Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
The real question is "why can't all those building have Auckland City painted on them and be done with it?" see, no logo needed really.
If it's done consistently in terms of font and colour, then it is a logo.
-
No the idea that a logo is important misses the point.
The idea that a logo must be changed regularly misses the point.
The idea that a logo must be perfect misses the point.
Well I never claimed the 2nd or 3rd. But logos are very useful tools for an organisation that provides services, particularly a compulsory service like those funded by rates. Most people couldn't list all the services that their city council provides. Putting a recognisable city council logo on all those services helps address that. If you want buy in to a community organisation, people should know what it provides.
Having a new logo for a newly mashed together city council is important. Currently all those services and buildings will have any one of half a dozen different identities on them. They all will need to be changed at some stage, so the new identity needs to be logo-ised before that happens.
Yeah it's nice if people can recognize that service x is actually provided by the council, but dear god first you have to get service x working and have money for it. That is the point.
Because clearly it's a zero sum game. All money for providing quality services by the Auckland Council is being redirected to a $10,000 logo competition.
-
The fact is we don't need a Logo for the Council, we don't need to "Advertise" the Council. Do we have a choice of which Council we pay our rates to?.
That seems a bit foolish. City councils take thousands of dollars off people every year, in return for providing services. If you're going to make people aware of what they get for their rates, branding all those things with your logo is the best and easiest way to do it.
The idea that logos are only for organisations that are selling things misses the point.
-
Are people reluctant to come to NZ because the port facilities are inadequate? I'd actually like to know that.
I dunno. But I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that less boats come if you don't provide them with decent facilities.
That being said, there's a constant stream of cruise ships arriving at Port Chalmers at this time of year, and I don't think we provide them with anything at all. But then we're probably the final stop, not the immigration one.
-
Have you ever known a private school to go out of its way to take the bottom 20% of anything?
I have a pre-school family member with Downs Syndrome and her parents looked around Wellington for a place to put her in schooling and in the end went with a kindy attached to a private school (I presume the kindy is also private). Has a uniform for the little kids and everything. They've been very happy with the support and assistance that the school provided them and her development.
Which may be an exception of course, and is pre-primary.
A private school obviously will teach for money. They are a money-making entity. That is what they do.
That's often the case, but I'd imagine that some schools have motivations about being private which are largely for other reasons - method of teaching, religious community etc etc. Sure, some of them will make a potload of money, but some will be scraping by like every public school.
-
Not so much benefit as "reducing the predicted deficit a little". Which the taxpayer is helping to cover.
-
As for the number of ticket sold this pales into insignificance compared to the claimed TV audience
Yes, but we cover our costs from ticket sales, IRB gets all the TV income. Hence the temporary seats at Eden Park, they're to make more money.
-
Not that I completely disagree (I don't) but you have to remember that up until the whole supercity thing goes live, a lot of "Aucklanders" don't live in Auckland City at all. I live and work on the North Shore, which is its own city, and don't go to Eden Park, so I have no more direct relationship with Eden Park than someone living in Dunedin.
I grew up on the north shore, and I went to Eden Park a number of times. I saw Grant Fox beat Scotland there with about six penalty kicks at goal, and I saw a number of Auckland games, including Waikato taking the shield off them. And a rained out Sri Lanka-NZ one day cricket match.
I find the idea that you can't benefit from a stadium because it's a 30 minute drive away somewhat bizarre.
For the record, through the Otago Regional Council, rate payers in Oamaru, Queenstown etc are all contributing to the new Dunedin stadium. Dunedin residents (through the DCC) are paying both twice, and significantly more. Not unreasonable.
-
Is there waterpolo in your family?
Somehow in my mind this came across as enquiring about a STI.
-
What shocked me about the paper was the flimsy nature of its "research". If I had time, I think I'd have a good chance of spotting the copy and paste direct from a coupe of lobby groups.
I think you'll find that Jolisa is the contracted PAS plagiarism spotter and there are demarcation issues before you go looking without her getting her cut.
In other words -- if you thought this week's one was rubbish, wait till you see the report only the ACT MPs could get behind.
Hehe! Even more stupid to come?