[OT] whynzlive.com

[James McGlinn]

Off-topic, but maybe you guys will allow me one OT post every so often?  All of the sites I'm about to mention are written in PHP :)

Many of you will be aware that back in 2006, seven months after Eventfinder launched, the public sector website NZLive.com started up to compete with us.

Yesterday we launched a site at http://whynzlive.com to protest the NZ Government's continued spending on duplicating Eventfinder's services and features.

We delivered yet another proposal for co-operation to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage in March, but have had no response.

Instead, the Ministry has issued an RFP to develop features that are obviously copied from Eventfinder.

Would you please pass on this email to raise awareness of the Ministry's actions, and follow us on Twitter to show your support?

http://twitter.com/whynzlive

Kind regards,
James McGlinn
__________________________________
CTO
Eventfinder Limited
Suite 106, Heards Building
2 Ruskin Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052
Phone: +649 365 2342
Mobile: +6421 633 234

james....@eventfinder.co.nz  |  www.eventfinder.co.nz

[Paul Bennett]

Hi James,

Interesting reading.

According to your site you get at least 3 x the page impressions per month and are presumably running a profitable business out of the events sector.

Should *no* other event site be allowed to exist in NZ? I'm curious as to what your motivation for this movement is.
What about these sites:
http://www.newzealand.com/travel/sights-activities/events-calendar/new-zealand-events-calendar-home.cfm
http://www.aatravel.co.nz/what-to-see-newzealand/events.php
http://www.fourcorners.co.nz/new-zealand/events/

Can we get some insight as to why you're on such a rampage against NZLive?

> features that are obviously copied from Eventfinder.

Um, sorry to be pedantic, but are you saying Eventfinder *invented* user profiles, RSS, editorial content, top 5 views, date pickers etc. Lots of sites have these features and I don't think it's a stretch to imagine a few sites at the moment wanting to incorporate a few more user participation and usability features.

My 2c,
Paul

[Aaron Cooper]

Wow. This is the first I've heard of it, James.

 

I've got more reading to do to get both sides of the story, but on the surface of it, this story really blows.

 

I'm all for competition, but government funded service competition is a bit rough. Depends on their model however - if it's making money then tax payers may have a long term return in it. If it has no income model, it's questionable.

 

A

[James McGlinn]

Hi Paul,

> Should *no* other event site be allowed to exist in NZ? I'm curious
> as to what your motivation for this movement is.

That's definitely not what we're saying at all; you've listed three
commercial websites we're happily competing with.

Having the government with its limitless public purse start up in
competition, attempt to duplicate your business model, and refuse to
co-operate despite a mandate to share though is quite different.

[James McGlinn]

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for your support.

Depends on their model however - if it's making money then tax payers may have a long term return in it. If it has no income model, it's questionable.

NZLive don't have an income model.

To waste the sheer volume of taxpayer funds that they have is one thing, but to also ramp up efforts to compete against successful NZ businesses in a recession crosses a line that we think is unfair.

[Sid Bachtiar]

Hi James,

I think the fact that you have interest in Event Finder would make it
challenging for this "campaign".

Also, the black twitter theme is too much like trying to imitate the
[successful] "black out" related to section 92A.

Just my 2c.

Regards,

Sid

--
Blue Horn Ltd - System Development
http://bluehorn.co.nz

[James McGlinn]

Hi Sid,

> I think the fact that you have interest in Event Finder would make
> it challenging for this "campaign".

Thanks for your feedback. On March 26th a Select Committee report
identified concern at NZLive duplicating other sites and called for
further evaluation of their effectiveness. Instead of talking,
they're going to spend more money - and their RFP duplicates
Eventfinder's features.

If we can shed light on the Ministry's actions and spark discussion
(like this) at least people can make informed decisions.

[Keri Henare]

They've never hidden the fact that Eventfinder is behind whynzlive and
as James has said, they're fine competing against other companies,
just not against the government.

I would be happy for the Government to give a grant to someone trying
to do something along the lines of nzlive, but them doing it
themselves is a different story.

How would you feel if the Government started a company that competed
with you, was funded by your taxes and was loosing money at a great
rate.
BTW, that last line is a thinking piece for everyone and not directed
straight at you Sid :)

---------------------------------------------------
Keri Henare

[e] ke...@henare.co.nz
[m] 021 874 552
[w] www.kerihenare.com

[Paul Bennett]

That's definitely not what we're saying at all; you've listed three
commercial websites we're happily competing with.

Incorrect - Newzealand.com is run by Tourism New Zealand, which is a crown entity:
http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/tourism_info/about-us/corporate-overview/corporate-overview_home.cfm

Newzealand.com is not a commercial enterprise - it's aimed at increasing travel to new zealand to benefit the economy as a whole with no direct benefit to Tourism New Zealand itself

Having the government with its limitless public purse start up in
competition, attempt to duplicate your business model, and refuse to
co-operate despite a mandate to share though is quite different.

The government and it's *cough* 'limitless coffers offers a whole range of information, aggregating much of it from disparate sources:
http://newzealand.govt.nz/

It also has a vested interest in promoting NZ culture, heritage, arts and tourism. I'd be more worried if the govt was doing nothing to promote these things.

I don't mean to come across as rude - you've built Eventfinder and are running a successful business from it - for that you get my respect.
However, this is clearly an emotive subject with opposing views and your commercial interest makes you far from impartial I'm afraid.

Regards,
Paul

 

[Paul Bennett]

Hi Keri,

> I would be happy for the Government to give a grant to someone trying
> to do something along the lines of nzlive, but them doing it
> themselves is a different story.

Why? It's not a profit-making venture. It's providing public NZ events info to people.
This is classic kiwi knee-jerk government bashing.

Let's shut down this one too > http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/
It advertises events and even charges money for entry for some of them!

> How would you feel if the Government started a company that competed
> with you, was funded by your taxes and was loosing money at a great
> rate.

NZLive is not a company, it's a website. One of many government websites aimed at providing information and services.
On that note, all government services and departments "loos" (sic) money (or rather use the budget alloted to them), because they are taxpayer funded and hence have no commercial income.

If NZLive sold tickets and profited, this argument would have more credence, but I'm sorry, it just doesn't.


Paul

[James McGlinn]

Hi Paul,

Sorry, that will teach me to read more thoroughly before hitting reply.

http://www.newzealand.com/travel/sights-activities/events-calendar/new-zealand-events-calendar-home.cfm
http://www.aatravel.co.nz/what-to-see-newzealand/events.php
http://www.fourcorners.co..nz/new-zealand/events/

AA Travel used to run their own events calendar at considerable expense (it's not as easy as it looks!).  They now take a feed from Eventfinder (see the logo on the link you posted above).

We were in advanced talks with Tourism NZ to provide the same to them back in 2006.  See article by Reuben Schwarz from September 11, 2006 (http://www.firstsearch.co.nz/not-the-brightest.html):

Mr Turner says Eventfinder was negotiating a deal to supply event information to Tourism New Zealand's website but that this fell apart the day after he met with the Culture and Heritage Ministry last month. 

Tourism New Zealand spokeswoman Cas Carter says the agency had known of the ministry's project since the beginning, and backed out simply because it needed more time to choose a supplier

I was involved in the meetings with Tourism NZ, they were extremely excited at the prospect of using a feed from Eventfinder and reducing the workload on their content team.  Then they were told by the Ministry they had to take a feed from NZLive instead, which they still haven't done.

Right now NewZealand.com has 150 events listed on their calendar.  Eventfinder has 1,797 which would hugely improve the economy as a whole, as you mention.  We've offered to give them a full events feed (as we do with NZ Herald, Yahoo!Xtra, Stuff, MSN and AA) at no charge, but the Ministry refuses.

Yes - I'm far from impartial, but I don't think we're being unreasonable.

[Grant Paton-Simpson]

Hi James,

Exactly - it's the limitless pockets that make it impossible to compete
_fairly_ with. And as a taxpayer, you have to wonder if there are more
important things to spend the money on.

BTW has anyone got a list of the most expensive taxpayer-funded
websites? Wasn't there a thread recently about a youth site which cost
$3.9 M?


All the best, Grant

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Aaron Cooper]

The culture argument is a pretty important one, although the bulk of the site is indeed event listings.

 

I guess the argument here is that the GOVT is providing taxpayers and tourists with a public service, with public funds. Who's to say Eventfinder and other similar commercial ventures will be always around to provide such a service?

 

But that statement is a bit of a catch-22 when the presence of nzlive.com contributes to the possibility of commercial alternatives not being around anymore.

[Aaron Cooper]

Grant:

http://www.mission-on.co.nz/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10563586

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Paton-Simpson" <gr...@p-s.co.nz>
To: <nzp...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:19 AM
Subject: [phpug] Re: [OT] whynzlive.com


>

[Kent Parker]

Yours is a better site, James, what more do you need?

Better to fight it out on the bandwaves rather than politics otherwise
you'll end up like the Americas Cup. You're up against Judith Tizard
by the looks (see nzlive/blogs). If you are good at websites, just
stick to that and forget the politics. You'll lose badly and go down
hurting. Looks like you've already let it get to you though. It will
damage your reputation and you'll look like a whinger, oops, maybe too
late, dunno. You could get google admin to delete this thread :)

Good luck.

On Apr 29, 11:01 am, Paul Bennett <family.benn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's definitely not what we're saying at all; you've listed three
> > commercial websites we're happily competing with.
>
> Incorrect - Newzealand.com is run by Tourism New Zealand, which is a crown

> entity:http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/tourism_info/about-us/corporate-over...

[James McGlinn]

Hi Aaron,

The culture argument is a pretty important one, although the bulk of the site is indeed event listings.

Agreed.  So far NZLive have an events calendar and a funding guide, although from the Ministry's own documentation the funding guide comes from a separate database and may be split off into a separate entity.

Originally the scope of the project was to provide information on cultural events - it specifically wouldn't include grassroots events, international rock concerts, rugby games, etc.  Obviously that has changed :)

As Russell Brown said three years ago:  "it's unclear how a government website promotes local culture by running listings for forthcoming tours by INXS and former Sha Na Na singer Bowzer."

Kind regards,
James McGlinn
__________________________________
CTO
Eventfinder Limited
Suite 106, Heards Building
2 Ruskin Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052
Phone: +649 365 2342
Mobile: +6421 633 234

james....@eventfinder.co.nz  |  www.eventfinder.co.nz

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug 
To post, send email to nzp...@googlegroups.com 
To unsubscribe, send email to 
nzphpug+u...@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Paul Bennett]

But that statement is a bit of a catch-22 when the presence of nzlive.com contributes to the possibility of commercial alternatives not being around anymore.

We get into some pretty grey areas there. One of the top searches on newzwealand.govt.nz is 'jobs' which returns this:
http://www.jobs.govt.nz/

Does this "compete" with seek, trademe jobs etc?

One could argue that paid event listings decrease the amount of public events and culture info likely to be available and so the govt has an interest despite what commercial offerings exist to do what it can to promote them.

Again, they could build a service / services based around receiving feed info from eventfinder and then find your company (which I'm sure it won't) goes bankrupt, changes markets, closes down or starts charging exhorbitant rates for fees as they have a stranglehold on the market. Where would that leave them?

[James McGlinn]

Hi Kent,

> Yours is a better site, James, what more do you need?

Thanks for your feedback. What we're looking for is awareness.

We have an administration that talks about reducing wasted government
spending and avoiding duplication of private sector efforts on one
hand, but continues to fund exactly that with NZLive on the other. It
seems hypocritical to us, and we hope others will agree.

[Hamish Campbell]

Paul, it is pretty obvious that NZLive competes with EventFinder. Just
because it doesn't have an income and is "not a company" does not mean
it has a mutually exclusive audience.

The issue is not whether the government can do it, or even whether New
Zealand needs a cultural events calendar. The issue is that a
considerably more cost effective, New Zealand made (a de-facto
standard, perhaps) commercial option existed. Buy NZ-Made anyone?

Perhaps the government should build, from scratch, an online auction
website to facilitate the trade of goods between interested commercial
parties....

On Apr 29, 11:12 am, Paul Bennett <family.benn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Keri,
>
> > I would be happy for the Government to give a grant to someone trying
> > to do something along the lines of nzlive, but them doing it
> > themselves is a different story.
>
> Why? It's not a profit-making venture. It's providing public NZ events info
> to people.
> This is classic kiwi knee-jerk government bashing.
>
> Let's shut down this one too >http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/
> It advertises events and even charges money for entry for some of them!
>
> > How would you feel if the Government started a company that competed
> > with you, was funded by your taxes and was loosing money at a great
> > rate.
>

> NZLive is not a company, it's a *website*. One of *many *government websites

[Hamish Campbell]

> We get into some pretty grey areas there. One of the top searches on
> newzwealand.govt.nz is 'jobs' which returns this:http://www.jobs.govt.nz/
>
> Does this "compete" with seek, trademe jobs etc?

http://jobs.govt.nz only lists their (government) jobs. They also post
the listings to commercial sites.

[Kent Parker]

Yes but, James, your commercial clients may be put off by your highly
public efforts to create awareness and in the process you are also
promoting nzlive. From the few posts you have made here and the fact
that you have made them here indicate that you are a political novice,
that would make even Don Brash look like a pro, and that you are
possibly wasting your sweat. There are soooo many factors tied up in
the existence of nzlive that give it justification to exist and your
argument is completely bereft of any legal backing. Do recall
recently (since the global meltdown) a NZ clothing firm that laid off
most of its staff after a govt agency transferred their account from
them to a Chinese company? What do you expect to achieve? The sudden
termination of a 2 million dollar Govt enterprise. No way. 'Aint
gonna happen.

On Apr 29, 11:38 am, James McGlinn <james.mcgl...@eventfinder.co.nz>
wrote:

> james.mcgl...@eventfinder.co.nz  |  www.eventfinder.co.nz

[Grant Paton-Simpson]

Hi Kent,

Isn't it possible that commercial clients might sympathise with a
complaint about unfair competition? You could be right, but at the very
least the point is not self-evident.

And it is not clear on what basis you say James is being a "political
novice". Perhaps he has a good chance of success with the new
administration. They are going to have to make drastic cuts in some
public expenditure and NZLive gives some hints about some soft targets.
Will it happen? We'll have to wait and see but it is certainly not
obvious which way things will go.


All the best, Grant

[Mark Baldwin]

Heya,

Sorry Kent but your comparing apples to oranges.

The contract to supply clothing was going to happen regardless of the
supplier, a tangible product was needed for soldiers to wear. The decision
to chose the supplier was based purely on the lowest bidder like all
military contracts are (right down to Guns and ammunition ... Hence the low
accuracy of most milspec weapons).

Nzlive is replicating an already existing service ... And at a considerable
cost to the tax payer. The question here is does that money need to be spent
when a supplier can offer the service for free.

Cheers M.B.

[Kent Parker]

Yes, I'm sure that sympathy is what James is looking for. Regarding
the 'novice' comment. This is a php user group and his issue is 100%
political. If James wants progress with this issue then there are
channels to follow through with, even and including approaching nzlive
for a John Key endorsed private/public partnership. But it appears
that James has already fenced himself off in a corner on this, has no
clear directives of what he wants to achieve (apart from sympathy) and
my 2 c is that this is not a good way of going about it. Sure, I may
be wrong, and the likes of Twitter may become the nu-way of achieving
political success, so who knows...

[Mark Rickerby]

I don't think the idea of a cultural portal is a bad one, but I have
never felt NZLive was a good realization of this idea. However I
remain unconvinced with the arguments about wasting taxpayers money
because the vast majority of 'waste' goes directly into Wellington's
local economy anyway (it's easy to understand why others feel
differently), but I do agree in the case that the money has clearly
been squandered. I'm not sure how clear it is in this case, the only
empirical evidence seems to be the graph of traffic stats.

What nobody has raised is that this outcome is might be due in no
small part to the private sector contractors who made the site lacking
the complete vision (or perhaps the $$ they were demanding) to produce
something that lived up to the concept and promise of a cultural
portal, and instead has become a basic events guide site.

Most of the issues being expressed about what NZLive should or should
not be doing are not just a case of government management
(mismanagement if you insist), but are emergent from the relationship
between the government and private sector. To a large extent,
government departments rely on the good judgment of their business and
design partners to guide them.

When agencies enter into these relationships, there is not necessarily
a clear pathway from the high level rhetoric of ministers, to the
actual administration of funding and management of projects. That's
just a simple fact of any hierarchical organization.

A lot of people arguing about this kind of spending don't realize how
much of our educational and cultural fabric is derived from this
funding, and how impoverished we would be without the various things
that are being funded. Spending money is not synonymous with wastage,
each case has to be assessed in context.

I would be hesitant to publicly lambast government and MCH, without
first knowing the details of these relationships and the lines of
responsibility. Promoting arts and culture is a part of MCH's mandate,
and whether or not NZLive achieves this, it is designed to achieve
this, which is enough to justify its existence from a funding
perspective. Looking at the documents it's clear that this project was
initiated long before EventFinder launched, so at the point of its
initiation, there would have been no such service.

The problem I have trying to process some of the arguments here, is
that apart from the graph of traffic, I don't see what the evidence is
that the website has failed to meet its objectives. Overpriced, yes.
Failure, unclear.

For what it's worth, I would rather see the NZLive money spent on arts
funding directly.

[Kent Parker]

I do notice, Mark, that there is a section for 'funding' which may be
the most important part of the site in terms of enabling performers to
apply for funding online. On that subject it is worth noting that a
large proportion of NZ events are funded by various government
agencies which is partly why the govt has a vested interest in this
area. The events listed are likely to be heavily weighted towards
those events that are financed through funds accessed from the other
part of the site so in many respects they already 'own' the event.

My point about the clothing factory story is that belly-aching in
public about these things is often just the final act in an
irreversible situation and that no amount of public outcry will undo a
done deal.

[Sid Bachtiar]

> BTW, that last line is a thinking piece for everyone and not directed
> straight at you Sid :)

Better not! :P

BTW, I'm not against this campaign, but this campaign puts too much
emphasis and attention to Event Finder which I think is not good for
the campaign. The similarity to blackout theme is also not doing this
campaign a favour.

Would be better to create a website/movement that promotes the use of
open source and scrutinize how much government is spending on their
websites in general, and expose who are milking these money so far.

[Keri Henare]

> My point about the clothing factory story is that belly-aching in
> public about these things is often just the final act in an
> irreversible situation and that no amount of public outcry will undo a
> done deal.

You mean a situation like Section 92a ?

---------------------------------------------------
Keri Henare

[e] ke...@henare.co.nz
[m] 021 874 552
[w] www.kerihenare.com

[Keri Henare]

> Would be better to create a website/movement that promotes the use of
> open source and scrutinize how much government is spending on their
> websites in general, and expose who are milking these money so far.

So in favour of this! Bring on a bit of transparency!

---------------------------------------------------
Keri Henare

[e] ke...@henare.co.nz
[m] 021 874 552
[w] www.kerihenare.com

[Sid Bachtiar]

> You mean a situation like Section 92a ?

Section 92a was scrapped because in the end ISPs walked away. The law
was stupid from day one. The public outcry of course helped to raise
the issue nationwide (worldwide), but not the main reason why it was
scrapped. It would have been passed had ISPs came to an agreement.

[Harvey Kane]

While there is a clear bias, I think James is doing what needs to be done.

2.8 mil is a big fat wad of cash by any reckoning and there are a lot of
places where that money is desperately needed. I'm about to file my GST
return for a not-insignificant sum, and I'd like to think that the
government isn't pissing it up against a wall. John Key got into power
largely on the promise of cutting back on the beaurocracy and wastage,
so things like this need to be brought to their attention.

If the government has solid reasons for continued investment in the
site, or if whynzlive.com has left something important out because of
commercial bias, then I'm not going to complain any further. But I want
the issue to get the attention it deserves by the people who can see the
big picture. It seems that an army of followers on Twitter is enough
these days...

Harvey.

[James McGlinn]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for taking the time to post your (clearly well thought out)
response.

Just as one example of where NZLive are over-stretching their mandate
(directly from the Ministry itself as opposed to external contractors)
their RFP states:

“We would like to investigate the option to allow organisations to add
events that do not display on NZLive but that can feed their own
websites. This would allow NZLive to develop into a master national
events database.”

How this fits with their mandate to provide a "cultural portal" or
support arts and culture is beyond me. Surely all cultural events
would be listed on NZLive? Or is this simply to compete with
Eventfinder?

[Sid Bachtiar]

Hi James,

I think you'd get more support when you put it that way.

You should put something like that on top of whynzline.com website
instead of what's there now. What's there now in bold doesn't tell me
that. You know how people only have few seconds to get impression from
a website. At the most now, it would shock people that 2M is spent on
a website, but not much deeper than that.

Highlight that the government is essentially competing with existing
local business using tax payer money. I think more people could relate
to this better.

And I think this way it could/would grow further into more discussion
in general about the real issue: What is the boundary for our
government when doing these sort of things.

Just another 2c worth

>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>> NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug
>> To post, send email to nzp...@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe, send email to
>> nzphpug+u...@googlegroups.com
>> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Sid Bachtiar]

> Hi James,
>
> I think you'd get more support when you put it that way.
>
> You should put something like that on top of whynzline.com website
> instead of what's there now. What's there now in bold doesn't tell me
> that. You know how people only have few seconds to get impression from
> a website. At the most now, it would shock people that 2M is spent on
> a website, but not much deeper than that.
>
> Highlight that the government is essentially competing with existing
> local business using tax payer money. I think more people could relate
> to this better.
>
> And I think this way it could/would grow further into more discussion
> in general about the real issue: What is the boundary for our
> government when doing these sort of things.

And at worst, it makes people think it's about Event Finder ...

[Grant Paton-Simpson]

Hi Mark,

Mark Rickerby wrote:
> I don't think the idea of a cultural portal is a bad one, but I have
> never felt NZLive was a good realization of this idea. However I
> remain unconvinced with the arguments about wasting taxpayers money
> because the vast majority of 'waste' goes directly into Wellington's
> local economy anyway

See the Broken Window fallacy -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Money spent on web development in Wellington is money _not_ spent on
nationwide broadband, nurses, etc.

> (it's easy to understand why others feel
> differently), but I do agree in the case that the money has clearly
> been squandered. I'm not sure how clear it is in this case, the only
> empirical evidence seems to be the graph of traffic stats.
>
> What nobody has raised is that this outcome is might be due in no
> small part to the private sector contractors who made the site lacking
> the complete vision (or perhaps the $$ they were demanding) to produce
> something that lived up to the concept and promise of a cultural
> portal, and instead has become a basic events guide site.
>
> Most of the issues being expressed about what NZLive should or should
> not be doing are not just a case of government management
> (mismanagement if you insist), but are emergent from the relationship
> between the government and private sector. To a large extent,
> government departments rely on the good judgment of their business and
> design partners to guide them.
>

I couldn't possibly comment ;-)

> When agencies enter into these relationships, there is not necessarily
> a clear pathway from the high level rhetoric of ministers, to the
> actual administration of funding and management of projects. That's
> just a simple fact of any hierarchical organization.
>
> A lot of people arguing about this kind of spending don't realize how
> much of our educational and cultural fabric is derived from this
> funding,

It all depends on the opportunity cost, doesn't it.

> and how impoverished we would be without the various things
> that are being funded. Spending money is not synonymous with wastage,
> each case has to be assessed in context.
>
> I would be hesitant to publicly lambast government and MCH, without
> first knowing the details of these relationships and the lines of
> responsibility. Promoting arts and culture is a part of MCH's mandate,
> and whether or not NZLive achieves this, it is designed to achieve
> this, which is enough to justify its existence from a funding
> perspective. Looking at the documents it's clear that this project was
> initiated long before EventFinder launched, so at the point of its
> initiation, there would have been no such service.
>
> The problem I have trying to process some of the arguments here, is
> that apart from the graph of traffic, I don't see what the evidence is
> that the website has failed to meet its objectives. Overpriced, yes.
> Failure, unclear.
>
> For what it's worth, I would rather see the NZLive money spent on arts
> funding directly.
>

Good point.


All the best, Grant
> >
>
>

[Grant Paton-Simpson]

Hi Sid,

Sid Bachtiar wrote:
>> You mean a situation like Section 92a ?
>>
>
> Section 92a was scrapped because in the end ISPs walked away.

There were probably several things which had to come together for s92a
to be withdrawn ISP non-cooperation was probably very important but it
may not have been sufficient. If the public had been indifferent then
maybe arms could have been bent.

All the best, Grant

[Mark Rickerby]

Just to be clear (this thread is insanely OT, btw, but interesting)...

It's absurd to suggest that money that the government allocates for
culture is money taken away from core services like health, when the
amount spent on these core services totals in the billions, rather
than the millions.

From the budget, money gets explicitly earmarked for expenditure in
particular areas. So by the stage that these so-called gravy train
project the government has already decided that the money spent on
health, education, etc is set at the appropriate level.

The broken window argument is about unintended consequences (ie: so
called economic benefits of what might conventionally thought of as an
accident or loss). I'm not sure how this applies to pejorative claims
about "wastage", since the money would have been allocated to this
sector regardless, it's not an unforseen event, and the microeconomics
is irrelevant unless you're one of the companies competing for
contracts.

I recommend looking at the actual numbers... we're talking about less
than 0.3% of your annual taxes here.

see: http://rowansimpson.com/2008/06/08/tax-statement/

[Kent Parker]

I empathise with you, James. I can imagine how it feels to pour heart
and soul into a website business only to see a govt funded project
compete directly with you and appear to be stealing your business
thanks to the taxpayer. As we all know s**t happens and it all seems
so unfair.

There are regular campaigns to highlight govt overspending. I can
still remember the fracas over the logo for Te Papa, but I don't think
it is going to save eventfinder. The only thing that will do that is
to create a niche that nzlive cannot reach. Go for their weaknesses
(you'll find them!) and not their strengths (funding).

Good luck, anyway.

[Mark Rickerby]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Kent Parker <ke...@passingphase.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Go for their weaknesses
> (you'll find them!) and not their strengths (funding).
>

Well said.

[Grant Paton-Simpson]

Hi Mark,

Mark Rickerby wrote:

> Just to be clear (this thread is insanely OT, btw, but interesting)...
>

True :-)

> It's absurd to suggest that money that the government allocates for
> culture is money taken away from core services like health, when the
> amount spent on these core services totals in the billions, rather
> than the millions.
>

The amount doesn't affect the argument at all.

> >From the budget, money gets explicitly earmarked for expenditure in
> particular areas. So by the stage that these so-called gravy train
> project the government has already decided that the money spent on
> health, education, etc is set at the appropriate level.
>

I suspect the process is more complex than that. Wouldn't budgets get
increased or decreased according to the ability of a Minister to justify
the amount (and major line items)? It could get quite competitive.

> The broken window argument is about unintended consequences (ie: so
> called economic benefits of what might conventionally thought of as an
> accident or loss).

It is about the argument that wastage doesn't matter because the money
is still doing some good in terms of all the people receiving it (e.g.
web developers in Wellington). The problem with that reasoning is that
it doesn't consider alternative, and potentially better, uses of that money.

> I'm not sure how this applies to pejorative claims
> about "wastage", since the money would have been allocated to this
> sector regardless,

See comments above.

> it's not an unforseen event, and the microeconomics
> is irrelevant unless you're one of the companies competing for
> contracts.
>
> I recommend looking at the actual numbers... we're talking about less
> than 0.3% of your annual taxes here.
>

A lot of good could be done with that money. Plus there is the fairness
issue.


All the best, Grant
> see: http://rowansimpson.com/2008/06/08/tax-statement/
>
> >
>
>

[Berend de Boer]

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Bennett <family....@gmail.com> writes:

Paul> I don't mean to come across as rude - you've built Eventfinder
Paul> and are running a successful business from it - for that you
Paul> get my respect. However, this is clearly an emotive subject
Paul> with opposing views and your commercial interest makes you far
Paul> from impartial I'm afraid.

I'm coming late to this debate, but I side completely with
James. Imagine you spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars on a
project and then the government comes along and just copies you?

Note that government money is not freely given: people are coerced to
handover their money.

Also note that projects like this don't go to small companies: they go
to big players who are very good on feeding on the taxpayer.

If you call it emotional, call it scary: thinks like this scare me. One
day the government can come along and just take you out of businesses by
putting up a competing website.

--
Cheers,

Berend de Boer

[James McGlinn]

Hi Paul,

If NZLive sold tickets and profited, this argument would have more credence, but I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

If they stick to Helen Clark's plan, this may well happen:

"The second stage will set up a cultural events website within the portal, with a facility for online bookings. The final stage will offer access to cultural products, activities, and services," Helen Clark said.

(from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/23051)

[Rob Jensen]

Hi James,

I think if you were to be charging unreasonable amounts to government departments / other companies for a feed, or if your website was unusable there would be a case for NZLive.com. How ever it does seem like just another case of governments doing what they do best, wasting tax payer money, and a significant amount of it.

It would be great if the government would act swiftly and pull the plug on NZlive.com, but, sadly, governments seem to be about as agile as quadriplegic elephants. I really doubt if the current government is any different, despite all the talk of cutting expenses.

Good luck,

Rob

[Keith Allpress]

Hi James
It sounds absolutely disgraceful.
Every new technology involves risk, and the willingness to assume risk
is what entitles enterprise to reap a reward.
But a parasitic and cynical attitude by a competitor funded by the
public purse is not what you want to hear,
if they copy your ideas they are stealing more than your ideas, they are
robbing you of the incentive to assume risk in the first instance, and
attacking the
very basis of the New Zealand software industry. They should be in
trouble with the Department of Trade and Industry at the very least.
Which reminds me ....
I think you might do well to make contact with the New Zealand Software
Association http://www.nzsa.org.nz/.
This national organisation is exactly about promoting software
development in New Zealand, and you will find a wealth
of good contacts.
Keith

James McGlinn wrote:
> Hi Kent,
>
>
>> Yours is a better site, James, what more do you need?
>>
>
> Thanks for your feedback. What we're looking for is awareness.
>
> We have an administration that talks about reducing wasted government
> spending and avoiding duplication of private sector efforts on one
> hand, but continues to fund exactly that with NZLive on the other. It
> seems hypocritical to us, and we hope others will agree.
>
>

[Karl]

 

    OK, is there really any point in hammering this one further? It sure seems like all the major point have been raised and addressed, we all know the Govt are hypocritical plonkers, so can we lay it to rest now?

 

    There's more damned [OT]'s in the list than there is actual PHP-related stuff now...

 

    Cheers...

 

 

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 29/04/2009 at 5:31 p.m. (a bunch of good folks) wrote:

 

    > A lot of verbiage about yet another government website...

 

 

 

---

Karl

Senior Account Manager

www.KIWIreviews.co.nz ... Where Your Views Count

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

 

[James McGlinn]

On 30/04/2009, at 3:24 PM, Karl wrote:

> There's more damned [OT]'s in the list than there is actual PHP-
> related stuff now...

Absolutely, fair enough. Let's end the discussion here.

Thanks to all who took the time to read the Why NZLive site, and
provide your reasoned opinions (whether for or against).

For what it's worth I'm stoked at the level of support we've had for
this.

[Matias Gertel]

I guess after a hard day's PHP coding, we all like to talk a little about some [OT] stuff. Most of the [OT] we talk about is somehow related to our industry anyway. I enjoy reading those posts! Keep 'em coming!

Matias Gertel

Freelance Web Development & Coding

e: mat...@codium.co.nz

m: +64 21 288 8840

p: +64 9 838 3367

On 30/04/2009, at 3:24 PM, Karl wrote:

[Paul Bennett]

I believe NZLive was built in PHP ;)

I've enjoyed the posts, both for and against and have learnt a lot.

In the interests of 'paying' for ths OT post:
http://particletree.com/features/php-quick-profiler/

Paul