Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
sorry, bit of a waste of space. should have read read 'A should have spent his money offshore.' but far be it from me to suggest discriminating against parties who have fewer campaigners.
-
So Kyle;
1. Campaigner A spends $12,000 to print X number of pamphlets in Te Awamutu, Campaigner B sends me $12,000 to print 10X number of pamphlets in China. When Campaigner A finds he has ten times less pamphlets than Campaigner B, he wishes to print more pamphlets, but is legally prevented from doing so.
moral: B should have spent his money offshore.
2. Campaigner C is given a state of the art printer and enough ink to last a lifetime, plus stamps and envelopes in 2009. In 2011 Campaigner D spends $12,000 printing and sending out X number of pamphlets through conventional means. At the same time, Campaigner C prints ∞X pamphlets, at no cost, right through to his favored party's loss after which time he uses the remainder as toilet paper.
moral: recycle advertisements
3. Candidate A has no money but he stands for good moral and fiscal values. he has no money. But he has one affluent friend (who employs 100s of non-voters), who we shall call Campaigner Z. Campaigner Z is unwilling to donate over $1000 dollars to Candidate A, due to possible effects on his business relationship with Fatman D, should Campaigner Zs political leanings become public knowledge.
moral: Despite friendship, people won't jeopardize their lives to publicly support what they believe in.
If you know about all the advertising out there with a person's name on it, you could total up the cost of that advertising, and bingo, you know how much that person spent.
As much fun as that sounds Kyle, the appeal is somehow tainted by already knowing that bingo, that person spent $12,000.
-
Firstly Kyle, thanks for your replies, the irony in debating the effectiveness of advertising to lead peoples' thought processes in this case isn't lost.
I'd like to restate clearly, that there are a few issues here, not just the advertising, firstly my quoted statement re: limitations and conditions on freedom of speech, wasn't in regard to advertising. It was made in respect to that other aspect of the EFA; namely the requirement to print contact information on placards, clothing and the like as it is under the EFA. I'm not a big fan of confusing these two aspects.
As I've read on, and i should state that i don't think you are particularly unreasonable in your acceptance of the EFA protocols. There is an indisputable connection between advertising and our tendencies as consumers to consume. What concerns me is this socialist concept of fairness seemingly outside the realms of capitalism, that somehow the money we work for and study to find jobs to earn, should be revalued in an election year. How people who pay more taxes at a higher rate should be discriminated against as Graeme stated above.
It's not that I'm against socialism, nor against fairness. Simply that it seems like a double standard in a capitalist society where their is no cap on how much you can pay a lawyer or a doctor. So that if two citizens are prosecuted for breaching the regulations, there is every chance that the richer one will be able to afford a better legal service, while the poorer one will be fined, thus becoming poorer still.
But mainly it's a case of me feeling, why should the government in a free democracy be making laws to restrict how people can spend their money?
Why should they be inhibiting growth in the advertising and printing sectors?
And, if i were to spend $100,000 on advertising arguing against the EFA, would it change your opinion Kyle?
-
which again begs the question Kyle, why limit spending on advertising?
-
-
Sorry that was a little vague, I just can't get the ad out of my head, from sometime in the mid nineties, featured the hook from the chorus of this song.
firstly, it's a question of taste, no matter how much advertising time EMI bought, there was no way i would be buying that album even at gunpoint.
secondly, searching for this song, i found searching for this track, Joshua Kadison had a bit of a 'painting theme' going so I had to endure more joshua kadison than I'd like. Makes me think of how often we'd see an ad, for a product and only recall half the name, wondering if there's any voters out there, find somewhere between an ad and the supermarket, mix up the name of the product they want to buy in their heads and accidentally buy the knock off.
thirdly, discussing this with a friend, he recalled a drinking session of his mother and her friends in which they were discussing voting opposite to their husbands whichever way the husbands voted, merely as a power issue. So while people are making such arbitrary decisions why waste money and resources, policing the almost non existent connection between advertising budgets and the quality of brands on offer?
and finally,why limit this transparency to political parties in election year, why not make it a requirement of all bodies both private and public that advertise all the time? If advertising is really that dangerous
i'm reminded of the Chinese register to protest setup they had in the Olympics, while the connection is slight,
placing more restrictions and conditions on freedom of speech isn't a symptom of forward momentum in the democratic idiom.
-
so how many joshua kadison albums do you own?
-
eg, political party A with a wide range of offbeat policies including reintroducing the death penalty and a ton of cash, advertises everywhere all the time,
compared to party B, with moderate policies, but the very unique stance in that they are offering everyone a day off on their birthday, a proposal which naturally gains airtime because it's so damn good,(people's who's birthdays occur on a public holiday get to allocate another day up to a month in advance of that day), with a one off TV ad 7pm sunday night on prime and a bunch of volunteers and some heavy blog activity.
should we penalise party A for simply having no good ideas?
-
more money certainly buys more ad/space time kyle, but isn't creativity far more difficult to calculate, surely? isn't the success of an ad pretty intrinsically linked to the product being advertised?
-
mainly i don't see the connection between money and the quality of the message being sent to voters.