Just been informed that one of the more obscure List MPs, a Mr Charles Ashe, now has his own website. He has set up a video diary of his campaign to win a constituency seat. The first episode is below.
Those on Facebook can also interact with Charles through his facebook page.
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 29th, 2007 at 9:48 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
It’s weird how he dresses like a Nat, but obviously comes from a small party. From the tone of the videos, he seems to be either an NZ First or United Party supporter. He seems to work pretty hard, but maybe just doesn’t have the gravitas to make it in Parliament. He should seriously think about going back to working at the Department of Labour.
Tane: Na, that probably cost nothing to make. You could record it on an amateur digital camera, cut it yourself and whack it up for free.
You are a deeply disturbing partisan individual Tane. I know this probably won’t reach you, but consider for a moment how blindly partisan you are.
If a Labour party supporter does it then it’s free and great.
If somebody within the National party does it it cost heaps and is boring.
Fact of the matter is, you have no proof either way of production costs. I’ve had friends shoot music videos of higher quality than Key’s for $5000. There are Youtube productions of a similar look and feel to the above that has a lot more work and involvement in it. (Look at “The Guild” as one example)
You are simply thumbsucking to deflect and make an utterly meaningless partisan point. If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny.
Except it’s been shot down in flames. The Standard claims a seven person crew was used to shoot it. Since much of the footage is shot inside a moving car, since when could seven people fit in the back seat of a crown limo?
No, it hasn’t. The figures were based conservatively on a five person crew, even though we’ve demonstrated there were at least seven people involved (not including Mr Key).
We’ve also restricted editing costs to what it would take to make that 13 minutes – there may well be hours of footage. Industry experts have put it at $50,000 and to date no one else has given a more plausible figure. Interestingly, John Key’s still refusing to talk about how much it cost.
We also haven’t included potential music royalties, the MediaOne campaign on the NZ Herald website, or the cost of the heartland tour itself.
As I say, we may well be wrong – this is just an estimate. But I haven’t yet seen a more plausible figure.
It’s John Key / National Party money. If they wanted to withdraw it all in $10 bills and cut paper dolls of Helen Clark, roll them around fat Cuban cigars and smoke them it would be their choice.
Their money. They spend it as they will.
At the very least they did not steal $800,000.00 of our money – that’s some of yours Tane, some of yours Roger, some of yours IP and some of yours Hinamanu – to make a pledge card that tells us what their promises are to us if they get elected again.
Tane – how much do you spend on the Standard? Seeing as you feel that John Key has to release a costing for something he did outside of an election year it is only fair if you release a full costing (Including man hours in generating content), depreciation of the hardware and everything involved of the Standard.
No? Because it’s none of my business. It’s yours. The same as what John Key spends outside of an election year is none of your business. Just as what I spend is none of your business.
I find it funny though that you are so vocal about an individual spending their own money, when you have nothing but praise to sing about a political party stealing money from the public to pay for their own electioneering.
Pascal, I agree with you fully. What does how much it cost have to do with you? Oh and Tane, could you please name your so called “industry experts” Who do they work for, how much experience do they have in short films.
From watching his video there wasn’t a single technique on that video that couldn’t be done with a $1000 (or less…) digital video camera, and amateur editing software.
John Key would have been travelling to most of those places and making speeches whether or not he was making the video, so travelling expenses cannot be included. There were probably a few different cameramen, because it could have been a different person recording the speech shown, a different person at the marae, but they wouldn’t all have to be there at once. There may have been 7 people involved in total, but it’s not exactly a full time job to go with John Key to a marae and record a bit of video, they didn’t have to pay them thousands of dollars each just to be there.
I bet the video could be made for next to nothing assuming they already had the camera (the national party makes loads of videos) and the editing software.
shreddakj, remember the advertising costs and so forth associated with it. The video did receive at least some advertising promotion through MediaOne.
However, it is utterly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if they hired a team of students who would have been happy to do it on a lower budget for the exposure and experience or if they paid Peter Jackson to put it together.
It’s their money. Outside of the regulatory election period they can spend what they like, as long as they do not illegally spend your money or my money.
Which they did not do. That is the province of Tane’s party, the Labour party.
One problem with your costs is that you have assumed the seven people you saw in that photo were
a) involved in the shoot and being paid specifically to do so (were any of them Nat staffers there for the photo op for instance)
b) They or a significant proportion of them were involved for the rest of the shoot which took place over months apparantly.
Until you have demonstrated either, your number is a wild guess and you need to leave room for some significant discounting for every one of those and other assumptions you have made that don’t come true.
I think that the fact that people fell for it is far funnier than the actual clip (either that, or a sad indictment of the current population of parliament! At least he was honest about his lack of principles though). As far as satire goes, it was pretty weak…
Interesting debate on the cost of the Key video. I’m part-owner of a video & TV production company. (I know at least one other occasional commenter here is too, so hopefully he’ll comment as well).
If Key paid $50,000 he’s a mug who should be nowhere near the Treasury benches. And since he’s made a nice packet of money in the past I very much doubt that – whatever else he may be – he’s a mug who’d happily write out a cheque to some shysters who’re charging well over the going rate.
Unless you’ve got paid actors, royalties, special effects or equipment the production company needs to hire (cranes, special dollies etc) then about $1000 per finished minute isn’t a bad starting point to estimate from.
If, on the other hand, the Nats did pay $50k plus for that effort, then next time I’d invite them to contact me for a competitive quote
(Don’t worry DPF, I’ll expect the invoice for that advert. Shall I make it out to Mr Ashe?)
I hate to admit it but I dated him many years ago.
You know how at Uni some guys are really idealistic and as the years pass become realistic.
Well Charlie was always pragmatic. Give the people what they want or at least tell them what they want to hear.
He doesn’t have an original thought in his head, he will go far in politics.