by frog
Last week we had Decision 08′s design and fashion blogger Sylvia Giles saying:
Amongst this racket, the Green Party has delivered a billboard that paints a clear and concise picture of where a vote for them will be headed – straight to our planet.
The Greens tap not only into a colour with an obvious connection to their ideology, but a concept that has a pivotal place in our pseudo-identity as ‘Clean, Green New Zealand’. Set to the kind of impressive scenery we pride ourselves on, we are just about tipped off the end of a pier into murky, green waters where something seems a miss. Yet the focal point of this billboard is a child that stands between us and the body of dissolved pounamu-green water.
Then last night John Campbell interviewed Mike Hutcheson, formerly of Colenso, Communicado, and Saatchi and Saatchi and now with the Lighthouse Ideas Company, to talk political advertising. Hutcheson ripped into first National’s taxcut billboard:
“This one in particular looks like it was written by an undertaker… They are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory … it’s so bland it’s vanilla.”
then Labour Helen Clark effort:
“They must think we’re fools because we see her [the Prime Minister] every day looking like somebody else… If this is a campaign about trust I’m not sure we can trust someone who makes herself look different… Too presidential for my liking.”
Before turning to the Greens:
“Oh, they’re great. They are actually too flash for the Greens. They have someone who knows what they are doing do it for them.”
Published in Campaign | Media by frog on Tue, September 16th, 2008
Tags: advertisting, billboards, design, hoardings
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
...
Where is the billboard that reads
“We love the gangs”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – in your head?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The billboards are good advertising in that they target a demographic well. My guess is “politically naive middle-class mothers”.
What I’m surprised about is the emotive level of the pitch. I thought the Greens were the smart party?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So tell us then what a smart party would do with the two seconds it has to communicate to a passing motorist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nobody (apart from me) liked our rather wordy billboards last election. So time for a change huh…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>So tell us then what a smart party would do with the two seconds it has to communicate to a passing motorist?
Keep the message short and punchy.
That doesn’t necessitate vacuous, highly-emotive imagery.
It could be a picture of a green hammer and sickle, for example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – short and punchy – “Hide”?
Tell us the message that would appear (remember- ‘short n punchy’) on the billboard of the party you support. It’s so easy for you to snipe (anyone can do that)- show us the colour of your flag(and tell us what’s written on it).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP said: What I’m surprised about is the emotive level of the pitch. I thought the Greens were the smart party?
The emotive pitch is because the Greens are the smart party BP. You can’t get across a wordy complex policy message through a billboard, as the Greens learned to their detriment in the 2005 election (and National failed to learn because they’ve made exactly the same mistake this time around that the Greens made in 2005).
Pitch simple emotive messaging with the billboard to gain peoples’ interest – then they are much more likely to go to the website or read the brochure that turns up in their letterbox to find out about the policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>can’t get across a wordy complex policy message
Enough with the straw mans. Where did I say it had to be wordy?
>>on the billboard of the party you support
It would read: “Don’t Vote For Any Of Them. It Only Encourages Them”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
… It would read: “Don’t Vote For Any Of Them. It Only Encourages Themâ€?.
Now THAT idea has great promise !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They are well designed billboards graphically, I’ll give you that. It does look like you’ve got some pretty young candidates asking for votes though, so could be misleading, all those people who vote for you thinking they were voting a bunch of kids and a big globe into parliament will be really disappointed after election day…
I like the idea of the green hammer and sickle, it would probably convey your policies a lot better – consider that for later in the campaign.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Try this one for “short and punchy”:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad says :
“Pitch simple emotive messaging with the billboard to gain peoples’ interest – then they are much more likely to go to the website or read the brochure that turns up in their letterbox to find out about the policy.”
That is spot on !
With two parents (or sole parents) working, many families are VERY short of “spare time”.
If people remember an attractive and interestingly “different” poster or billboard, they are much more likely to notice, and then read, the info that comes later.
Almost everyone reacts positively to the concept of young kids in the outdoors … reminders of their children, their grandchildren their future children … or the memories of themselves.
Excellent pitching !
Well done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad, Yep, take the billboard at the top of this post, replace the slogan with your clever one, then stick Helen and Winstons head on the two kids. Beautiful!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I love BP’s idea of short and punchy – its longer than what was on our failed billboards from 2005. No, have to go with the ad experts on this one, a majority of whom say we’ve hit the mark this year. Now how much difference a good ad campaign makes is another question…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
these billboards are the best the greens have done..
..you should have some poster-size planet ones made up..
(and distributed as widely as possible..)
..instant green iconography..
..and one of the simplest/most potent green images..
..ever..
‘long game’ green advertising..)
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A hammer and sickle, indented in green grass.
Now that would be clever, truthful, and neatly summarise all policy areas.
Instead we have a base appeal to emotion: “think of the children!”.
It will work, but it ‘aint smart. It’s highly manipulative and vacuous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I want to see the “Don’t throw your vote away” Stickers brought back… So effective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Love them sour grapes, BP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nothing sour abour them. Just telling the truth as I see it.
Great advertising strategy, but surprised it is aiming so low, shallow, vacuous and fallacious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bp..if we don’t do this for our children..
..who are we doing it for..?
..of course the message is powerful..
..but no way is it ‘shallow/vacuous’..
..it is just the opposite..
..and says thousands of words..
..and successfully addresses a complex message/imperative..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ha! Definitely sour grapes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Emotion is a great way of communicating, especially if you can’t use lots of words. As long as it’s not emotionally manipulative, and it tells a truth, I can’t see what’s wrong using emotion.
The billboards are good advertising in that they target a demographic well. My guess is “politically naive middle-class mothers�.
Can I nominate that for most patronising comment of the day?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>..and says thousands of words..
It is a logical fallacy.
X is good for children
Anything good for children is good
Therefore, X is good
It also fails to demonstrate how the Greens would be better for children. Personally, I think Green policies would result in most of them going to Australia when they reach working age.
It’s nothing different than any big company, or any other party would do.
It is the face of modern advertising. I’m just surprised the Greens are doing it.
>>Can I nominate that for most patronising comment of the day?
You could, but it’s the truth. Ruth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>it tells a truth
Not really. You could put any party name at the bottom and it would mean the same thing. How would you feel if that was a Destiny Party campaign? Would you laugh?
I would.
PS: Please don’t anyone put “Vote Christian Heritage Party” at the bottom…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter – these are the very same comments you made the day the brilliant Green billboards came out You’ve not progressed in your thinking one iota. Astounding. It’s worse than sour grapes – it’s vinegar!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>> X is good for children
Anything good for children is good
Therefore, X is good
Hmm… in my book this is a fine example of a valid argument. Hardly a ‘logical fallacy’ BP? For compare:
A cat is a member of the feline family
Anything that is a feline is a mammal
Therefore, a cat is a mammal
So, provided the premises are correct, the the conclusion follows (logically)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is good for children might not be good for adults.
>>You’ve not progressed in your thinking one iota.
It is hard to progress from being right to being wrong, greenfly.
I’m not sure what the sour grapes accusations are about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a parent of the “next generation” I instantly “understood” (rationally and emotionally) what the poster was saying:
“Party Vote “Green” as their concern is about the state of the planet that your kids will inherit.”
Many parents would find that a powerful message in these current times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Billboards: Nats suck, Greens great, BP sour so has to find something to complain about
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Nats suck, Greens great, BP sour
Killer argument.
>>Many parents would find that a powerful message in these current times.
Many parents who don’t ask “yeah, but how?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
It seems that you are overlooking the fact that the Greens have a positive reputation (and track record) for being aware of / knowledgeable about / and focused on the state of the Planet.
Remind me … Why are you spending time on this blog? Why did you come here in the first place?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To troll for the Nats, of course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>that the Greens have a positive reputation
Not round these parts they don’t.
>>and track record focused on the state of the Planet
Hilarious. I prefer to judge people by their accomplishments, not their rhetoric.
>>Why are you spending time on this blog?
It amuses me. Why do you spend time on this blog?
>>To troll for the Nats, of course.
I’m not a Nat. I doubt I’ll vote Nat. If I do, it will be a strategic vote to help keep the ruinous left off the steering wheel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – your irritating and endless barbs aren’t designed to stimulate discussion as some comments from ‘across the divide’ do. You show no signs at all of wanting to further debates or add valuable information to the mix – you are a spoiler – one who likes to draw attention to himself with brash and pointless interjections and put-downs. Nice work BluePeter – you’re a brick! Every forum has its pariah – you’re it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Very well put, though there are often times I’d give the accolade to big bro.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, also Toad & Frog, unless you’re using them as stalking horses, responding to the trolls is an excercise in futility.
I took a random selection of BB’s & BP’s comments from the last 4 weeks and ran them through a language analytic programme. There is a 0.97 probability that their comments are generated by an computer expert system. These programmes usually have a counting function so that their responses are in direct proportion to the number of replies that they get. By not responding to them the frequency of their comments will steadily decline asymptotically to about one per Frog post.
In short, you’ve been hoodwinked by a couple ofcomputers. You might even have been used as a test bed for computerised answering systems such as used by Telecom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly/valis
When you come up with some arguments, do let me know
>>michaela
Thanks Spock.
Meanwhile, where is the Greens economic policy? You know, the one that tells us how, exactly, we’ll be navigating our way through these dark waters in order to provide our children with a better future? Where is the substance?
Or are the posters just hot air, like the cute rabbits and the SUV? So cute!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
michaela – agreed! It will be easy then, to extinguish them by not responding. I’ll give it a go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good idea. Best leave it someone who will provide some substance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis, calling Mr Dennis!! Care to add to these comments you made on your blue blog of choice?
”
” I am as ardently against the Green party as yourself – in fact so ardently against them that I am the environmental spokesperson for an opposing party, the Family Party. I was poking some fun at them. Their policies are ridiculous, anti-children, pro-greenwash but anti-environment.”
Not very polite or diplomatic, Mr Dennis, given that so many green commentators here have taken the time to answer your many questions and charges and engage in debate with you. Come on over Mr Dennis and be truthful!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP: “where is the Greens economic policy?”
Um,
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/economic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thank you.
I will have a read…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Short and punchy eh?
How bout a billboard with a picture showing Sue Bradford fighting with the riot police?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Isn’t the role of PR companies, advertising agencies and the language used in politics an issue: eg people opposed to the Bradford bill “want to beat children”.
Second point: What life for those children in the peoster under the Treaty as the greens
“confirm the original Maori version to be the correct one”
and that guarantees tino rangitiratanga and “undisturbed possession of forests and fisheries: which covers all the sea land , national parks, conservation estate in NZ.
During the Foreshore and seabed hikoi they hold up a sign saying “Honor The Treaty”……… or don’t they really mean it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh, this is about the fifth time you’ve posted essentially the same question in the last few weeks. We’ve taken some time in answering you, but you refuse to consider that honouring the Treaty doesn’t have to mean going back in time 170 years. Sorry, but I for one am getting bored. Maybe you should just read a few books.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly:
OK, I’ll explain myself.
Anti-children:
Smacking law reduces discipline, increases misbehaviour in those children that don’t respond well to “time-out” style punishments, which in the end will be far worse for children than if they had had a quick smack when they were young.
Pro-greenwash but anti-environment:
Supported ETS, sounds environmental but does nothing for the environment and costs us money we could use to actually help the environment.
Reasonable summary of the Green’s policies in my opinion. Well-meaning but impractical.
I come over here for the discussion however, because although the Green policies are often flawed the Greens and the posters here often have a real concern for the environment and people, and it is interesting to discuss differing perspectives of how to get to the solution that we both tend to want. I also come over here for discussion on environmental issues because it is the most active NZ political environmental blog. And you seem a nice bunch of people on the whole, however much we disagree!
Furthermore I know the Green party do actually care about the environment, and MPs do seem to read this blog, and if I can in some small ways influence their thinking on environmental issues then it could be helpful, they are actually voting on these issues, hence my involvement in the ETS discussions here for example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great, we’re nice people and do actually care about the environment, but we’re also pro-greenwash and anti-environment, not to mention anti-children. Might want to think about your rhetoric there Mr D. Its perfect if you only want to pick a fight a la big bro perhaps, but not at all credible if you want a serious discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Drove past a crop of billboards yesterday, including the Green one.
It looked good amongst the turgid competition. Gotta say…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Valis Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 9:03 am
jh, this is about the fifth time you’ve posted essentially the same question in the last few weeks. We’ve taken some time in answering you, but you refuse to consider that honouring the Treaty doesn’t have to mean going back in time 170 years. Sorry, but I for one am getting bored. Maybe you should just read a few books.
…………..
You can’t change the terms just because honoring the treaty is unrealistic. The Treaty states that chiefs maintain their tino rangitiratnga and guarantee undisturbed possession of forests and fisheries. That is what the treaty says… you are suggesting new terms which suggests a different treaty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Certainly not. I’ll try one last time in short sentences. There were huge treaty breaches. Two main options. Undo all breaches, taking us back to the ownership situation of 1840. OR both sides recognise that this is not practical. Both sides then sit down and agree on what practical redress looks like. This happens at the Waitangi Tribunal. Once both sides agree, life goes on.
If you insist on a pedantic interpretation, then of course the treaty will never be honoured. But you’re the only one doing this. Maori certainly aren’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)