, it attacks without being nasty or dirty. It unleashes fear without being too pessimistic. These fear based attack ads work, they did for Hillary Clinton in Ohio, and with only a week to go before people vote the backlash will be minimal.
36. Steve Pierson 36

    3 November 2008 at 1:52 pm

    I would have had the setting slightly lighter and had her delivery of the contraversial line a bit softer but it does the job damn well.

    Wellingtonian, imagine its 1975 and you’re showing around the dancing cossacks ad to a bunch of ad gurus, everyone would have been critical of it – simplistic, childish, negaitve, extreme, but that’s because you’re used to marketing products not undertaking attack ads, it’s quite a different thing.
37. insider 37

    3 November 2008 at 1:56 pm

    SHe’s probably in the dark because she has been forced by Lab/greens to change her lightbulbs…
38. Wellingtonian 38

    3 November 2008 at 2:00 pm

    I struggled how you can say this ad isnt too pessimistic.

    It paints a very bleak picture, both in tone and mood – but also the message.

    It stops just short at taking lyrics directly from ‘The man comes around’ by Johnny Cash:

    “And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
    And I looked and behold, a pale horse
    And his name that sat on him was Death
    And Hell followed with him.”
39. Steve Pierson 39

    3 November 2008 at 2:01 pm

    and, yet, she doesn’t seem to think lightbulbs are the defining issue of the election. guess those Labour plus voters don’t care about the same issues as you Kiwiblog Right types, eh?
40. vinsin 40

    3 November 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Wellingtonian it’s not pessimistic it’s realistic. Economies all over the world are struggling, fact. Saying, ‘tough times are ahead’ is being realistic.
41. Wellingtonian 41

    3 November 2008 at 2:11 pm

    SP – The lack of lighting in the house is probably preventing her from reading those ‘Right wing leaning MSM publications – controlled by their capitalist fat cat masters’, which, if she got a chance to read, she might be a little better informed – she might figure out who ‘that other bloke’ is and might learn what a ‘money…trader’ is. She might also figure out that ‘trust’ is a funny word to be using when talking about the labour party.

    Probably why she looks so depressed and hysterical. I would be too living in that cave. Is that even her baby? In that light how does she know? Oh well, as long as those eco bulbs are compliant.

    And just to qualify your ‘Kiwiblog right types’ comment – I vote UF.
42. Wellingtonian 42

    3 November 2008 at 2:12 pm

    vinsin – you could argue either way. There’s a difference between fear mongering – which i DO think this ad does – and being realistic.

    This doesnt inspire me with confidence.
43. tracey 43

    3 November 2008 at 2:14 pm

    remember JK thinks blind kids, if they work hard enough, can go to Kings and St Cuthberts. Yup, he’sin touch alright.
44. Wellingtonian 44

    3 November 2008 at 2:20 pm

    tracey – they can’t ? What’s next from you? Children from poor families won’t ever be able to earn over $50k later in life?
45. Killinginthenameof 45

    3 November 2008 at 2:36 pm

    “coge

    The Labour ad looks awfully close to the anti-smoking advertising. I was half expecting her to light up. Overall I think it preaches to the converted. Or at best the apathetic voter, which is probably the intention”

    Funny, I was going to say it reminds me of a drink driving ad a the start but now you mention it, an anti smoking ad even more so!

    What about Nationals “Labours legacy” ads? Apparently Labours legacy is a dozen moral panic head lines. Pity they didn’t use actual statistics, but then again, that paints labour in a fairly good light, so of course they wouldn’t.
46. insider 46

    3 November 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Tracey

    Your implication is worse – that they can’t.
47. Evidence-Based Practice 47

    3 November 2008 at 3:20 pm

    St Cuthberts and Kings and all the other private schools and most high decile schools do not welcome and never have welcomed disabled kids. And even those who reluctantly let them attend certainly do not practice full social and educational inclusion. Their whole school cultures are based on being exclusionary and elitist.
48. John Stevens 48

    3 November 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Yep, it should read ‘Party vote Hydra’.
    You are getting the Greens/Labour govt, not Labour led.
49. Wellingtonian 49

    3 November 2008 at 3:30 pm

    SP – Re: dancing cosacks.

    I can’t with 100% certanty say that the feedback would of been different, but i feel the cosacks was funnier, smarter and more effectively targeted than this offering.

    I just feel it’s poor. The idea was right in it’s infancy, but the execution and ‘meat on the bones’ of that concept just doesn’t sit right.

    *People who didn’t trust key before still won’t trust him
    *People who want a ‘change’ a probably still going to want a change
    *People who were undecided about key are unlikely to be swayed by this – unless they are reasonably gulliable and are moved by statements that aren’t Immediatly backed up by fact.

    But more dangerous is:
    *People who are of the opinion that Labour have been too negative previously, will think they are even more so now
    *People who were sitting on the fence, and have been starting to get a little fed up with the muck raking on both sides, might find this as ‘enough is enough’ and swing away from the red.

    It’s just to gloomy for my liking. You may find that this ad does more harm than good.

    The controversial line just doesnt do ENOUGH. ‘I can’t trust you’ – but why? You havent ACTUALLY told me why i cant trust him? Is it because he was a currency trader? Is that relevant?

    And why can I trust helen? Because ‘she’ll be there for our kids and our jobs’ ? What’s does that actually mean? Apart from sounding completely ‘hokey’.

    I see that the ad is now in a banner ad on stuff with text next to it “there for our kids and our jobs” – that is just incredibly poor english – setting aside the fact that they’ve crushed the video so small now its distorted.

    The labour08 choice of online media is another sticking point for me. Why bother pumping your money into stuff.co.nz and nzherald.co.nz which draw their audience from National supporters (just look at their online polls) – pooooooor media buying there.

    I’ve really enjoyed reading your responses here, and youve all made some valuable points, but i just think this is amatuer hour. I had high hopes for this ad.
50. QoT 50

    3 November 2008 at 3:36 pm

    A slightly irrelevant point, but: I first caught the Labour ad when making dinner with the TV on mute, and momentarily thought the actress was Antonia Prebble/Loretta from Outrageous Fortune. Which made the whole thing slightly surreal.
51. Inventory2 51

    3 November 2008 at 4:07 pm

    My wife has no interest whatsoever in politics. We saw the “Mary” advert last night, after which she said to me “They’re really scraping the barrel now” – kind of sums it up. Best political advert ever? I don’t think so!
52. Rex Widerstrom 52

    3 November 2008 at 4:34 pm

    Interesting that Wellingtonian’s “focus group” work for an ad agency and aren’t impressed. I’ve shown it to a few Aussies who’re either advertising or media people this morning and they aren’t impressed either – with either effort.

    The consensus on Labour’s is best summed up by the reaction of Jeeve’s group:

    …patronising, insincere and mostly ineffective

    To which I’d add that the actress seems to have taken “talking to the public like a kindergarten teacher” lessons from Jenny Shipley.

    Act’s left most dumbfounded. The general consensus was that one was left with the impression Heather Roy couldn’t learn, retain and then speak more than one sentence because that was all she got out before a ghastly jump cut, usually to an unrelated setting.

    From a professional perspective, politics aside, they’re utter crap. Whoever dreamed them up and conned the respective parties to pay for them is either an amateur or a charlatan.
53. Wellingtonian 53

    3 November 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Rex said : “From a professional perspective, politics aside, they’re utter crap. Whoever dreamed them up and conned the respective parties to pay for them is either an amateur or a charlatan.”

    You’ve hit the nail on the head with that one.

    Same goes with the ACT one. Incredible that it’s seen the light of day.
54. DeeDub 54

    3 November 2008 at 4:45 pm

    @ Wellingtonian:

    I expect an advertising expert of your stature, who throws away phrases like “that is just incredibly poor english” when commenting on other peoples work, to at least walk the talk, buddy!?!!

    ” …feedback would of been different” – ‘would’ve’ perhaps would’ve been more appropriate to use there?

    “It’s just to gloomy for my liking..” – really? And WHERE is ‘gloomy’ and how do I get ‘to’ it?
55. Wellingtonian 55

    3 November 2008 at 4:51 pm

    I’m typing on a blog. Not creating an ad campaign here – so excuse me if I only glance over my posts to proof read.

    I also didn’t say I’m an ‘advertising expert’. But I do work with them.

    Did you have fun working on the ad by the way?
56. jo zinny 56

    3 November 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Wellingtonian,

    does it not occur to you that fear(howsoever slight) is an appropriate human response in the face of a harder reality..?

    As to lightbulbs, I have attempted to discover from their makers why the intensity of light from them is somewhat low.. are they not aware of likely complaints.. and how this might deter folks from buying them in their better interests(not least energy saving and $s).. as I’m waiting for answers it occurs to me that in fact incandescent bulbs put out too much light.. and how this could be bad for our eyes.. yes, tis possible to buy a lower wattage, screen bulbs with shades and so on, but the energy saving and $s is unlikely to be affected by this.. so aren’t we back to having our eyes ‘tune-in’ to lower intensities.. and what might be harmful in that..?

    Two sides at least to every story.. so let’s have more give and take..
57. Lampie 57

    3 November 2008 at 7:08 pm

    As to lightbulbs, I have attempted to discover from their makers why the intensity of light from them is somewhat low.. are they not aware of likely complaints.. and how this might deter folks from buying them in their better interests(not least energy saving and $s).. as I’m waiting for answers it occurs to me that in fact incandescent bulbs put out too much light.. and how this could be bad for our eyes.. yes, tis possible to buy a lower wattage, screen bulbs with shades and so on, but the energy saving and $s is unlikely to be affected by this.. so aren’t we back to having our eyes ‘tune-in’ to lower intensities.. and what might be harmful in that..?

    My God, for starters two different light sources. Comparing them is like comparing an apple to a pear. How effective i the light? That is something to the individual as we precive light differently. Energy savers can be used in situations such as areas requiring ‘a light’ and over long periods, ideal for hallways and such. For reading, suggest incandescent or halogen as colour matching good. incandescent produce more heat than light which makes them inenifficent as to energy savers. Excuse spelling.
58. Lampie 58

    3 November 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Labour ad a good one and good from a point of marketing. Never get your CEO to tell the message. Also good use of association.
59. DeeDub 59

    3 November 2008 at 7:49 pm

    Wellington said: “Did you have fun working on the ad by the way?”

    LOL. Not me, mate. I work in the music industry.
60. tsmithfield 60

    4 November 2008 at 5:56 am

    I know some of you are having orgasms over this Labour ad.

    However, I think it comes across as forced and over-acted. This is a major problem for the credibility of the ad as viewers would likely realise that the person in the ad is acting rather than speaking from the heart. Therefore, viewers would likely wonder if she really believes what she is saying or is just being paid for stating these views.
61. Wellingtonian 61

    4 November 2008 at 1:30 pm

    very off topic but :

    “Dear Supporter

    We have a concept for a full-page NZ Herald advert that makes use of the fantastic images from the ‘VoteForUs’ website, as a beautiful montage of selected images.

    It’s a great advert as its fresh and not a usual political ad. It utilises the incredibly high profile we have of our ‘Votefor me’ campaign. However to run this advert on Thursday would cost $21,000 or $27,000 for a guaranteed placement in Section One.

    Unfortunately we have now committed all our budget, so if you like this advert and know anyone who might like to donate some money to the Greens to enable us to run it, please get them to pledge an amount via email to me. This would have to come through today though to enable us to run this ad!

    Our campaign is going really well and we just need to keep the momentum going in this last week. This advert would be one way we could keep this momentum up.

    Re. Apology for previous email

    Our sincere apologies for including email addresses in the previous bulk message. It was an honest mistake and we were horrified to see that the email included all those names, as it was never our intention.

    Thank you for your continued support of our campaign,

    regards

    Gary Reese
    National Campaign Manager
    Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand”
62. Marketing Beep 62

    6 November 2008 at 5:36 pm

    People are going to sympathize and listen to a woman with a baby over a deputy leader driving dangerously down the road (how did she manage to turn the car without hitting anyone?). Actually, the ACT spot is also talking about children and family, but I didn?t even realize that the first time I watched it. Until I listened closely the second time, I didn?t even really think about what she was saying. That?s just a poor delivery of a message. ?Amateur hour? is right!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS