Unambitious

89 comments on “Unambitious ”

• Comments are now closed

1. principessa 1

   8 December 2008 at 10:30 am

   This story about Tim Groser says it all too: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4785450a6160.html
   Environmentalists that are not either.
2. ak 2

   8 December 2008 at 10:33 am

   Well, kiwis voted for change apparently – no surprise that the authors of New Zealand Sucks would have to cancel Buy New Zealand before introducing Sell New Zealand…..
3. higherstandard 3

   8 December 2008 at 10:38 am

   “Ms Bradford questioned Mr Brownlee’s decision, and said that since it began the campaign had resulted in more people supporting local products.”

   Really – if Sue can provide any evidence of this it would be interesting. I doubt there is any such evidence and the money would indeed be better spent elsewhere.
4. leftrightout 4

   8 December 2008 at 10:43 am

   This is really really sad. I felt this campaign was just starting to gain some traction, many people I know were starting to look out for NZ made goods, taking pride in supporting the locals.

   The sad part is the locally made brands that have since shut up shop and gone overseas: macpac, swandry, fisher & pykael etc. and now this government is axing buying kiwi made. What a kick in the guts for our local manufacturers.

   This government really is opposed to everything kiwi.
5. Daveski 5

   8 December 2008 at 10:59 am

   I would expect that the choice of phrase used by SP was a deliberate misrepresentation given that the decision is to review not cancel:

   Minister of Economic Development Gerry Brownlee said yesterday that no more money would be committed to the campaign, unless a review showed it to be effective.

   The alternative is to simply support government spending without any consideration of the benefits.

   Local manufacturers want more than a tv advertising campaign. Given where there are heading, some liberalisation of employment law would be one thing that could help but we all know what the response to that would be here.
6. lukas 6

   8 December 2008 at 11:13 am

   How come you refer to it as the National/Act Government when the Maori Party and UF is in it too?

   [lprent: Because I know that there is a strong congruence between the right wing of the Nats in cabinet and Act. That is likely to provide the political access of this government. The Maori Party IMO doesn’t have any real allies in the Nats cabinet except for a few National Maori MP’s, only one of whom has any real standing.
   IF the MP manages to make a real impact (ie not just edge stuff like UF does), then I might change my opinion.]
7. Principessa 7

   8 December 2008 at 11:20 am

   HS: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0812/S00047.htm

   “On top of that, independent research carried out on the effectiveness of the Buy Kiwi Made campaign proves that consumer, retailer and manufacturer awareness and support are steadily increasing.

   “The most recent evaluation, in November 2008, shows that 360,000 more shoppers think Kiwi-made than before the marketing programme began.
8. higherstandard 8

   8 December 2008 at 11:25 am

   Would be interesting to see the actual research and how this was assessed – I would expect this to be part of the review as to how effective or not it has been.
9. Phil 9

   8 December 2008 at 11:29 am

   I felt this campaign was just starting to gain some traction, many people I know were starting to look out for NZ made goods, taking pride in supporting the locals.

   That’s the complete reverse of my perception. A quick survey of my colleagues – just as scientific as “many people I know” 🙂 – came to the opposite conclusion.

   Those of us that already actively seek out NZ made goods where possible aren’t changing our spending patterns based on the ad, and those of us that have other priorities (price etc) we never going to change in the first place.

   On both counts, that’s a failed campaign.
10. Felix 10

    8 December 2008 at 11:32 am

    lukas,

    I don’t recall you ever asking why the righties here used to refer to the previous govt as the “Clark-Peters” govt. although it too included two other parties.

    I wonder why.
11. lukas 11

    8 December 2008 at 11:39 am

    Felix, I always thought of it as having Jim and UF also.
12. NX 12

    8 December 2008 at 11:41 am

    The ‘Buy NZ made campaign’ could’ve been SSSOOOOOOO much better.

    The expensive ads with Oliver as a robot do nothing.

    All they need is a damn good website cataloging all the NZ made stuff & an option to buy online. Then a few cheaps TV-ads directing people to the site.

    The current adds & website are flashy non-sense.
13. Chris G 13

    8 December 2008 at 11:42 am

    lukas, indeed it should be referred to as the 4 headed (5 if you include the co-leaders) monster that it is! Good point

    Stupidest idea to get rid of Buy NZ made campaign… what the hell were they thinking?
14. Nickc 14

    8 December 2008 at 11:48 am

    “Stupidest idea to get rid of Buy NZ made campaign what the hell were they thinking?”

    1) That its not the job of the government to promote one product over another. Its the job of the producers to promote their product.

    2) If you really do believe in New Zealand bussinesses then stop spending money on silly ad campaigns and give them more liberalized employment laws (90 day bill etc). That way they can determine their own future.

    “All they need is a damn good website cataloging all the NZ made stuff & an option to buy online. Then a few cheaps adds directing people to the site.”

    That makes sense
15. infused 15

    8 December 2008 at 11:52 am

    Quite a good idea for a buynz.co.nz have a list of NZ retailers selling NZ only stuff. Would work quite well I’d imagine.
16. Akldnut 16

    8 December 2008 at 11:55 am

    lukas its pretty obvious that the 2 main players in the current govt are Nat and Act who don’t actually need the other two parties and that the Maori Party were only added as a backstop to disempower Act should the tail start to wag the dog.
    Also it gives Nat the opportunity to grab more Maori left leaning voters before the next election. Still at the end of the day its exactly what the were accusing the left of being……… “A multi headed monster” (my term, as the number of heads dosn’t matter – just the fact that they’re there)

    “NACT” + others
17. Felix 17

    8 December 2008 at 11:58 am

    I haven’t seen the ads so I can’t comment on the value of this specific campaign, but it’s surely worthwhile to keep promoting the general principle of buying NZ made goods.

    Phil’s comment above reminds me of some of the misguided comments I read after the repeal of section 59 which were along the lines of “Oh look, a kid was killed today so clearly changing that law was a waste of time”.

    We’re talking about attempts to shift attitudes over the long term, changes which are measured not in months and years, but decades and generations.
18. Strathen 18

    8 December 2008 at 12:08 pm

    I like NX’s idea. Perhaps we should push for NX to be put in charge of this campaign? 😉
19. Greg 19

    8 December 2008 at 12:12 pm

    The ad campaign is bad for New Zealand. Its a shocking waste of tax payers money. Here’s why:

    Econ101 – Consumers that choose to spend more to buy New Zealand made purely because its from New Zealand effectively provide a subsidy to the producer.(This is not the case if the purchase of the NZ made product is rational – ie its cheaper or better quality) These consumers are subsidising inefficient businesses (if they were efficient they wouldn’t need government funded ad campaigns), This decreases consumers disposable income so they have less to spend on efficient kiwi producers. New Zealand as a whole would be far better off if inefficient producers instead moved into efficient industries. This subsidy increases producer surplus but consumer surplus is decreased by more than that increase – hence this policy results in a dead weight loss – wasted money!
20. QoT 20

    8 December 2008 at 12:23 pm

    I’m with NX on the website idea, though I know I personally have started spending a lot more money in shops displaying the “Buy Kiwi and we’ve got it made” stickers/signs.

    Love the classic sneak tactics – “we can’t commit more cash to this unless a review shows it to be effective” … with no actual statement that a review will, in fact, be carried out.

    (Sure, one could read an implication that a review will be done, but then either Brownlee’s PR advisor or the NZPA should have said “forthcoming review” to ensure clarity of meaning. No, I’m not obsessed with semantics, why do you ask?)
21. leftrightout 21

    8 December 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Few reasons why I buy kiwi made (where possible):

    -Local Economy. When I buy a kiwi made product that money is going to help keep locals employed.

    -Ethics. The people making the goods are receiving a decent wage and working conditions.

    -Quality. Generally the products are better quality and will last. They’re not going to wind up 6 months later in a landfill.
22. NX 22

    8 December 2008 at 12:25 pm

    I like NX’s idea. Perhaps we should push for NX to be put in charge of this campaign?

    Sure :). And I accept the generous salary which probably goes with the job.

    Telling people to simply ‘buy NZ made’ isn’t good enough.

    Information is the key. TradeMe & eBay are great for finding exactly what you want.

    There are some great NZ made safety gear – likes footwear etc. Half the problem is finding where to get the stuff. So a website to tie it all together would be great.

    I would also widen the website’s scope to include products made with environmental considerations – irrespective of where they’re made.

    ‘Conscious consumerism’ is the future in my opinion. Where people can choose to spend their money on things that are important to them.
    Information is the key. All going well we wouldn’t even need the ETS/carbon trading rubbish.
23. Jum 23

    8 December 2008 at 12:27 pm

    ak said on
    December 8, 2008 at 10:33 am

    “Well, kiwis voted for change apparently – no surprise that the authors of New Zealand Sucks would have to cancel Buy New Zealand before introducing Sell New Zealand ..”

    I can’t better what you just said, so I’ve repeated your post.

    Hope you don’t mind me using your words.
24. NX 24

    8 December 2008 at 12:32 pm

    TradeMe & eBay are great for finding exactly what you want.

    Come to think of it… they could have an ‘NZ made’ search option on TradeMe. The search could be refined for ‘new’ and ‘second hand’.

    ^ I’m sure that would be more helpful than the Oliver Robot.
25. ropata 25

    8 December 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Greg, being “efficient” is not the sole determinant of the worth of an enterprise. Many “inefficient” things (ie. the public service, Air NZ, manufacturing) are better retained locally — to do otherwise puts them at risk of insecurity/profiteering/asset stripping. Also, surely fair trade is better than “free” trade?

    As it is, NZers are effectively “subsidising” profits to overseas corporations — to the tune of $5 billion (or more) per year:

    Transnational corporations (TNCs) make massive profits out of New Zealand. These can truly be called New Zealand’s biggest invisible export. In the decade 1997-2006, TNCs made $50.3 billion profits. Only 32% was reinvested, and in some years more was sent overseas than was earned or the reinvestment was significantly offset by capital being taken out of the country.
26. Jum 26

    8 December 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Felix said on
    December 8, 2008 at 11:58 am “We’re talking about attempts to shift attitudes over the long term, changes which are measured not in months and years, but decades and generations.”

    That is what NZers never understood about the real legacy of the Labour plus Government.

    That NZers had the energy and the independence and the confidence to complain about Labour is due in large part to Labour giving them their mana back.

    The only problem with helping people is when they’re back on their feet, the last thing they want to be is forever beholden to the people who helped them. But Labour was concerned with investing in a country that could once again make its own product not be buying 3rd rate product in and losing export monies.

    Daveski – I bet you hate that the Labour Government wouldn’t let employers pay Mexican wages to New Zealanders. No doubt you’ll be pleased to have the ‘NZ sucks’ National Party in. By the time N/act’s finished engineering the employment laws NZers will be leaving here to get better wages in Mexico.
27. vto 27

    8 December 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Well Buy NZ hasn’t helped my biz one little bit and I have used NZ design, supply, manufacture, marketing, products, services, bloody NZ everything. Amounts to diddly squat when the cheque comes to be written. Maybe I am just too inefficient. Mind you my industry has no competition from overseas companies.
28. Tim 28

    8 December 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Any marketing campaign needs to have measurable results. While it sounds good for Bradford to claim 360,000 more shoppers think Kiwi-made than before, where is the proof that this is translating into dollars spent on Kiwi-made. And are the surveyed shoppers actually the target market for this campaign? Do you even know who the target market is? Low income earners? Beneficiaries? Or just ‘the rich’.
    What NZ made goods are lower income earners meant to buy? Can they afford the generally higher cost of buying NZ made goods when the imported alternatives are so much cheaper and means they can still buy Christmas presents for their kids?
    Do NZ made goods need to compete on price? If so are we prepared to have lower wages in order to make this possible?
    If we aren’t expecting the low income earners to be part of the target market of this campaign then who is it, and what are the likely products they will buy that are NZ made?
    Let’s see the business case for this campaign, and some real measurable outcomes. It seems to me that the millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on this campaign are misguided and wasteful.
29. Daveski 29

    8 December 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Jum – you miss my point going for the dramatic riposte.

    If you asked employers, I’ll bet you that the majority would suggest a raft of activities that would benefit business beyond a simple advertising campaign. No where did I infer a desire to lower wages.

    My point is that an advertising campaign won’t be enough to stop manufacturers moving off shore.
30. vidiot 30

    8 December 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Are things still actually being Made in NZ ? Besides food (& beverage) products, what else do we actually make in NZ ?
31. Phil 31

    8 December 2008 at 1:31 pm

    That NZers had the energy and the independence and the confidence to complain about Labour is due in large part to Labour giving them their mana back.

    How dare that ungrateful middle class not vote for Labour after all we’ve done for you!
32. vto 32

    8 December 2008 at 1:37 pm

    vidiot; houses
33. leftrightout 33

    8 December 2008 at 1:44 pm

    vidiot:

    Backpacks, outdoor gear, plastic wear, clothing, bikes, furniture, jewelery, glassware, tools, software, tires, timber, wind farm turbines, boats, bedding etc.

    Its out there if you look for it.
34. Janet 34

    8 December 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Kevin Rudd has told Australians to spend for the economy and to Buy Australian Made for the obvious benefits for Australian workers and the economy.

    I notice my supermarket has labels on shelfs indicating NZ made products. I usually choose the NZ one if there is a choice.
35. leftrightout 35

    8 December 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Some brands I know of made in NZ:

    -Cactus Climbing: good quality backpacks made in Christchurch
    -Sistema: plastic containers
    -Click-Clack: plastic containers, still local I think?
    -Survival: merino thermal clothing
    -CCC: Canterbury Canterbury Canterbury, used to make the old All Blacks jerseys until the rugby union sold them out to Adidas. Now makes socks and some clothing.Most stuff made at Christchurch factory, some is Chinese though.
    -Rembrant: suit makers
    -Chalky Digits: clothes
    -Firestone: tires

    Anyone want to expand? Im sure there’s more.
36. MikeE 36

    8 December 2008 at 2:02 pm

    How does being NZ Made make something intrinsicly better?

    Should we be buying NZ made TVs?
    Cars?

    Should we have import controls?

    Why do we need govt to tell us to buy NZ made? Why can’t we do it ourselves? Why can’t manufacturers band together, and promote it themselves. This (Buy NZ Made regardless of price or quality) is simply corportate welfare and nationalism. Not sound economic policy.

    I’ll buy NZ made if I like the product (I love supporting *good* local music, food, clothing etc) and it is well priced, not because its made in NZ, but because I want it.
37. MikeE 37

    8 December 2008 at 2:04 pm

    “Greg
    December 8, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    The ad campaign is bad for New Zealand. Its a shocking waste of tax payers money. Here’s why:

    Econ101 – Consumers that choose to spend more to buy New Zealand made purely because its from New Zealand effectively provide a subsidy to the producer.(This is not the case if the purchase of the NZ made product is rational – ie its cheaper or better quality) These consumers are subsidising inefficient businesses (if they were efficient they wouldn’t need government funded ad campaigns), This decreases consumers disposable income so they have less to spend on efficient kiwi producers. New Zealand as a whole would be far better off if inefficient producers instead moved into efficient industries. This subsidy increases producer surplus but consumer surplus is decreased by more than that increase – hence this policy results in a dead weight loss – wasted money!
    ”

    And its bad for the environment as its an ineffecient use of scarce resources.

    No wonder the Greens are all for it, being environmentalists and all!

    PS: how on earth do I type a pound sign? Its in the captcha!
38. Billy 38

    8 December 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Any of you lefties got any evidence that this campaign has resulted in the purchase of single NZ made product that would not otherwise have been bought? Warning: if anyone replies using the word “awareness” I will personally hunt you down and knee you in your soft bits.
39. Robinsod 39

    8 December 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Billy – I went from buying NZ made goods about half or the time to buying them almost exclusively. Part of the reason I was able to do this was it raised awareness amongst retailer that NZ Made was a selling point and they actually started clearly labeling goods as such…

    Oh and Billy – I don’t have soft bits. I’m 100% hard-ass.

    Ha! Cap is “IV Pierson”! does Steve have a habit he’d rather not talk about…
40. Felix 40

    8 December 2008 at 2:38 pm

    MikeE,

    Who says “Buy NZ Made regardless of price or quality”? Quote? Link? Or just paraphrasing your own arse?

    Billy,
    It’s all about awareness.
41. Brett Dale 41

    8 December 2008 at 2:38 pm

    It was canceled because like a lot of the Green’s programmes it didn’t produce enough good results.

    Also the concepts of the ads were wrong, it should of been buy NewZealand made because we produce the best at the best price, not just buy NewZealand made for the sake of it.
42. leftrightout 42

    8 December 2008 at 2:49 pm

    “It was canceled because like a lot of the Green’s programmes it didn’t produce enough good results.”

    And National’s programmes produce better results?
43. Janet 43

    8 December 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Women do most of the shopping and women are discerning shoppers. Most women I know look for NZ made things because they are good quality and different eg kumfs and minnie cooper shoes (I’ve stopped buying Minx now they’re made in China). We are very conscious that Buy NZ made also means NZ jobs as well. Women are also label readers in supermarkets.
44. leftrightout 44

    8 December 2008 at 3:11 pm

    What really urks me is when you come across a NZ brand that has traded on being quality and locally made but has recently moved to Asia e.g. Macpac, Fairydown.

    They try and tell you its exactly the same quality as you’re used to. Somehow I doubt a wage slave in China is going to make an equal quality product compared to a happy worker on a decent wage in NZ.
45. Paul Robeson 45

    8 December 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Buy NZ made only works as a campaign, if we are thinking about campaigning about the positive things about New Zealand as a whole.

    The National party don’t particularly want to arouse nationalist sentiment that might be annoying when they introduce PPPs or saying yes to whatever Australia and the U.S. say.

    The things that define us, or make us nationalistic: that have been our ‘brand’ if you will are not always things this government is comfortable with.

    Our environmentalism (well and truly on the wane), being tidy repsonsible kiwis, our nuclear free and independent foreign policy, our multiculturual and inclusive society, the idea of giving someone a fair go, and indeed good faith and fairness in general, the idea of looking after people who can’t look after themselves and caring for others in need…

    so many of these things are well in truly at odds with the National Party or they simply don’t care about them. How can they try and talk up a brand they don’t care that much about?
46. gingercrush 46

    8 December 2008 at 3:30 pm

    I just love how Janet seems to think she represents every female in New Zealand. In fact I’m always astounded when anyone here believe they represent the whole of New Zealand. I’m sorry you don’t.

    The Buy NZ campaign was pretty dire I think. I didn’t really get it. Here was some ultra-technological factory building a robot that happened to be Oliver Driver who I find awful. New Zealand doesn’t exactly build many technological things that a consumer can easily buy at the shop. The campaign was a huge misstep and personally never made me more New Zealand products.

    Thus I really am not concerned that the campaign was suspended.
47. Paul Robeson 47

    8 December 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Perhaps the National Party think that this is the kind of thing that the business community will provide out of its evident self interest? you know like banks and lending to people who are able to pay back and that kind of thing?

    waiting with baited breathe.
48. Tim 48

    8 December 2008 at 3:49 pm

    It’s up to businesses to be self sustaining Paul, it would be a poor excuse for a business that relied on government funding to survive. Why should taxpayer money be spent on marketing costs for NZ businesses?
    I am amused that a left wing blog is trying to defend this campaign. It’s very apparent that it’s only because it was Bradford’s project. If National had launched the campaign you would all be up in arms about it being a way for them to be lining the pockets of their business buddies.
49. Brett Dale 49

    8 December 2008 at 4:01 pm

    leftrightout:

    You should never buy a product just because it comes from your country.

    You should buy the best product for the best price.
50. Grant 50

    8 December 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Where does the article you link to say that the Buy New Zealand campaign has been cancalled?

    Pierson, your points would be taken far more seriously if they weren’t so well embellished with bullshit.
    G
51. Felix 51

    8 December 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Brett,

    “You should buy the best product for the best price.”

    Yep, but all other things being equal, of course you should support local businesses. It keeps more money here for us and it uses less transportation which is better environmentally.

    So Brett, my question is: If you have to choose between a foreign product and a local one of equal quality, how small does the price difference have to be before you’d pick the NZ product?

    It sounds like you’re saying it’s zero, whereas I happily pay a few percent more to support local workers and local businesses. Why? Because I’m selfish. I want local businesses and local workers to be better off because then I’m better off in the long run.
52. leftrightout 52

    8 December 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Brett:

    What motivates me to buy kiwi made is that my action of buying that product is resulting in jobs for kiwi’s, keeps profits in NZ and thats good for New Zealand. The last thing I want to see is us become a nation of retailers who just sell imported junk.

    I can always buy the alternative, the cheap imported shit from China, after all its the best product at the best price. But then Id be supporting one of the biggest polluters in the world, bank-rolling what is effectively slave labour and undermining local kiwi’s.

    Sometimes you’ve got to ask whats behind the price tag.
53. Chess Player 53

    8 December 2008 at 5:08 pm

    I wasn’t aware there was a Buy New Zealand campaign on…..
54. Jum 54

    8 December 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Chess Player

    Considering chess players have to think 10 moves ahead, I’m thinking you meant to type that you were a ‘cheese maker’.

    Waiting for maturity can take forever with cheese.
55. simon 55

    8 December 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Regarding buying NZ Made, personally discern on two levels,

    food always buy NZ made/grown products in the supermarket (unless there is not a local version available or more than 25% higher priced)*

    Otherwise best value on everything else (though I avoid Norwegian, Japanese or any other whaling murdering bastard countries product)

    * Does not apply to booze (though I only buy NZ wines) and chocolate
56. Janet 56

    8 December 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Re chocolate – there is a distinct flavour difference between NZ and Australian chocolate, even that under the Cadbury brand. I think it is something to do with the lush NZ grass NZ cows eat.

    GC Of course I don’t claim to represent NZ women but I have a wide circle and we discuss topics such as this. In fact were talking about this with a group just yesterday and we all agreed that we take care to buy NZ made. We don’t automatically buy Fisher and Paykel any more – in fact some actively boycott it after the NZ factory closures.

    Heaven forbid that I would agree on anything with women like Judith Collins.
57. Jum 57

    8 December 2008 at 5:37 pm

    As a friend of mine pointed out, Labour in 1935 brought in the ethos of the Welfare State to give all New Zealanders help when they needed it. The National Party was transmogrified from the ashes of the ruling elite in 1936 to get rid of the Labour Party’s plan to be there for all NZers.

    Now, I always read the rightie posts with that thought in mind.

    The Left considers how they can help local business (YES, even the very businesses which would shaft them with the 90day probation period).

    The Right only ever think of themselves.

    This election was never about a change of face. It was about the destruction of a unifying philosophy, in order to allow for a foreign takeover bid, using divide and conquer tactics.
58. Madeleine 58

    8 December 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Consumers always will buy the best product at the best price. Putting Oliver Driver on TV telling us to pay more for a sub-standard product just because it will help the bloke down the road was never going to convince anyone at the till.
59. Phil 59

    8 December 2008 at 5:48 pm

    though I only buy NZ wines

    Now there is a local industry worth celebrating!

    woo!

    I happily pay a few percent more to support local workers and local businesses. Why? Because I’m selfish. I want local businesses and local workers to be better off because then I’m better off in the long run.

    What if your “better off” comes at the expense of the chinese labourer that used to make shoes, and now gets nothing?
    What do you see as a bigger loss of income: the guy that goes from NZ minium wage to the unemployment benefit OR the guy in China going from a few cents a day to nothing at all?
60. Jum 60

    8 December 2008 at 5:49 pm

    Janet

    Totally agree.

    If only women realised that, as the major buyer or influence on buying decisions, their power is huge. If they ever decide to form a lobby group country-wide they could easily bring a company down, whatever its size.

    The said company had better hope the lobby group consists of left-leaning (as I stated at 5.37) women who won’t want to damage the company or its workers!
61. Jimbo 61

    8 December 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Putting aside the obvious*, I’ve always wondered about the philosophical basis for these “buy NZ made” campaigns.

    Are we saying that we should be more worried about the plight of NZers over the plight of Chinese people? Why should we care that plastic stuff comes out of China, and each time you buy plastic stuff from China the per capita GDP there gets a little bit closer to ours (but still miles behind)?

    Do we care about human welfare, but only if it’s humans within our borders…?

    * How can anyone complain about actually checking to see whether “Buy New Zealand made” is value for money? If I hire someone to clean my windows, I need to check that they’ve done a decent job before I decide to hire them again. I’d be a moron if, instead of checking the windows in front of me, I spent hours debating whether window-cleaners are a good idea in principle… National is absolutely within its rights to review the previous government’s expenditure and find out whether the money might be better spent on something else. That’s the job we pay them to do.
62. Billy 62

    8 December 2008 at 6:12 pm

    Chess Player is the only person who used “awareness” who does not get a knee in the groin.

    The captcha included my reasonably uncommon surname. Too spooky when added to the “Pierson” thing in ‘sod’s.
63. Janet 63

    8 December 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Jum

    Women have organised themselves into a consumer lobby before. CARP – campaign against rising prices – was very effective in the 1960s/1970s. I think Cath Kelly, mother of the CTU’s Helen Kelly, was one of the main activists.

    I think (memory hazy here) that the 3rd Labour govt’s maximum retail price (Warren Freer’s MRP campaign) was one of the results. Regulations to limit prices of consumer goods. Now wouldn’t that be a good idea again! That would shock the righties above.
64. Jum 64

    8 December 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Re Jimbo
    December 8, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    I’m intrigued and suspicious. If National is so concerned about value for money re Buy NZ Made, why didn’t they check earlier and bleat then.

    I guess they knew it would have made them sound like they didn’t care about small NZ business and workers pre-electionand now of course they can bleat about this and cover up on the nasty little sidelines they are pursuing, with forcing unemployment up through businesses falling over, if less attention goes on Buy NZ Made and thereby creating their dreamed of weak, desperate labour force.

    NZers ‘are’ still so comfortable under the inclusive previous Government they don’t believe ‘nouveauNational’ can hurt their future. I know better.
65. mike 65

    8 December 2008 at 8:11 pm

    “Buy kiwi made” was an 8 million dollar accommodation for the greens, a complete waste of money and more proof (if you needed it) of the left’s myth that throwing large amounts of cash at something will fix it. Good riddance
66. Trina 66

    8 December 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Buy NZ Made is a member based organisation funded by members, the Government campaign is the Buy Kiwi Made Campaign.

    Buy NZ Made won 50% funding from one of the Buy Kiwi Made Campaign’s funding rounds to build a website to advertise New Zealand Made goods and to connect manufacturers, retailers and consumers with them.

    This website has been up and running since September the 1st and has been advertised on web and in magazines. It has also been mentioned in the latest Buy Kiwi Made radio advertisements.

    So for those of you who were wishing for a website which catalogues NZ Made goods .. your wish is granted. The website currently shows over 2000 products which is not bad for such a new site. This site is lilkely to grow considerably over the next few months.

    Go to http://www.getnzmade.net
67. Jum 67

    8 December 2008 at 8:39 pm

    Trina
    Thanks for the correction.
68. Jum 68

    8 December 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Madeleine
    December 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    So you are telling me that NZ made/Kiwi made is sub-standard product?

    Trina – would you care to comment on this.
69. Janet 69

    8 December 2008 at 9:49 pm

    Trina
    Thanks for that link. That’s just the sort of website I would use when looking for specific items for the house or presents etc.
70. Paul Robeson 70

    8 December 2008 at 9:58 pm

    @Tim: Riiight.

    It’s up to businesses to be self sustaining Paul, it would be a poor excuse for a business that relied on government funding to survive. Why should taxpayer money be spent on marketing costs for NZ businesses?
    I am amused that a left wing blog is trying to defend this campaign. It’s very apparent that it’s only because it was Bradford’s project. If National had launched the campaign you would all be up in arms about it being a way for them to be lining the pockets of their business buddies.

    Heh I had you in the grip of angry reason and then lost it all with the quote tags.

    basically, mate, you are an idealogue of the worst sort. I understand the sentiment. I even appreciate that we can’t run on subsidies, and if we are doing that for profitable industries it is completely wrong.

    However we don’t live in a free trade society. If you are consistent and not just an idiot troll I expect to see you supporting business taking the full cost of their carbon pollution as soon as possible.

    sorry? Was that taxpayer money should not be spent subsidising business unless it is a large amount?

    Realisitically in a small country government has a role to play in helping business in this way. If the National party were really nationalists, they would be doing that, instead of searching for ways to reduce costs for their chums in international cartels.
71. NickC 71

    8 December 2008 at 10:20 pm

    “So you are telling me that NZ made/Kiwi made is sub-standard product?’

    Actually, thats what this entire campaign is doing. To me, the government steping in to promote a product suggests that the product is not good enough to be sold on its own merits and that it needs to be protected or it will not be able to compete with others.

    Some people in this thread refer to a ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign. Well clearly if they think that New Zealand products should be protected through this campaign or other measures then they are the ones who think that New Zealand products suck.
72. illuminatedtiger 72

    8 December 2008 at 10:36 pm

    So, this is that ambitious and positive vision for New Zealand we’ve been hearing so much about?

    Nope. Just pissing on a dead man’s legacy.

    RIP Rod Donald.
73. Greg 73

    8 December 2008 at 11:50 pm

    “ropata
    December 8, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Greg, being “efficient’ is not the sole determinant of the worth of an enterprise. Many “inefficient’ things (ie. the public service, Air NZ, manufacturing) are better retained locally — to do otherwise puts them at risk of insecurity/profiteering/asset stripping. Also, surely fair trade is better than “free’ trade?

    As it is, NZers are effectively “subsidising’ profits to overseas corporations — to the tune of $5 billion (or more) per year:

    Transnational corporations (TNCs) make massive profits out of New Zealand. These can truly be called New Zealand’s biggest invisible export. In the decade 1997-2006, TNCs made $50.3 billion profits. Only 32% was reinvested, and in some years more was sent overseas than was earned or the reinvestment was significantly offset by capital being taken out of the country.”

    Ropata – you’ve just stumbled upon the economic concept of comparative advantage. Of course transnational corporations make profits out of New Zealand. But we make a hell of a lot off our exports too. You can’t have one but not the other. Are you suggesting we cut off all trade? Comparative advantage is gained when when each country specialises in what they’re best at and trade (well there’s more to it then that but we’ll leave it there). That way each country makes the most effective use of its own resources. Protectionist measures like the ‘buy NZ made ad campaign inhibit this and its makes NZ and the rest of the world worst off.

    On your other points. Air NZ and manufacturing are classic examples of industries that should not be propped up by the government. In Air NZ’s case competitors like pacific blue, quantas etc etc will keep them honest whether they’re owned by NZ or China. Manufacturing is a part of the buy NZ made answer. We should only keep manufacturing goods that we can produce efficiently. Thats why we don’t have a car industry. Its much cheaper for us to import – look to the states to see how a subsidised car industry is further crippling their economy. In the Public service efficiency results in the best result anyway – we want the services provided by the public service to cost as little as possible so we can have lower taxes and more money to spend!

    I get pretty passionate about this ‘fair trade’ thing. I too want save the starving in africa. But did you know trade barriers cost the third world a hell of a lot more than the amount of aid we give them. The facts are there – google it (I can’t be bothered, its late). ‘Unfair trade’ is far far far better than no trade at all. The fact is – countries who engage in trade even if its from sweatshops improve over time – look at Japan. Buying their ‘cheap and nasty’ products is the best help we can give them.
74. Greg 74

    8 December 2008 at 11:54 pm

    Paul – “However we don’t live in a free trade society. If you are consistent and not just an idiot troll I expect to see you supporting business taking the full cost of their carbon pollution as soon as possible.”

    Yeah sure. But a couple of points. Business won’t take the brunt of the cost, it will be passed onto the consumer – lets not forget that. Also that means some businesses get carbon credits too right, if their net emissions are negative?
75. Paul Robeson 75

    9 December 2008 at 12:17 am

    Greg.

    I believe this is how it has to work. The cost of carbon will be a long term cost. It will not go away. We have to be prepared to pay more, and the businesses which can become the most efficient and therefore offer cheaper prices are rewarded.

    This market system is something isn’t it?

    This is what the Greens have been arguing for a long time.

    If our business adapts like other businesses internationally, (and I’m not completely clued in on the ins and outs of a carbon trading market) yes! it would be fantastic if we could get carbon credits for nett emissions. I know some companies particularly airlines offer carbon offset options or the like where they buy or invest in tracts of forestry.

    I don’t see what the problem is with this. If we don’t we are passing the bill on to our children and grandchildren, rather than attempting to recognise and deal with the problem. I also realise it is a joke to blame National solely for this. Almost everyone in NZ is complicit in inaction for too long.

    Anyway that’s the theory. I did study a small bit of biology and economics, but never got near farm accounts or forrestry work.

    I’m not sure if negative net emissions equals credits under the currently proposed and soon to be rehacked scheme. Anyone know?
76. Paul Robeson 76

    9 December 2008 at 12:31 am

    Greg,

    one other thing mate:

    The fact is – countries who engage in trade even if its from sweatshops improve over time – look at Japan.

    I’m sure all those U.S. military Korean war contracts were helpful too, to help keep the munitions and arms factories running and turn them into car manufacturers and the like.

    We should buy New Zealand for the same reason everyone else does overseas, it is a niche quality fashionable brand, and we are a unique part of it. As I mentioned above, it is hardly the most of protectionist measures out there, if it really is truly one at all.

    The government is just involved in a campaign like the Woolmark or the beef and lamb campaign, but what they are selling is the quality of our country overall, which suprisingly I would say they have a stake in.

    Efficiency and market clearing is a laudable goal. But your argument goes beyond economics into sovereignty. Everything can be done more efficiently. But more efficiently for whom? Without Air New Zealand there might be more efficient air travel,, but it is in New Zealand’s public good to have a national carrier who supports our tourism industry.

    Manfacturing can be different, but it is sometimes very difficult to compete marketing a smaller product against mass produced brands dumped in large chain stores. Hence a little support with the marketing, and the promotion of quality behind a Made in NZ sticker.

    cheers.
77. Felix 77

    9 December 2008 at 2:36 am

    Phil,

    “What if your “better off’ comes at the expense of the chinese labourer that used to make shoes, and now gets nothing?”

    Didn’t I explain that I’m selfish? Anyway…

    The Chinese labourers you mention have very little protection. They don’t have the workplace rights that our unions have fought hard for and won.

    It’s a bit disingenuous of you to imply that you’re supporting Chinese labourers by buying goods made in China – you’re supporting their exploitation. Massive profits are made off their labour by denying them proper work rights and that’s what you’re supporting.

    I prefer to support the rights of workers by buying products made by workers who have rights.
78. leftrightout 78

    9 December 2008 at 8:56 am

    My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, but Ive heard that for IceBreaker its so cheap to manufacture in China that they can produce the merino wool here, ship it to China to be made into clothes, and have it shipped back again.

    Now how are local manufacturers supposed to compete against that without support from the government?
79. Felix 79

    9 December 2008 at 9:05 am

    leftrightout,

    Why, by lowering our workplace standards to be closer to those of China of course. I heard Roger Douglas on the radio just the other week praising the “efficiency” of Chinese industry.
80. Billy 80

    9 December 2008 at 9:27 am

    Just pissing on a dead man’s legacy.

    Rod Donald’s legacy is a bunch of ads that make Oliver Driver appear stupider thatn he already is and make fat ad exec’s rich? That’s unspeakably sad. I thought he’d done lots of good stuff.
81. leftrightout 81

    9 December 2008 at 10:07 am

    Felix, yes “efficiency”, just like how the public service is about to become more “efficient”…
82. Tim 82

    9 December 2008 at 10:18 am

    @Paul

    “basically, mate, you are an idealogue of the worst sort. I understand the sentiment. I even appreciate that we can’t run on subsidies, and if we are doing that for profitable industries it is completely wrong.”

    Are you suggesting we should subsidise unprofitable industries? I’m all for helping kiwi businesses get up and running and I reckon $6.3 million would be very helpful if it was applied the right way. I had a small business myself about 5 years ago and would have loved the government to be more helpful rather than making me jump through bureaucratic hurdles. In the end I had to lay off 5 staff and find a job.

    On the topic of this post, it is sensible to review any campaign to see whether it is delivering results, rather than just keep chucking money at ad agencies. There are probably some parts of the campaign that will be kept after review, such as the getnzmade.net website (which I don’t recall seeing anything about on the TV ad by the way), but the point is that reviewing the campaign is the right thing to do.

    Regarding your insults, I’ll be up here on the high road mate.
83. Greg 83

    9 December 2008 at 10:24 am

    Paul – on your first post, I agree. On the second, not so much:

    “‘im sure all those U.S. military Korean war contracts were helpful too, to help keep the munitions and arms factories running and turn them into car manufacturers and the like.

    We should buy New Zealand for the same reason everyone else does overseas, it is a niche quality fashionable brand, and we are a unique part of it. As I mentioned above, it is hardly the most of protectionist measures out there, if it really is truly one at all.

    The government is just involved in a campaign like the Woolmark or the beef and lamb campaign, but what they are selling is the quality of our country overall, which suprisingly I would say they have a stake in.

    Efficiency and market clearing is a laudable goal. But your argument goes beyond economics into sovereignty. Everything can be done more efficiently. But more efficiently for whom? Without Air New Zealand there might be more efficient air travel,, but it is in New Zealand’s public good to have a national carrier who supports our tourism industry.

    Manfacturing can be different, but it is sometimes very difficult to compete marketing a smaller product against mass produced brands dumped in large chain stores. Hence a little support with the marketing, and the promotion of quality behind a Made in NZ sticker.”

    Yeah Japan did benefit from foreign investment. Something that will happen to all third world countries as their economies improve and the risk lessens. If they can get themselves off the ground first. Why should the government sell New Zealand to New Zealanders? There may be an argument for doing this overseas but preaching to the converted is a bit silly isn’t it? And why does an air carrier have to be public owned to support our tourism industry? Surely its in any air carriers commercial interests to promote tourism. Its more benefit for them!

    If your going to try and compete directly with a mass produced brand it is going to be hard. Because they’re more efficient at producing it. I’ve got no problems with making the conscious decision to buy kiwi made on the basis of quality – but what I’m saying is that if you’ve got two identical goods and one is more expensive because its kiwi made. The only people that will benefit from you purchasing the kiwi one is the producer of that good. Everyone else loses.

    Felix – “The Chinese labourers you mention have very little protection. They don’t have the workplace rights that our unions have fought hard for and won.

    It’s a bit disingenuous of you to imply that you’re supporting Chinese labourers by buying goods made in China – you’re supporting their exploitation. Massive profits are made off their labour by denying them proper work rights and that’s what you’re supporting.

    I prefer to support the rights of workers by buying products made by workers who have rights.”

    Again, this kind of statement really gets under my skin. Your supporting Chinease workers by not buying their goods. How the hell is that meant to make them better off? They’ve gone from a crap job to no job. A crap job being a hell of a lot better than no job at all.
84. Paul Robeson 84

    9 December 2008 at 1:44 pm

    @Tim

    No I’m suggesting that subsidies are not necessarily a good thing, especially as we used to have them for our most productive sectors. I notice you had no reply to why the taxpayer should be bailing out industries on Kyoto agreements. If it walks like a fish mate, irrespective of what road it’s walking on.

    @Greg

    I don’t know if being occupied by the U.S. after the second world war, and getting a kickstart from large military contracts, is quite the same practically and morally as buying coffee or small local industries from developing countries.

    If the government doesn’t sell the New Zealand brand who will? The media relentlessly paint us disproportionantly as a country over run by crime. I remember the irony of the 90s when the only companies to use patriotism in their advertising were overseas countries- Toyota ‘welcome to our world’ and Barry Crump, McDonalds and the Kiwiburger…there are 2 or 3 other examples but I can’t think of them just at the moment.

    The point with mass production is not, I don’t think, efficiency leading to the best use of scarce resources. It is that a large company can get a strong advantage in marketing its products, and getting exclusive or very favourable distribution deals, which make competing for small manufacturers (and retailers for that matter) very difficult. Not particularly perfect market stuff.

    Well if one is made in New Zealand and one is made elsewhere it isn’t identical is it? There are all kinds of reasons why people choose a particular brand. Could be the safety standards of a country, where their sister lives, their human rights record, their favourite sports team, passing fads…

    I understand the argument you are making, but especially in times of economic hardship, I think you will be hard pressed to find any practical examples of it in action internationally. As I said we don’t live in a free trade world, and we have to be careful with the baby and bathtub. Which is my way of saying, brain hurt, have to go work. cheers.
85. Lampie 85

    10 December 2008 at 3:55 pm

    “Any marketing campaign needs to have measurable results. While it sounds good for Bradford to claim 360,000 more shoppers think Kiwi-made than before, where is the proof that this is translating into dollars spent on Kiwi-made. And are the surveyed shoppers actually the target market for this campaign? Do you even know who the target market is? Low income earners? Beneficiaries? Or just ‘the rich’.
    What NZ made goods are lower income earners meant to buy? Can they afford the generally higher cost of buying NZ made goods when the imported alternatives are so much cheaper and means they can still buy Christmas presents for their kids?
    Do NZ made goods need to compete on price? If so are we prepared to have lower wages in order to make this possible?
    If we aren’t expecting the low income earners to be part of the target market of this campaign then who is it, and what are the likely products they will buy that are NZ made?
    Let’s see the business case for this campaign, and some real measurable outcomes. It seems to me that the millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on this campaign are misguided and wasteful.”

    The only thing you know about marketing it seems is how to spell it!!!!!
86. Lampie 86

    10 December 2008 at 4:04 pm

    “The ad campaign is bad for New Zealand. Its a shocking waste of tax payers money. Here’s why:

    Econ101 – Consumers that choose to spend more to buy New Zealand made purely because its from New Zealand effectively provide a subsidy to the producer.(This is not the case if the purchase of the NZ made product is rational – ie its cheaper or better quality) These consumers are subsidising inefficient businesses (if they were efficient they wouldn’t need government funded ad campaigns), This decreases consumers disposable income so they have less to spend on efficient kiwi producers. New Zealand as a whole would be far better off if inefficient producers instead moved into efficient industries. This subsidy increases producer surplus but consumer surplus is decreased by more than that increase – hence this policy results in a dead weight loss – wasted money!”

    More like this comment is a wasted amount of internet space!!!! What a load of crap
87. Lampie 87

    10 December 2008 at 4:12 pm

    “If your going to try and compete directly with a mass produced brand it is going to be hard. Because they’re more efficient at producing it. I’ve got no problems with making the conscious decision to buy kiwi made on the basis of quality – but what I’m saying is that if you’ve got two identical goods and one is more expensive because its kiwi made. The only people that will benefit from you purchasing the kiwi one is the producer of that good. Everyone else loses”

    That is NOT what the campaign is all about agghhhh, and this just shows how agghhhh you are in the subject of marketing, in fact, business, agghhhh
88. Lampie 88

    10 December 2008 at 4:18 pm

    “If your going to try and compete directly with a mass produced brand it is going to be hard. Because they’re more efficient at producing it. I’ve got no problems with making the conscious decision to buy kiwi made on the basis of quality – but what I’m saying is that if you’ve got two identical goods and one is more expensive because its kiwi made. The only people that will benefit from you purchasing the kiwi one is the producer of that good. Everyone else loses.”

    Proves my point, you know fuck all about marketing
89. lampie 89

    11 December 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Just remember that those adverts and posters and what not is a very very small part of marketing. It is not the whole marketing concept, it is a piss ant in comparrison so you cant judge a marketing campagin from some dumb arse picture or advert. There is a hell of a lot to marketing than advertising!!!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS