100% idiocy

November 21st, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Motella blogs:

In 1999, New Zealand launched 100% Pure New Zealand with much fan-fare. When it comes to a tag-line in advertising, this is very powerful. If someone in the marketplace makes a claim that something is “100%” then this boldly stands out and makes you pause.The 100% Pure New Zealand tag-line was never meant to measure anything that is quantifiable or tangible. It relates to a mystical Kiwi state of mind. It’s a feeling, an attitude, a set of values or an aspiration that is unique to this country. This may seem to be somewhat wishy-washy, however if you look at the campaign in context, you will see majestic landscapes, unique people and exciting experiences that play out to the back-beat of an iconic Kiwi soundtrack. The tears will start to swell and all of a sudden the 100% Pure New Zealand tagline starts to make sense.Back in 1999 the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign resonated as a message that the public understood. The tag-line could be taken at face-value or could invite a simple thought process to uncover a deeper meaning. As time has moved on, the tag-line has accumulated some baggage. For many, the ability to think for themselves and understand the meaning behind 100% Pure New Zealand has been lost.Unfortunately there seems to be an increasing amount of people that suffer from the inability to view things in context. These uncreative, bland folk seem to have varying degrees of Asperger’s syndrome and tend to take things too literally. They just don’t get the 100% Pure New Zealand tagline and assume it’s an overreaching environmental catch-cry.Inevitably, these same mean-spirited, hapless folk believe 100% in the headline grabbing hysteria created by University environmental science lecturers, Green Party activists and Greenpeace vandals that get a kick from knocking New Zealand as a tourism destination.Has idiocy finally hijacked 100% Pure New Zealand?


Amazing that so many people try to sabotage the country’s tourism efforts. Of course 100% pure is not a literal statement on the . Only a moron or someone malicious would think it is. If you take the statement literally, then we could only use the slogan if we destroyed all the cities, closed down all the farms and oh yeah deported all the people.
Tags: ,

38 Responses to “100% idiocy”

  1. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    If you take the statement literally, then we could only use the slogan if we destroyed all the cities, closed down all the farms and oh yeah deported all the people.

    DPF,

    Congratulations on distilling the Green Party vision, mission and policy agenda into one, simple sentence!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Yep, the phrase is “100% Pure New Zealand” not “100% Pure Gaia”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Tautaioleua (304 comments) says:

    The opposition is being orchestrated by our opponents in the tourism business. We’re competing with Australia, Canada, England, etc for the Chinese & Japanese tourist dollar. These are mighty dollars for any industry.

    Our opponents will not hesitate to discredit us. We should play with the same fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,418 comments) says:

    But the 100% pure is misleading. It would be better to come up with something more meaningful rather that something that is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    Do like these NZers doing this are traitors?

    Bugger, treason is no longer a hanging offense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lance (2,655 comments) says:

    Aus has more dirty little secrets than you can poke a stick at. That would be fun exposing a few of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    >These uncreative, bland folk seem to have varying degrees of Asperger’s syndrome and tend to take things too literally.

    Could just have said: “These uncreative, bland folk tend to take things too literally.”
    Bit gratuitous to chuck AS into the debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    In the same way, Gareth Hughes jets up and down the country on a daily basis (sometimes twice in a day) railing against cars, drilling for oil and fracking. Isn’t his carbon footprint and reliance on fossil fuels (after all, 737’s don’t fly on solar or wind power) totally at odds with the gospel he is trying to preach? It’s nothing but hypocrisy; do as I say, but not as I do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    I did not hear it but apparently this pratt Mike Joy was interviewd on Talkback ZB this morning saying he did not speak to the NYTimes. Someone is telling porkies –given Joy’s track record I know where ” my money would be” on who it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. bringbackdemocracy (427 comments) says:

    Greenpiece don’t deserve charitable status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. lastmanstanding (1,293 comments) says:

    Like Al Gore preaching to all and sundry and then we find his owns a mansion that uses as much power as a small city. Like all Socialists Leftites he and they are 2 faced arseholes.

    And the morons seeking to wreck our economy should be strung up by the balls. And that includes the feminazis

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    Typical Green hypocrisy, dishonesty and stupidity. The Greens don’t care what it takes to further their misguided cause. I feel sorry for those working hard in the NZ tourism sector that the Greens are trying to destroy for political purposes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    @ tvb

    you see the slogan 100% pure under a picture of a Maori warrior hongi-ing a young lad. what is misleading in the 100% pure bit in that? Are they not 100% pure Maori?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    When the Greens policies include waste, debt, taxes, loss of property rights, loss of personal rights, and a lower standard of living for all, then there is nothing left but smear! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. trout (939 comments) says:

    No, we cannot in all conscience use that slogan. The Motella comment is apologist and the DPF comment glib. As someone that spends as much time as possible in and about rivers I am appalled at the degradation of our natural environment. Farmers, in general, do not give a stuff about polluting rivers – to them they are just another drain. Sure, you get fine words from the spokesmen, but out there in the countryside the quest to intensify farming activity and make the bucks is unrelenting. The present battle going on over Horizon’s One Plan is enlightening to say the least. Dairy farms are factories and should be treated as such. The laissez faire attitude of Nats (through David Carter) is not helpful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. lilman (958 comments) says:

    Trout you cockblock.
    New Zealand needs more people like you like we need AIDS.
    You make the statement that farmers dont give a stuff about polluting river ,wheres your proof?
    I live in rural New Zealand and can say that the farmers I know ,and have known for 50 plus years DO take their responsiblities very seriously.
    You cant discharge because Regonal Councils will hammer you with court action ,and rightly so.
    Fonterra will refuse to pick up your milk,simple no excuses,they simply stop picking your product up and then how do you pay the bills.
    Simply trout ,you are completely full of shit yourself .
    It shows you dont have any truth in your statement because it simply is wrong.

    Trout 100 percent full of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. YesWeDid (1,048 comments) says:

    The only reason we get away with the ‘100% pure’ statement is that most people accept that advertising exaggerates the truth.

    Clearly NZ is not ‘100% pure’ and if people point this out it’s silly to call them a ‘moron’ or ‘idiots’ as they are just stating the obvious truth.

    New Zealand is largely unpolluted mainly because we don’t have a large population, not because of any particular NZ affinity to being clean and green.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    “tvb (2,938) Says:
    November 21st, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    But the 100% pure is misleading. It would be better to come up with something more meaningful rather that something that is wrong.”

    “trout (798) Says:
    November 21st, 2012 at 1:03 pm
    No, we cannot in all conscience use that slogan. The Motella comment is apologist and the DPF comment glib. As someone that spends as much time as possible in and about rivers I am appalled at the degradation of our natural environment. Farmers, in general, do not give a stuff about polluting rivers – to them they are just another drain. Sure, you get fine words from the spokesmen, but out there in the countryside the quest to intensify farming activity and make the bucks is unrelenting. The present battle going on over Horizon’s One Plan is enlightening to say the least. Dairy farms are factories and should be treated as such. The laissez faire attitude of Nats (through David Carter) is not helpful.”

    Two classic endorsements of exactly what DPF stated. Did either of you actually read the post?
    What is wrong with 100% pure NZ? Factually? Morally?

    It has nothing to do with the environment. I am 100% pure NZ. I was born here, raised here, and live here. 100%. no outside influence. 100% pure. So is my dog. So is my neighbour. So is the leftovers from dinner last night. 100% pure NZ

    Absolutely nothing to do with the green movement or the environment. Cant you understand this?

    Do you know what is not 100% Pure NZ? The green movement… It goes against what most NZ’s hold true to themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Australis (101 comments) says:

    To the literal mind,100% PURE might mean that New Zealand and its occupants are:
    (1) entirely chaste
    (2) not of mixed blood
    (3) very white
    (4) innocent and well-intentioned
    (5) users of distilled water
    (6) wholly free of extraneous material

    What it cannot mean, without abuse of the language, is that all occupants at all times obey all the sundry by-laws/regulations that might relate to the physical or as-built environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    It’s a wonder this hasn’t been reported to the Advertising Standards people; or has it and I just dozed off when I read the words “Advertising Standards”?

    Since only Chernobyl is Chernobyl, “100% Pure Chernobyl” would, technically, be accurate since (as other commenters have pointed out) “pure” can mean just about anything. That’s why I thought the slogan a bit weak at the time it was introduced, but subsequently I have to admit it seems to have worked.

    But quite how people justify damaging tourism in the name of ecological purity I don’t understand. By all means campaign internally to keep NZ “clean and green” as that’s undoubtedly what tourists, lured here by the advertising, expect to find; and since referrals are the strongest marketing channel, we don’t want disappointed comments on Trip Advisor etc. Nothing to do with “green” politics, or Gaia, or Al Gore, or anything else that gets people fuming… just smart marketing.

    Conversely, wreck tourism and you lose one of the major economic incentives to maintaining ecological standards. And that’s just dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    The Greens are wrong on this.

    They are wrong on hydro dams. [No animals died out -or anywhere near it when dams were being built. And the lakes are now an attractive part of the NZ landscape as people buy postcards of them.Calanders too.They take photos.The tourism industry has even used pictures of hydrolakes in advertising.]

    They are wrong on taxes cooling the climate [if that were true we would already be living in the iceage.We once had tax rates at 75% - the US at 90%!]

    All the greens are fucked in the head – a lot in the backside too!

    It’s fast becoming the GreenSnot Party! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. emmess (1,428 comments) says:

    Can anyone name any advertising slogan that is 100% accurate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    100% Pure Chernobyl

    Nailed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    “Tourism?, it’s just national prostitution”, as the great philosopher Prince Philip once remarked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. greenjacket (465 comments) says:

    The report claimed that “the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment released a survey showing that more than half of the country’s freshwater recreational sites were unsafe to swim in. Fecal contamination of waterways, caused largely by dairy farming… was widespread.”

    Before any of you rely of the trustworthiness of the media and assorted Greenies, here is the actual report:
    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/report-cards/water-quality/2012/index.html
    As you can see, the report
    (a) doesn’t include areas such as Waikato or Auckland, so it is, at best, a very incomplete snapshot, and
    (b) makes no statements at all about dairying.
    This is a classic case of a media-greenie environmental beat up.

    The reality is that NZ waterways compared ot other countries are pretty good. Nutrient levels in New Zealand rivers are LOW by international standards. Even our most nutrient-enriched rivers have about half the average nutrient levels of rivers in Europe, North America and Asia. Streams from areas of native forest are very clean. Nutrient runoff is 5 times worse in streams from pastoral activity, so farmers need to improve their game. But a significant problem are streams/rivers that pass through urban areas have a nutrient run-off NINE times higher. So if there is to be a clean-up of waterways, the place to start is to address urban run-off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ross12 (1,425 comments) says:

    Thank you Greenjacket .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Dave Stringer (188 comments) says:

    our land is ALL, 100% of it, New Zealand. It’s not mixed with any other land. It doesn’t share borders with other land that may cause disputes over which acre belongs to who, it is, quite simply, 100% pure New Zealand. Who has a problem with that? Surely no one!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. trout (939 comments) says:

    My response to lilman is for him to take his head out of his arse and stick it over a few bridges and see what happens to the Waipa River between Toa Bridge and the confluence with the Waikato. Clear water changes to liquid fudge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Take a cheap shot at Aspergers’ Syndrome eh? What a cunt.

    I’m sorry DPF but I’m with the “bland uncreative Aspergers-suffering literal-minded idiots” on this one. If you are seriously backing this guy’s comments then you are backing doublespeak of a very Orwellian kind.

    100% is pretty unequivocal.

    100% is 100%.

    So 100% pure means 100% pure.

    There is absolutely no way that 100% means something that “resonates in a way the public understood” or has “deeper meaning” that needs to be “uncovered.”

    Example:

    You lend me $1,000. I promise to repay you in full, 100%, next week.

    Next week: I repay you $445, and offer some stumbling excuse about how that 100% I promised to repay was really just a message that resonates in a way you were meant to understand and that you need to look for the deeper meaning in all of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    It’s an advertising slogan. FFS. Would you nay-sayers be happy if the adverts said “Pure 90%” or something. Ohh the number of tourists has dropped and we can’t afford our welfare system anymore. What can we do?

    Most people in the real world know that adverts are at least exagerations. As long as the tourists are happy wih their visit, who cares what the poster in the airport said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Inky_the_Red (759 comments) says:

    My kid can’t swim in the South Canterbury rivers I swan in 30 years ago. The are now polluted.

    I would love 100% pure to be true. However it is not. How is it treason for stating the bloody obvious?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    pure   [pyoor] Show IPA
    adjective, pur·er, pur·est.
    1.
    free from anything of a different, inferior, or contaminating kind; free from extraneous matter: pure gold; pure water.
    2.
    unmodified by an admixture; simple or homogeneous.
    3.
    of unmixed descent or ancestry: a pure breed of dog.
    4.
    free from foreign or inappropriate elements: pure Attic Greek.
    5.
    clear; free from blemishes: pure skin.

    Not in one place there does it mention the environment, cleanliness, greeness or any other environmental criteria. People are projecting that. As Rex said earlier “100% Pure Cherynobyl” is no different. In fact, here’s 100% Pure Pennsylvania, an advertisement for Pennzoil, not exactly a green product aye?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    RRM, Inky et al:

    The advertising slogan is not making any claim about the particles per million of fertiliser in a river.

    If it said “New Zealand: cleanest rivers in the world” you’d have a point.

    But it’s using the term in a way that’s equivalent to someone saying “That’s 100% pure bullshit”. They’re not claiming to have had the bullshit analysed and to have irrefutable evidence that there is more bull in it than, say, Australian bullshit.

    I share your concerns about water purity, amongst other environmental issues. I still recall listening in slack-jawed disbelief when some public health spokesperson told us, well over a decade ago, that we could no longer fill our water flasks from mountain streams as it was more than likely someone had just emptied their bowels in it a few hundred metres above our fill point.

    I now live in a city where people can recall going prawn fishing for dinner in their childhoods, but which is now a brown, algae infested sludge full of jellyfish. And the morons who run this state are about to gouge a square chunk out of it (thus creating a stagnant pool) and build multi-storey buildings right on the river’s edge. Thousands of people are protesting (me included). But no one is suggesting a change of slogan from “Experience Extraordinary Western Australia” to “Experience pretty ordinary Western Australia, especially when it comes to our shit river”.

    It seems to be a peculiar trait of some NZers to want to use the world as a sort of open air confessional, trumpeting their country’s failings to anyone who’ll listen and then lamenting that the arse has dropped out the bottom of the balance of payments and there’s not enough money for welfare / wilderness preservation / endangered species rehabilitation etc etc. It’s a bit like a carbon tax – fine if everyone else agrees to do it, but foolhardy if you’re the only one with their pants round their ankles and the cold wind of geopolitical reality chilling your nether regions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. lilman (958 comments) says:

    Trout lol,your piss weak.
    Ever think it may come from other sources
    Most farmers pump from rivers on their boundary.
    Any farmer will tell you if the water is of poor quality stock wont drink it and if they wont drink it then they certainly wont milk on it.
    Farming has changed ,you dont see what was the norm 10 years ago and thats for the better.
    River police do a good job,but zealots do little to improve things,education and enforcement of fines certainly do.
    As I have spent many years in the bush and on the land I can say I have seen more pollution of streams than most,but thing are considerably better now,so calm down and try to be 100 percent positive not 100 percent negative.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hj (6,996 comments) says:

    From The Boston Globe

    Up the road in Queenstown, nature is in full flight.

    Queenstown advertises itself as “The Adventure Capital of the World,” where you can bungy jump, heli-ski, jet-boat, or sky-dive. The confines of the modest town can no longer accommodate the throng of thrill-seekers. Soaring mountains still fringe the lake, but condos are creeping along the shore, a snake of traffic clogs the road into town, and Louis Vuitton has set up shop along with Global Culture, a clothes store.

    If your idea of a holiday is a seething mass of cars and people, topped off by a cacophony of helicopters, Queenstown may be for you. Otherwise, it serves only as a warning of the perils of overdevelopment.

    http://www.boston.com/travel/articles/2004/11/07/new_zealand_at_a_crossr

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    The only person in the article linked that comments on the 100% pure thing is the article author. No quotes are taken from anyone with respect to that – it’s essentially 2 quotes from Mike Joy from Massey, neither of which contain the words “pure” or “100%”.

    You can go and read the actual NYT article as well, and see that noone is saying that the slogan should be dropped or any such thing, rather that NZ has environmental issues just like many other countries, and that the 100% pure campaign doesn’t tell the whole story. Indeed, Tourism NZ say the exact same thing.

    @greenjacket makes some good points, which I suspect Mike Joy would mostly agree with – there is a huge issue with urban run-off, particularly around sewerage discharge into rivers, where only a small proportion of the potential discharge is actively managed. While farmers need to lift their game plenty of others also need to take responsibility for the state of some of our rivers and streams, and that includes the councils that manage the treatment plants and so on. It’s not about the tourism thing (though that may be impacted if things keep going the way they are) rather about maintaining the great natural environment we have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. PBJ83 (28 comments) says:

    No-body is taking it literally. It’s clear what these “greenies” are saying: The country is being promoted as environmentally pure (and it is, let’s not split hairs here, the words 100% pure appears on screen on top of shots of our national parks; the implication is crystal clear), while at the same time the environment is being degraded. And that’s very frustrating to people who care a lot about the environment. I am one of those. And it really is kind of obscene to on the one hand trade on images of the environment, while on the other hand deregulate farming and industry and slash DOCs funding. At least be honest and say right, we’re going to harm the environment a bit more in the interests of economic growth. And look, you can do that, you can keep shitting in your nest, and for a while it might not seem so bad. But one day you’ll look back with regret. And you can’t undo these things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. PBJ83 (28 comments) says:

    “All the greens are fucked in the head – a lot in the backside too!”

    What a disgusting thing to say Harriet. Shame on you.

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