28 Comments Posted

  1. “Vacuous response, Valis & Toad. Bryces analysis is cogent.”

    You are missing the point entirely. I never argued that we weren’t taking a different approach with our advertising, which has not only won critical acclaim, but was very motivating for the grassroots. We are indeed very pleased with our ad campaign this year.

    I’m arguing about what it means for us as a party. Bryce presents it as some kind of irrefutable evidence that we’ve lost our soul and that’s obviously due to internal divisions and that’s obviously due to having lost our core ideology and on and on – many of these things he can only speculate on. Its fair to raise any questions you want, but presenting such a detailed analysis with such certainty is just intellectual wanking.

  2. I apologise for that….it was done the other night (before midnight), but I wasn’t aware all posts were being stopped.

  3. Vacuous response, Valis & Toad

    Bryces analysis is cogent.

    It matters not if you support the Greens or not. The marketing strategy is a departure, and it sits comfortably alongside VW, M*rcedes, and Co#a-C*ola.

    The base will identify with the symbolism, just as any target market would. You could put BMW at the bottom of the billboard, and it would be just as effective.

    Deep down, you know this.

    Package to sell.

  4. Vacuous response, Valis & Toad

    Bryces analysis is cogent.

    It matters not if you support the Greens or not. The marketing strategy is a departure, and it sits comfortably alongside VW, Mercedes, and Coca-Cola.

    The base will identify with the symbolism, just as any target market would. You could put B*W at the bottom of the billboard, and it would be just as effective.

    Deep down, you know this.

    Package to sell.

  5. Vacuous response, Valis & Toad

    Bryces analysis is cogent.

    It matters not if you support the Greens or not. The marketing strategy is a departure, and it sits comfortably alongside VW, Mercedes, and Coca-Cola.
    The base will identify with the symbolism, just as any target market would. You could put BMW at the bottom of the billboard, and it would be just as effective.

    Deep down, you know this.

    Package to sell.

  6. “‘If you replaced the Green Party logo with a National or Labour Party logo, would it make any difference?’ ”

    But it does make a difference. The message has to be sincere and believable by those reading it for it to communicate successfully. Iwi/Kiwi worked for the Nats because people believed it was their authentic voice. Likewise, the Green campaign this year rings true and so is a success. It would not be a success for the Nats. An example might be Labour, who went with the trust message, which people have rejected as false.

  7. The bias I speak of is not demonstrated by merely having an opinion, but by drawing conclusions that are are only tenuously supported by the arguments made. We see that all the time on blogs, because many posters either don’t have the skills to make well supported arguments, or don’t care for such formalities. But I figure academics do have the needed skills, and this raises questions in my mind when it happens anyway.

    Your response is a kind of example. Your starting point is that the Green Party is not good at taking criticism and you end with a chide about the truth being good for us. But it is the exactly the truth we’re talking about here and whether your version of it follows from your premises.

    Note that its not that you raise questions about our motives, etc, that I object to, but the certainty with which you conclude what those motivations, etc, are. I raised this in a critique in another thread and you assured me that you were not all knowing and might be wrong. But you show no such humility when you are actually writing and that is the problem.

    Have another look at that thread to see what I mean:

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/14/rev-mua-strickson-pua-and-rob-hamill/

    The problem with this is that readers with less knowledge may not know enough to take your musings as potentially flawed and simply accept what is being said.

  8. I think the strategy is 1)get in (anyway u can ) 2) get busy (section 59) 3) get st%$fed (claim “we were voted in so we can do it”)

  9. “‘great ads are more about what you leave out than what you leave in’. In this case, what has been left out is… everything – no policies, no political programme, no ideology, no principles, etc. As one academic specialist in creative visual advertising has quipped, ‘If you replaced the Green Party logo with a National or Labour Party logo, would it make any difference?’ ”
    If you can’t beat ’em join ’em……… another famous Red Army ploy. 😉

  10. Valis – I realise that the Green Party isn’t very good at taking criticism, but this is a precious of you.

    Also, I don’t know where you get this idea that academics are or should never be opinionated or ‘biased’. This sounds rather naive.

    I can assure you that I have absolutely no axe to grind with the Green Party. But I am however very interested in debate and discussion (which is why I mostly appreciate this blog site).

    If you read my blog you’d actually find that very few posts concern the Green Party. I’ve developed considered critiques of all the parties, so please don’t feel hard done by. But that said, the Greens do seem to get an easy ride from the media (and from the left in general), so it’s good to try and even things up once in a while.

    Try and remember: “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” etc. A healthy political party should welcome scrutiny and considered analysis, even when the truth might sometimes be a bit painful.

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz

  11. Good response Valis!

    Bryce seems to want the Greens to linger round the threshold, because he is in a mindset that a pricipled party can do no better than thatm and is destined to be in perpetual opposition.

    I dn’t go with that – there is a difference between professionalism in marketing, nd the “professionalisation” that Bryce, without evidence, presumes.

    The Greens have not sold out – we’re just presenting our message better to a public who are not used to hearing it to increase our vote.

  12. Sorry Bryce, not interested. I’ve read some of your stuff and it seems obvious you have an axe to grind with the Greens that makes you less than objective. I don’t know what it is, but your bias doesn’t do you any credit as an academic.

  13. Nope, Meghan, 10% will get Steffan Browning in, and possibly Mojo Mathers if NZLast don’t make the 5% threshold.

    To get Quentin in, I think we need 11 or 12% -the last Morgan poll 2 weeks ago is the only one that puts us on target to do that.

    But polls are funny things, and the surveys are done only through land-lines. So young (or older) people who have only a cellphone don’t get counted.

    So it still might be a go!

  14. I say 10% !!!! Does that get Quintin in? Well, I say however many percent that gets him in too.

    What a lovely puff piece by John Campbell tonight too. Thanks John, it almost makes up for your National-gushing the last couple of nights. He did make a mistake though – saying that no Green MP has ever won an electorate seat, Jeanette won Coromandel (how the Greens got into Parliament in the first place)- the first Green MP in the world to win an electorate I heard!

  15. You have to remember what it means to be 6% or whatever. It doesn’t mean acceptance for all or any particular policy (te tirritti, section 59). No doubt your benefiting from the financial meltdown when people start to look to vegetable gardening.
    To bad your bagging NZ First despite the fact that you can’t show where your own finances come from. Could it be that that NZ First out does the Greens as a life style party since the Greens aren’t really in to a NZ under the status quo?

  16. Yep, 5 polls in the last 4 days put the Greens at 8% or more.

    The one I just can’t figure is the Herald Digipoll. That puts the Greens at 5.9%. With one exception, when it gave the Greens 9% acouple of months ago, it has been consistently well below all the others in Green support.

    I don’t know the polling methodology of all of the pollsters, but if the consensus proves correct, and the Greens poll 8% or more in the one that counts, then I think the Digipoll do need to take a hard look at their methodology.

    That said, if the Greens poll 6%, all 5 of the other pollsters need to take a hard look at theirs.

    I’m predicting 9%, which will see Gareth Hughes as the youngest member of Parliament. But still hoping for better.

  17. I think we’re good for 9%, given the polls sit on 8, 9, 9 & 10. It could be more, or it could be less. It’s likely that we’ll do better and have more MPs than ever before. As we cement ourselves in the political system as more and more a ‘major’ party, I believe the drop-off we have seen in the past from people’s intentions to actual polling day will disappear.

    People now know the Green Party is here to stay, and what we’re talking about is resonating with a whole lot of people.

    Our task from next week on is to build the Party even stronger. Always an eye on the future….

    Our task for tomorrow is to go out and party vote Green, and celebrate!

  18. It’s too late to make much difference now, so I think we should be erring on the low side so we’re more likely to be happy with the result. I predict 4.9%, falling to 4.8 on the specials.

  19. I’m picking around 7% on the averages. Still far too much for my liking, but well done 🙂

    A pretty good campaign by the Greens. A lot better than your Labour mates…

Comments are closed.