Are logos adertisements
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 am by David FarrarClare Robinson from the Massey University Institute of Communication Design looks at whether political party logos are election advertisements under the Electoral Finance Act. She concludes they are.
Conforming to the first part of the definition, a logo is a symbol that may be constituted out of words and/or graphics. It is the most condensed form of graphic image and contains many layers of meaning communicated through the use of colour, type and line.
A logo is also persuasive, thereby conforming to the second part of the definition of an election advertisement. Persuasion does not have to be a literal or loud call to action.
Claire explains further:
Like commercial logos, political party logos work by repeated exposure and association with people, events and messages that have as their fundamental purpose to attract reinforce, convert and/or mobilise voter behaviour.
The party logo encapsulates the essence of the party. When voters enter the ballot box and are confronted with the party logo on the ballot sheet, they retrieve their feelings about that party and make a choice to give that party their tick – or not, if the feelings are negative.
So what are the implications:
Once it is acknowledged that a party logo is an advertisement, the implications are immense. Every instance of that logo must be accompanied by the name and address of the promoter, and the expenses that went into its creation must be counted against a party’s expenditure limit. Think about where you might have seen party logos already this year. On stationery, cars, electorate offices, pens, backdrops at party conferences, banners.
Oh dear. Common sense again is the loser.
Related posts:
- Electoral Commission split on logos
- New party logos
- Statement about the Electoral Finance Act
- Cullen ruled election advertisement for National
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:56 am
Giving and giving and giving and giving……………
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 am
The final nail in its rotten coffin – the once proud flagship of Labour turns out to be a leaky dighy…. surely the worst fate that can accompany any political party is when it proves itself to be a mere laughing stock?
WOuld you rather be accused of being a ‘rich prick’ or a ‘stupid’ one? I think we now know which cap fits where..
If I may mix my imagery.
EFA used to = ‘rort’. Now it = ‘chortle’
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 7:21 am
You’d think that outcome would lead to an emergency amendment.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 7:41 am
I wonder if Dunne would vote in favour?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Makes sense to me. I swear, if I won the lotto [memo to self: buy lotto ticket] I’d finance cases against all and sundry- including Tui- for any vaguely political statement.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 am
So does that mean that electoral ballots are also “election advertisements” then? Maybe this is a cunning scheme to rule elections illegal.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
What does it say about a loser government that pushes through unworkable legislation for survival purposes only to have it all blow up in their silly faces. Talk about egg heads, only in New Zealand, the country which is out of step. Go girls go.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:14 am
Dunne would do whatever is best for Dunne. He’s just Winnie on sensibility enhancement pills.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:23 am
Must be something in those “sensibility enhancement pills” that makes their hair grow like sly fox and possum fur?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Robinson: “What is inconvenient is the ramification. Once it is acknowledged that party logos are election advertisements, the Electoral Finance Act will be rendered absolutely, unequivocally dead in the water”
Over reach.
An “electoral advertisement” does not a candidate or party advertisement make.
In a parliamentary context, most of what MP’s do will be electoral advertisements (objectively politically persuasive) and will therefore require authorisation statements.
The real question is whether it’s within an MP’s capacity to deploy a logo. For this one must find a parliamentary purpose and exclude the legally defined “electioneering” (explicitly seeing the election of someone, asking for votes, money or party membership)
Party logos with some rules have been used by MP’s since the late 1990’s, in part I suspect in recognition of the importance of parties in MMP and in part because it makes the communication more easily identifiable with that party. It would be odd to find them outside the capacity of an MP to deploy now.
Remember the test as to whether something is or is not a candidate or party activity or whether it’s within the capacity of the MP isn’t the political persuasiveness of the thing – that is already conceded at the “election advertisement” stage.
Regarding the use of logos generally, of course they are in most circumstances likely to be an election advertisement; the only exceptions are likely to be internal party communications and perhaps communications with members. It would be odd that billboards containing just a party logo would not be a party advertisement and therefore a party election expense.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
In my opinion logos do not themselves “encourage or persuade”. They can be part of a pattern of communication that results in persuasion or encouragement, but I think a court would be persuaded that a line is necessary to distinguish between incidental identification of who is making a statement, and the statement.
Vote:I think the courts would recoil from the argument that my going to the supermarket, or walking to work, is electoral advertising, simply because ensuring familiarity, and reinforcing the feeling that a candidate is known are elements of a persuasive plan.
This is not to say that prominent repetition of a logo could not be electoral advertising. It probably will be but, for example, a lapel badge on a canvasser for identification, is not necessarily advertising.
Because of the uncertainty it remains prudent to plaster authorisations over everything, however meaningless it is.
There are many more stupid questions around the requirment for authorisation. How does the agent authorise the pitch that is made in every call by a candidate’s door to door canvassers? What about the discussions that ensue in any telephone canvassing that respects the voters enough to actually converse, instead of simply hitting them with a pap script.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Stephen – of course, you aren’t a form of words or graphics.
Also – the pitch made by door-to-door canvassers, or on a telephone call, may be an election advertisement, but it probably does not fall within the definition of “publish”, so none of the regulation in the EFA will actually apply.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
I’m with Graeme on this.
And as long as the ballot paper includes the party’s logo, any publication of the logo remains a call to select that row on the ballot, so it is advertising, and in an election year there’s a big Gotttchaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
So sad, soon everyone will run out of money and we’ll ber able to make our decisions based purely on the broadcast advertising!
One question. If a party invites the media to an event, and the media susequently publish words and/or images from that event, is the time or space used to broadcast said images or words to count, at some nominal value, against the party’s expenditure? ANd if so, is a press release saying so & so will talk to the zxc electorate in a town hall meeting on ddmmmyy an invitation?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
“This is not to say that prominent repetition of a logo could not be electoral advertising. It probably will be but, for example, a lapel badge on a canvasser for identification, is not necessarily advertising.”
If I saw anybody wearing a political party’s logo on a badge or a tee-shirt or whatever I would immediately assume that the person wearing the logo is trying to “encourage or persuade” me to vote for that party. Simple.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
What a sad, sad mess. I find it incredibly hard that people actually supported a bill so poor that it would spark this kind of debate. It’s not that it’s a bad debate here; it’s just that it’s one that should never have happened. Are logos advertisements? Bleh.
My common sense would say “no”, but I guess my sense is not that common after all. Or maybe it is, and this law is just… No, it couldn’t be! It couldn’t be that this is a nonsense law, could it?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
We are having all this nonsence because Helen Clark did not want to see any more red-blue billboards on her way to and from the airport in Auckland. But it is Labour that needs the publicity. National does not and with an extremely hostile press towards the Act the Labour Party have lost big time.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
So the red boxes with logos that Labour MPs have on their desks in the House are electoral advertising then? Nice.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Having been a candidate at the hustings and done door knocking etc. my view is that a party logo is perceived as promotion both by the users and receivers. I am sure Stephen Franks is right, there is a distinction to be made in use; it can be a mere label, but if used in a situation to establish party identity, particularly accompanied by activity or other presentations, it would be being used to promote, even if only making aware of the presence of the party, which in itself is established for the purpose of gaining votes. Unless promotion of a party is not for the purpose of it or its candidates seeking votes it would be an encouragement at least to vote accordingly. Another ‘Yeah Right”.
Oh what a tangled web we weave
Vote:When we weave legislation to deceive.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
What about those reusable bags from the supermarket that say “Go Green”?
Vote:That’s a Green Party slogan, surely the production costs should come off their allocation
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
If someone has previously seen an advertisment suggesting that one vote for a party, then later seeing a logo (even without any specific instruction to vote for it) will trigger recall to the previous advertisment, hence reinforcing the message. Furthermore a central plank to advertising strategy is brand awareness, attainable through the repeated viewing of a logo. I would thus suggest that displaying logos, even without a message, constitutes advertising.
I would also be interested if one could stretch this beyond logos – is displaying party colours in its self an advertisment, and if so does anyone who wears a black suit need to stick a label on it saying “authorised by winston first”.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
If the Big Yellow M of McDonalds is not persuasive advertising then I don’t know what it.
Vote:It is intended to persuade you to turn into their driveway.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
How about the active presence of a politician or would be politician, are they not, themselves, living electoral advertisements? Now for authorisation…
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Those who would argue a logo is not advertising would astound the marketers at any of the worlds prestigious brands.
I mean would the Marketing Directors of McDonalds Coca Cola Porsche Louis Vitton et al not claim their logos were advertising their brand.
If a logo is not advertising the brand what point is the logo and why then do businesses spend billion of dollars each year
I worked for some years with an international company to get to the point where we could take the name of the company off the product and just have the logo signifying our logo was so strong in the customers mind that they associated it with the company
Think logo = brand =company.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
It’s strting to sound Swiftian isn’t it?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
GOOD FOR US PRINTERS.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
While people try to decide if logos are adertisements [sic] wait for the next challenge presented by the EFA – the gift that goes on giving – how will the up-coming film [actually video] of THE HOLLOW MEN count?
Vote:The very title is, by established general connotation, now anti-National and pro-Labour. Will film ads and promotions in the papers or on TV screens need to carry a verification of a third party interest and has the production company registered as such – not as far as I can see – and will everything down to cinema tickets or tv guides need the appropriate EFA names and addresses.
The words, HOLLOW MEN, in graphic form, are in the same category as ‘Labour-led Government’ and the prospect of this up-coming production, supposedly entertainment, may become more entertaining itself, presenting a whole new field for enjoyment by those who are gratified at seeing the EFA screw-up.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
that surely would be ironic wouldn’t it? If the HM – as supposed rationale for the EFA in the first place, now cannot be discussed, unless its terms of reference are in compliance with the EFA…. SO much for creating a level playing field. What is next? political satire?, Blogging? casual conversations in coffee bars?
Will our shildren be encouraged to shop us to the police for thought crime?
Sorry worng thread….
not
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
If logos are an advertisement and advertisements are banned on election day, does this mean the ballot paper will be an illegal advertisement?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Only if they put the logos on the ballot papers?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
David Farrar said:
”
“If logos are an advertisement and advertisements are banned on election day, does this mean the ballot paper will be an illegal advertisement?
Since every party would have their logos on the ballot paper, the maths says they all cancel out.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 6:20 am
” Since every party would have their logos on the ballot paper, the maths says they all cancel out. ”
No, they don’t cancel out – it’s not a maths problem – it is still a matter of who has the more effective logo, and the only way to cancel them out is to have all party names in a plain typeface, which is not a typeface usually contained in any of the party logos.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Will we see a ‘battle of the logos’ where suddenly they fight to have the biggest and most prominant eye-candy available for ballot day. WIll it be like those natty little brief-cases that Labour have on the tele?
Wouldn’t it be a wheeze to have a spoof one made with ‘Liarbour’ writtenon it?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Lee C – party logos cannot be displayed on election day (with a few minor exceptions – like the rosettes of party-appointed scrutineers). Trevor Mallard’s car will certainly have to be in his garage.
Vote: