Labour MPs calls for ban on gun advertising

October 31st, 2015 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar


Stuff reports:

Labour MP Chris Hipkins is calling for gun advertising to be regulated in similar ways to tobacco after a spate of shootings in New Zealand.

The member for Rimutaka has labelled a Gun City billboard in the Lower Hutt suburb of Taita “disgusting” and says New Zealand does not need an “American-style gun culture”.

We don’t have one. Far from it.

But does that mean a legal product can’t be advertised? Farmers need guns for pest control. Hunting isn’t my thing, but it is for tens of thousands of NZers.

And would you also ban paintball adverts, which also featured on the billboard?

He was not anti-gun or anti-gun owners, he said.

“I’ve visited the local rifle range and enjoy target shooting as much as anyone else. But just as we regulate the advertising of pharmaceuticals, tobacco and other things that can do significant harm, so too should we regulate the advertising of firearms.”¬†

They are regulated. They must comply with NZ law, and also the Advertising Standards Authority codes.

Hipkins posted on his Facebook page asking if gun adverts should be banned? He also asked other Facebook users what they thought.

Banning advertising of things we disapprove of is not a good thing.

Sunday ad ban should go

August 28th, 2015 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The Government is considering scrapping the Sunday morning and public holiday bans on television and radio advertising.

Broadcasting Minister Amy Adams said she wanted to make the rules governing traditional and new media more consistent.

The Government is also canvassing changes to election programming rules and the way internet television programmes are classified.

Television stations are prevented by the Broadcasting Act from carrying advertisements between 6am and noon on Sunday, and on Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and Anzac Day morning, while online media are not.

The public holiday advertising bans also apply to radio stations.

The broadcasting ad restrictions should go. They once may have made sense when broadcasting was so dominant, but today they are farcical.

Many are like me and don’t watch live TV anyway. I record stuff on My Sky and watch delayed, ignoring ads anyway.

Also people are watching torrents, DVDs, Netflix, You Tube etc.

Broadcasting is going to struggle to survive anyway, without additional restrictions such as no advertising on Sunday mornings.

Plus why Sundays? The prohibition is probably originally religious, but in a secular society, we should not have days when the state prohibits certain activity.

Green Party broadcasting spokesman Gareth Hughes opposed lifting the ad bans, “unless we have a proper commercial-free public broadcasting option”.

You do – Radio NZ and Maori TV.

“It is important there is a little bit of peace and quiet in our hectic modern world,” he said. ¬†

I’d rather not have MPs decide if I need to be sheltered from advertisements on TV on a Sunday.

But Adams said the consideration being given to lifting the ad-ban had nothing to do with supporting the state-owned broadcaster.

“It is increasingly indefensible to distinguish whether something is on TV, radio or the internet; whether it’s tax treatment, advertising or election programming, I am saying it is time we had a consistent approach,” she said.


$5 million to tell us kids see lots of adverts

November 9th, 2013 at 11:31 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

New Zealand children will wear cameras in a world-first study to monitor the daily advertising bombardment of junk food and other unhealthy products.

More than 200 schoolchildren will be equipped with tiny video cameras that they will carry for a year.

The study follows a pilot survey that revealed an assault of promotions on billboards, shelters, dairies and the back of buses.

Researchers hope the results will be used to help formulate health policy in a country where the obesity rate among children aged between 5 and 11 jumped from 8 to 11 per cent in just six years.

With 99.9% confidence I can predict the proposed policy will be to ban advertising of foods that our health overlords deem bad for us.

Part of a $5 million collaborative programme between Otago University and Victoria University researchers, the study will produce millions of images to be analysed using a computer algorithm.

$5 million to produce shock horror headlines that kids see 27,526 advertisements a year for food, and the inevitable conclusion than advertising of non-approved foods must be banned.

The impact of the Greens proposed ban on food advertising

June 21st, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

I blogged previously on the Green party policy to ban all television advertising of food, unless they deem that food to be part of a balanced nutritious diet.

A reader has sent me a list of the top 50 TV advertisers in 2012. They include the companies below. It is a fair bet that if the Greens get to implement this policy in Government that it won’t just be Mediaworks in receivership, but also TVNZ. It would destroy free to air broadcasting as it is funded by advertising. It would be good for Sky TV though!

The top 50 TV advertisers include:

  • Foodstuffs (1)
  • Progressive (2)
  • McDonalds (11)
  • Restaurant Brands (21)
  • Antares Restaurant Group (23)
  • Coke (28)
  • Sanitarium (38)
  • Cadbury (39)
  • DB (44)
  • Lion Nathan (45)
  • Fonterra (46)
  • Subway (49)

How many of them will meet the Green Party litmus test to allow them to advertise on TV?

Ridiculous proposed restrictions by Auckland Transport

February 4th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Mathew Dearnaley at NZ Herald reports:

Politicians are upset that an Auckland Transport bylaw may ban mobile election hoardings and put restrictions on others.

The council transport organisation, which is trying to standardise bylaws in time for this year’s local elections, says it does not believe vehicles used solely for political advertising should be allowed on city roads or in carparks.

But Labour’s transport spokesman, Phil Twyford, suggested yesterday that the organisation should concentrate on making its trains run on time. And Act’s John Boscawen said his party would oppose any such restriction “on people’s freedom of speech and to express, and to generate interest in the political process”.

Auckland Transport says in a position paper seeking public submissions by February 28 that its bylaws should support an objective of making roads effective for carrying people and goods.

It proposes that election signs be allowed on vehicles used for ordinary travel but not for the sole purpose of advertising, such as when towing trailer-mounted hoardings.

This is pathetic and ridiculous  Auckland has almost 1.4 million people living in it, and around 1.1 million vehicles. And Auckland Transport are trying to restrict cars used for political advertising, which would probably reduce the number of cars at any one time by oh around six or so.

As Phil Twyford says, they should focus on making the trains run on time, and not becoming political speech commissars.

National’s Advertising Campaign

March 26th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The expense return from National tells us quite a bit about what mediums they chose to advertise in, which is interesting to analyse. ¬†I’ve summarised and compiled them in descending order.

Item  Cost
Billboards  $ 422,550
Creative Contractors  $ 335,650
Final fortnight newspaper ads  $ 322,345
TV/Radio Ads production  $ 194,282
Pamphlets  $ 187,900
Direct Mail  $ 157,013
Internet Ads  $ 113,565
Campaign Song  $   79,912
Marchandise  $   51,231
Hoardings  $   43,888
North Shore buses  $   29,037
Staff  $   26,697
Auto phone-calling  $   26,339
Ethnic Newspapers  $   20,255
Woman’s Day ¬†$¬†¬† 14,516
Campaign Bus  $   10,697
Misc  $     6,253
Events  $     5,899
Website/Social Media  $     4,513

So billboards were the largest expense item, which is no surprise as they have been a hallmark of the 2005 and 2008 campaigns also. The contractors were next largest item followed by the final fortnight newspaper ads in all metro and provincial daily newspapers.

The taxpayer may pay for the airing of the TV and radio ads, but National paid almost $200,000 to produce them.  Pamphlets and Direct Mail were then next largest costs.

A fairly significant proportion of the budget was spent on Internet advertising – over $110,000. And the bastards didn’t spend a single cent on advertising on Kiwiblog ūüôĀ

Someone did well out of the campaign song at almost $80,000.

Over $25,000 spent on auto phone calls. Personally I hate them and think they piss people off and cause them to not vote for you. But having said that it would be interesting if National measured turnout rate amongst those who got and did not get an auto phone call to see if they had an impact.

When you look at what you get for $2 million, it isn’t a lot. I don’t think anyone can claim our spending limits are too high, when they are less than $1/voter. The majority went on four newspaper ads, 97 billboards, two pamphlets of which one was direct mailed, and some Internet advertising. This is hardly drowning the voters in advertising.

I’ll be doing a¬†similar¬†analysis for other significant parties.

Belly advertising

August 24th, 2011 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

A few will have seen this story in Stuff:

Prime Minister John Key’s signing of Emily Beaumont’s bulging belly in Nelson yesterday was symbolic on a day it was announced the country is now in a “man drought”.

Mr Key made a flying visit to Tahunanui Beach to help launch the election campaign of his sixth-ranked Cabinet minister, Nelson MP Nick Smith.

In response to yesterday’s story in the Sunday Star Times, which said there were now 50,000 “excess” 25- to 49-year-old females living in New Zealand , Mr Key assured that “we’re doing everything we can to keep people in New Zealand and we’ll now have a specific focus on men”.

Along with his signature on Ms Beaumont’s belly, Mr Key left what he termed a marketing message.

“If it’s a boy, John’s a good name,” Mr Key wrote on the most radical thing he had ever signed.

Ms Beaumont, of Motueka, who was “due to give birth any minute”, said she would probably name her baby John if it was a boy.

Now what interested me was that the belly already had a couple of marks on it. I got a copy of the higher res version and it is below.

The other marks are actually advertisements. One even has a URL!

I wonder if this method of advertising will catch on!

Labour’s taxpayer funded campaign

July 20th, 2011 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Readers will have probably seen Labour’s advertisements for their campaign website on different online media. The actual advertisements are taxpayer funded and authorised by Chief Whip Rick Barker.

The site they take you to is a party funded site authorised by Chris Flatt. Both the advertisements and the site are clearly election advertisements.

The advertisements are legal under parliamentary rules, but as usual with Labour they push the rules to the absolute boundary. They have combined parliamentary and party ads and sites so they have the same look, slogans and feel. It is as close as you can come to have the taxpayer actually fund advertisements saying “Vote for Labour”. They’re doing it in an slightly indirect way.

All parties fund material from their parliamentary budget which is “political”. You can’t easily draw a line between political and parliamentary. But this current campaign is around 1% parliamentary and 99% political campaigning. As I said before Labour have a long history of pushing the rules to their limit, or as they did in 2005 beyond the limit.

I look forward to 26 August when the taxpayer funding tap gets turned off for parliamentary parties’ advertisements.


January 6th, 2010 at 9:27 am by David Farrar

The ODT reports:

Speight’s, a long-time sponsor of the Otago University Students Association Orientation Week, will no longer be associated with the annual event on campus, following a move by the University of Otago to ban alcohol advertising and sponsorship.

This is heresy. O Week without the Speights posters will not be the same. People will still drink just as much Speights I predict.

The headline band this year is United States-based Health, described as a “fluid, spiky maelstrom of blood and neon, mirrorball and icepick”, which “mashes together disco and punk into a noisy, spastic tribal inhalation of sound”.

See you need to be under the influence of Speights to be able to cope with that music!

Advertising on Kiwiblog

August 25th, 2007 at 4:12 pm by David Farrar

Kiwiblog’s advertising is handled by Digital Ads who do advertising also for Geekzone, Whale Oil and Throng. You can book advertising through them for individual sites, or for package which covers all four widely read sites.

If you would like to advertise on Kiwiblog, please contact Regan at Digital Ad to discuss availability and rates.