Greenpeace ad is electioneering

September 8, 2014

The High Court has supported the Electoral Commission’s contention that a Greenpeace advertisement is electioneering.

The High Court in Wellington has today released a judgment in two cases filed concerning decisions of the Electoral Commission (Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc & Ors v Electoral Commission CIV-2014-485-8997) and (Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc v Electoral Commission CIV-2014-485-8998).

In the first case, Greenpeace and others were seeking a statutory declaration that the Climate Voter website was not an election advertisement under section 3A of the Electoral Act 1993. The Court rejected Greenpeace’s arguments and said that the website that the Electoral Commission considered when providing its advisory opinion was an election advertisement for the purposes of the Electoral Act.

In the second case, regarding a Greenpeace website criticising Simon Bridges, the Court has declared that the website was not an election advertisement as it related to his role as Minister of Energy and could not reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading people not to vote for a candidate or party.

The Electoral Commission will need to carefully consider the judgment and discuss the implications of the decision further with Greenpeace and others.

No further comment will be made while the judgment is under consideration . . .

Of course the advertisement was electioneering.

It was clearly aimed at persuading people to vote the way Greenpeace and its fellow travellers wanted them to.


When conventional ads don’t work

March 22, 2014

A plethora of media makes it much harder for advertisers to get their message across.

Newspapers are losing readers and recording options give television viewers options that allow them to skip the ads.

When conventional advertisements don’t work, advertisers have to come up with something that does.

What works is cleverness and fun that gets attention and then spreads through social media, like the Unbelievable Channel on YouTube.

It’s been created by Pepsi  and will be updated each week with people doing unbelievable things and of course it will spread through social media like this:

Hat tip: NBR

 


It began with a farmer

February 4, 2014

Competition for the American Super Bowl isn’t just on the field, it’s also among the advertisers.

This one is one of this year’s contenders:


It worked

July 15, 2013

An incident involving a Whittaker’s van crashing into Paeroa’s L&P bottle was a marketing stunt by Coca-Cola.

If the aim was publicity, it worked.

 

So God made a farmer

February 5, 2013

Each year the ads which play during the Superbowl generate as much interest as the game.

This has to be one of the better ones.

Update: CoNZervative has some background on Paul Harvey who does the commentary.


RIP Southern Man

November 3, 2012

Speights Southern man is a victim of increasing urbanisation.

After more than 12 years on New Zealand television, the Speight’s Southern Man has been axed . . .

The Speight’s icon was originally played by Frank Whitten, who also appeared in Outrageous Fortune. Mr Whitten died early last year. 

Speight’s marketing manager Jonte Goldwater told NBR ONLINE that scrapping of the character had nothing to do with the loss of Mr Whitten. . .

Mr Goldwater told NBR ONLINE it was a long and hard decision, but the brand needed to acknowledge change.

He says the urbanisation of New Zealand meant the relevance of the outdoor life had changed. . .

I don’t drink Speights, or any other beer come to that. But if I did the idea that the outdoor life depicted in the Southern Man series is no longer relevant would have me crying into it.

You can see the new ad here.

I may be a traitor to my gender but I prefer the old series which started with this:

 

 


Green or greenwash?

October 14, 2012

Green is the new black in marketing but all’s that labelled green isn’t necessarily good for the environment or the consumer.

A University of Canterbury researcher is slamming consumer goods companies for green-washing supermarket shelf items with a flood of eco-labels. . . .

UC College of Business and Economics research director Pavel Castka said today there were so many labels with products claiming all sorts of environmental and social issues that it was difficult to distinguish, which one to trust.

It’s easy to label something as eco-this or environmentally-friendly-that but such claims might be nothing more than green-wash.

Even if the claim can be substantiated it’s not the only concern for consumers:

New Zealanders are becoming greener when they think about what to buy, but only when the price suits, a survey has found.

Colmar Brunton’s Better Business Report for 2012 found that 73 percent of New Zealanders thought about at least one green factor when deciding what to buy.

But price (94 percent), quality (88 percent), taste or performance (81 percent) and brand name (76 percent) were all more important factors, the survey showed.

“We’re prepared to recycle and be more energy efficient at home but not quite ready to buy organic foods or offset carbon on flights en masse,” Colmar Brunton chief executive Jacqueline Ireland said. . . 

That last sentence illustrates the problem – recycling and organic farming are regarded as better for the environment but those claims aren’t always supported by science.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,411 other followers

%d bloggers like this: