by frog
I cannot help a snigger after reading the National Party’s press release this afternoon recalling John Key’s DVD, stating:
“Obviously, National relied on the expertise of the production company that put together the video and its soundtrack.”
Was it not a rip-off of the Coldplay song used at the last National Pary Conference? It sounds awfully like the same excuse as when National failed to account for the GST on their election advertising. Could this be a trend? If it is, perhaps they could make up for it by donating the offending DVDs to an insomnia clinic somewhere. After all, they were damned if they payed the GST and damned if they didn’t, but made the thing go away by making a donation to a worthy cause.
Someone, somewhere, could gain a good night’s sleep without the use of drugs, while EMI, the record company complaining, could make a few sales via subliminal advertisement of their copyright works.
It’s a terribly embarassing gaff. Once again the party apparatus is failing to look after a novice party leader, undermining his credibility. It’s becoming clear that John Key can expect the same kind of in-house support enjoyed by Don Brash.
Published in Parliament | Society & Culture by frog on Mon, December 3rd, 2007
Tags: ambition, coldplay, copyright, dvd, EMI, green green party, john key, national party
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
A marketers dream. First get the DVD out there and then create demand, to raise the profile of the DVD.
Easiest way to create that demand by using massive MSM and TV headlines when apparently you score an own goal with copyrighted music.
Brilliant, simply brilliant marketing. The MSM and TV networks would not have given the DVD any copy or airtime if the music was legit.
Bit like the airbrushed Helen Clark potraits used on election billboard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I dont think Key had a hell of a lot to do with the production values, really. The difference between him and Brash is that he can actually lead, so this blog is going to have to come up with more substantial things to gloat over I think!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The most important thing this week is to play “Name This Tune”?
There are far more important items on the agenda, namely this the the NZH:
“Unless the Greens and United Future act on their reservations and withhold support for the bill this week it will pass. And they will be as guilty as Labour and New Zealand First for the offence to free speech”
Why are the Greens still supporting this turkey? As you rightly point out: “the Green Party has been urging it to refer its concerns about election finance to an independent body that could recommend changes to the law if necessary from an impartial position”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The article is a good read:
nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10480130&ref=rss
“Money does not win elections unless the message it is financing strikes a popular chord. Labour is legislating in fear of messages it might not like. At the same time, it has given parties in Parliament the right to use public funds for purposes the Auditor-General ruled improper at the last election.
The country should not stand for this. It is not unduly susceptible to paid campaigns. ***The bill is an insult to our intelligence as well as our rights***. Even now, at the 11th hour, it can be stopped and sent to an impartial panel. Let’s hope the common sense outside Parliament can prevail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
re: the EFB.
With an election next year, and the need for some action to be taken, I would suggest that the pollies add a clause to include a mandatory and full review of the bill/act in 2009. Such a clause could, I hope, indicate the high and wide level of cross party inclusion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Joy
I agree with you about the review but a part of me wants the Nat’s to keep it if they win the election.
I want Klark and the rest of the hard line socialists to see what political life is like on the other side of the fence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It will be reviewed in 2009. By National. And dumped.
Part of the problem is people perceive this bill as part of Labours re-election strategy. That is the only reason it needs to be considered “urgent”.
Get over the EBs already. They illustrate the point it’s not possible to buy an election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the only thing that is an insult to our intelligence is the blatant attempt to buy elections by the NZ Herald.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It makes me laugh that anyone could claim, with a straight face as Jane Clifton did in the listener, that advertising around elections is counter productive.
It is very insulting to the advertising industry. They should obviously be locked up for fraud.
(Actually…..)
Advertising works. The right to spend $150,000, or $1,500,000 on a campaign is not an important human right.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Money does not win elections unless the message it is financing strikes a popular chord.”
untrue messages can strike a popular chord. a less well-resourced party (i.e. one not pushing the corporate agenda) can’t stretch their funding very far in getting their primary message heard if they have to spend it fighting the scurrilous claims of those with 10 times as much money to spend.
it still doesn’t alter the fact the legislation is useless though, the rich backers of the right wing will still find ways to use their money to publicize their message
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)