ACC Advertising

March 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pm by David Farrar

Heather Roy usefully points out that the monopoly ACC is spending $5.1 million just to make people feel good about having ACC. That’s a disgraceful waste of money. Advertising promoting safety or accident reduction is valid and laudable, but this self promotion is an insult to those who have to pay the levies to fund it.

No tag for this post.

32 Responses to “ACC Advertising”

  1. Sammy () says:

    You have to marvel at the thought processes behind this spending decision.

    ACC is not only a monopoly, but it is compulsory to support them (via levies/taxes), so we can’t even choose to not be customers.

    And yet they will spend over five million dollars promoting themselves in the next few years. To what end?! Someone, tell me what this is supposed to achieve. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here! I need to find out who is behind this decision, grab them by the collar and shake them while screaming “what the hell is wrong with you?”

    It just demonstrates the cavalier and contemptious attitude bureaucrats have to taxpayer funds.

    OK, end of rant :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrew W () says:

    The advertising is an ego trip for ACC management

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wgs () says:

    I too wonder as to the purpose of these promotions. It certainly will not alter the culture of those control-freaks who do the gate-keeping.

    It’s getting to the end of the financial year, and I suspect that the budget bucket needs to be emptied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Andrew () says:

    I am sure that they are doing it to build their “brand”. The point that forget is that advertising is about selling something. They have nothing to sell.

    We are bound to them and have no freedom to go elsewhere.

    Finally, I wish that my company had 5 million (half of our annual turnover) to spend on “brand” building. If I did I wouldn’t spend it on useless ad campaigns!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Andrew () says:

    I am sure that they are doing it to build their “brand”. The point that forget is that advertising is about selling something. They have nothing to sell.

    We are bound to them and have no freedom to go elsewhere.

    Finally, I wish that my company had 5 million (half of our annual turnover) to spend on “brand” building. If I did I wouldn’t spend it on useless ad campaigns!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Andrew () says:

    I am sure that they are doing it to build their “brand”. The point that forget is that advertising is about selling something. They have nothing to sell.

    We are bound to them and have no freedom to go elsewhere.

    Finally, I wish that my company had 5 million (half of our annual turnover) to spend on “brand” building. If I did I wouldn’t spend it on useless ad campaigns!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tim barclay () says:

    The only advertising they need to do is to get the Labour Party re-elected because it was them that granted this grotesque waste of money an unaccountable monopoly. I resent every dollar I pay this useless useless outfit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Fletch () says:

    That reminds me – did anyone see 60 Minutes last night about Telecom and broadband? They said what we have been saying for years; namely, that Telecom has not invested back into it’s infrastructure (been going to the shareholders I bet).

    Then during the ad break they play that series of Telecom ads with the Beatles’ “Come Together” in the background. How much did it cost them to license that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ben () says:

    Branding has no value without competition. That’s the mistake Christine Rankin made in investing in WINZ branding a decade ago.

    The purpose of the promotion is political entrenchment, to entrench ACC in the minds of politicians and voters with the purpose of increasing resistance to any downgrading from their privileged position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ben () says:

    Advertising promoting safety or accident reduction is valid and laudable…

    Surely the test of validity and laudability is whether such advertising works. Good intentions are not enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Whaleoil () says:

    Don’t forget about ACC’s “investment” in satellites!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter () says:

    Wake up people.. the reason this bunch of soviet style totalitarians spends so much on advertising is to expand their control of the media. Any media outlets perhaps being judged a mite too critical of Klark and her acolytes might just miss out on a share of the next advertising budget. There is not a media outlet in country not conscious of the fact that this government spends millions on advertising. Suck up to Klark and you’ll get your share. Be overly critical, and you’ll pay the price.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Fred () says:

    Stand by for a name change.
    When a dept./qango get truely on the nose it lets them do the same things all over again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dad4justice () says:

    Lets have another Commissioner to sort it all out ?

    What a sad circus !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lol () says:

    Would you lot stop moaning. Just because you don’t own a media company or advertising agency doesnt mean you have to try and spoil it for the rest of us. Go out and find your own scam to get on the Govt gravy train, there are plenty of opportunities. My hip hop classes idea would have made a bundle if it wasn’t for you namby pamby whistle blowers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Fletch () says:

    Check out historical USSR posters [url=http://www.internationalposter.com/ru-text.cfm]HERE[/url].
    Makes for interesting reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Ben Wilson () says:

    I reckon it’s ridiculous too. If the advertising served any useful purpose, such as informing people of possible claims they could make, or suggesting how to avoid accidents, I could understand it. But it’s just there as state funded propaganda, and that has no place in a democratic system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fletch () says:

    Opps, sorry- used BBCode formatting instead of http for my LINK

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ah... () says:

    Perhaps it is to inform those people (mostly the poor and those in minority groups) that they are actually entitled to ACC claims? You would be surprised by the numbers of people that don’t know what they are entitled to and therefore stay away from medical care when they get hurt or do not fill in the right forms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. george () says:

    “Advertising promoting safety or accident reduction is valid and laudable…”

    More like vapid and laughable!

    There must be some charge along the the lines of
    mis-appropriation of public funds that can be laid on the authors of this fiasco.

    The bloody nerve of the twits!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. GPT () says:

    Pre-election spending. National confirms its policy to deregulate and suddenly ACC thinks its best practice to advertise a taxpayer funded monopoly…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Joely Doe () says:

    As someone who works with ACC patients on a daily basis, I am waiting for a complaint to be laid with the Advertising Standards Authority over these ads. The line “…no matter how the injury is caused” is absolute bollocks. It matters greatly to ACC how the injury is caused, because if they can get out of paying for it, they will. One cannot write down the cause of the injury (sore knee, neck, etc.) as “don’t know, just sore” and get ACC cover.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Michael (The Right Wing One) () says:

    Ah… Subsidising stupidity means stupidity is encouraged. And on that matter, subsidising accidents means accidents are encouraged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Sam Dixon () says:

    The advertising campaign came out of ACC’s normal communications budget and has the purpose of informing people of a government service which they have paid for and have a right to access when need be.
    Is it a waste of money when the emergency services run those ads encouraging people to ring 111, or when IRD runs ads reminding people when taxes are due?
    That bloody useless Pansy Wong tried to attack the Government on it in Parliament a couple of weeks ago and was made to look an absolute fool. Suspect Roy wasn’t in Parliament then, of course, because ACT never are – its not just they’re of dancing or joining the army (a total waste of our tax dollars both in terms of her salary and the cost of training a 40yr old woman who will never be used as a soldier), they don’t bother voting on half the stuff in Parliament or making speeches at major points on the Parliamentary clandar. Whole party’s a joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Camryn () says:

    Sam – If that was the purpose, they could just send every household a letter rather than advertise on TV that people may not watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Damaged () says:

    Fuck ACC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. weizguy79 () says:

    Camryn

    Send each household a letter? The primary under-claimers of ACC are Maori, PI, and Asian peoples. They are paying for a service for which they don’t claim. Somehow I don’t think a letter is the appropriate medium to contact these people. In addition, why would ACC waste money on letters to Europeans, who tend to overclaim?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Brockie () says:

    I have put forward a complaint to the Advertising Authority, as the ACC ads are misleading. Not everyone is covered, and if ACC can get out of paying someone weekly compensation, they will. Case Managers will use any technical point to assist them in the non-payment of entitlements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Brockie () says:

    I have put forward a complaint to the Advertising Authority, as the ACC ads are misleading. Not everyone is covered, and if ACC can get out of paying someone weekly compensation, they will. Case Managers will use any technical point to assist them in the non-payment of entitlements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Brockie () says:

    I have put forward a complaint to the Advertising Authority, as the ACC ads are misleading. Not everyone is covered, and if ACC can get out of paying someone weekly compensation, they will. Case Managers will use any technical point to assist them in the non-payment of entitlements.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Justin () says:

    The AD states that all New Zealanders are covered. This isn’t even vaguely true. ACC is a typical insurance company and will do anything in its power to avoid paying out. I know this from experience. Whilst overseas I had a near fatal motorcycle accident. It was so serious that i had to return home to New Zealand as I was unable to care for myself. I had been away for just over two years. I had paid tax for my entire working life in NZ and had gone away on my “OE”. I came back to NZ thinking that as a New Zealander who had paid tax to the NZ government for many years that i would be able to avail myself of the medical system here. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case. ACC declined my case as the accident had occurred overseas, and I had been away for more than six months. Bummer for me.
    Unfortunately this wasn’t the end of it. Whilst i was slowly recovering i slipped and fell, and re broke my femur. Joy, i thought, at least this time i had the accident in NZ, and i would be able to get some decent professional health care and rehabilitation care. I was wrong. Since i had already broken my femur in the original accident, any further injury to any of the areas that i had broken (i broke over 30 bones) subsequently are deemed by ACC to be related to the original accident, and thus, I’m not covered. So when i watch the advert, which tells me to “relax, you’re covered” I don’t know whether to cry or throw the television through the wall.

    It’s great that they think it’s better to spend $5 million advertising an organization that you have no choice of whether or not it applies to you, instead of using that money to help people who are in desperate need. Without doubt the lack of ACC in my life has meant that my earning potential and quality of life has been seriously diminished. Thanks ACC, I’m so grateful that i can watch TV and have you assure me I’ll be fine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Justin () says:

    The AD states that all New Zealanders are covered. This isn’t even vaguely true. ACC is a typical insurance company and will do anything in its power to avoid paying out. I know this from experience. Whilst overseas I had a near fatal motorcycle accident. It was so serious that i had to return home to New Zealand as I was unable to care for myself. I had been away for just over two years. I had paid tax for my entire working life in NZ and had gone away on my “OE”. I came back to NZ thinking that as a New Zealander who had paid tax to the NZ government for many years that i would be able to avail myself of the medical system here. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case. ACC declined my case as the accident had occurred overseas, and I had been away for more than six months. Bummer for me.
    Unfortunately this wasn’t the end of it. Whilst i was slowly recovering i slipped and fell, and re broke my femur. Joy, i thought, at least this time i had the accident in NZ, and i would be able to get some decent professional health care and rehabilitation care. I was wrong. Since i had already broken my femur in the original accident, any further injury to any of the areas that i had broken (i broke over 30 bones) subsequently are deemed by ACC to be related to the original accident, and thus, I’m not covered. So when i watch the advert, which tells me to “relax, you’re covered” I don’t know whether to cry or throw the television through the wall.

    It’s great that they think it’s better to spend $5 million advertising an organization that you have no choice of whether or not it applies to you, instead of using that money to help people who are in desperate need. Without doubt the lack of ACC in my life has meant that my earning potential and quality of life has been seriously diminished. Thanks ACC, I’m so grateful that i can watch TV and have you assure me I’ll be fine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote