danny and tess arent getting married anymore
Karen
Unless they have the wedding in the bottem of a ditch they arent getting
married.Someones daughter was right it was about drink driving or unsafe
driving.I thought it would of been about beer,or dairy products or an ad for a
bank.
Derek Tearne
In article <4vgaec$m...@wnnews1.netlink.net.nz>,
Could still be. Perhaps the car skidded on a a greasy patch caused by
an overturned truck carrying butter - which could all have been avoided
if the truck driver had got out a loan from [insert bank] and bought a
[insert manufacturer] truck. Not only that, if Tess had got Danny insured
with [insert life insurance company] they'd have been even better off.
--
Derek Tearne. -- Ruapehu Eruption Information at http://url.co.nz/ruapehu.html
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the
consequences of an eruption at Ruapehu "If it goes off no one will be skiing
there this year" - they said.
Mike Nelson
Karen wrote:
>
> Unless they have the wedding in the bottem of a ditch they arent getting
> married.Someones daughter was right it was about drink driving or unsafe
> driving.I thought it would of been about beer,or dairy products or an ad for a
> bank.
No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
series bloody bullshit.
Arrrggghhhhh !!!
MN
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Nelson.
....happiness doesn't depend upon who you are or what you
have; it depends upon what you think. Dale Carnegie (1888-1955)
Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing
a poor hand well. Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fra...@pec.co.nz
In <4vgpb7$e...@nezsdc.fujitsu.co.nz>, de...@nezsdc.fujitsu.co.nz (Derek Tearne) writes:
>Not only that, if Tess had got Danny insured
>with [insert life insurance company] they'd have been even better off.
Well, she would have, anyway.
--
Frank van der Hulst | person:: programmer | user
Software Engineer (Cardax) | programmer:: BASIC_programmer
PEC (NZ) Ltd | | born_before_1984
Marton, New Zealand. |
fra...@pec.co.nz | http://www.pec.co.nz/~frankv/
Stephen Judd
In article <321C1C...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
<bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
>No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
>bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
>way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
>series bloody bullshit.
>
>Arrrggghhhhh !!!
Too right.
You could have a minivan and a driver in 20 pubs for the price of that campaign.
Can a media-savvy sophisticate like moi rationalise a cutesy ad away? You
bet. Will do persistent pisshead delinquents really give a shit about TV
ads? Nah.
Raise the age for drivers licenses to 17; set a minimum of 10 hours with a
certified instructor for licences, including night and open road driving;
jail repeat driving offenders and forbid them to ever drive a car again,
on pain of another jail term.
There.
I feel better now.
Stephen
--
Stephen Judd | Install new ClueDoubler(tm) today!
User Support Consultant | Minimum Configuration: half a Clue.
School of Education | Want my PGP key?
University of Waikato, New Zealand | http://poet.soe.waikato.ac.nz/
Mike Nelson
Derek Tearne wrote:
>
> In article <321C1C...@mail.netlink.co.nz>,
> Mike Nelson <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
> >bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
> >way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
> >series bloody bullshit.
>
> saatchi and saatchi to devise advertising campaigns is not a waste
> of money.
It's also been widely accepted by several governments that pouring money
into things fixes them. They and you apparently have not seen the error
of their ways.
>
> If you believe there is a more effective way of targetting rural types
> then please make our (and those of rural drivers) richer by letting
> us know. Perhaps you'll even get to be a life peer in the process.
>
Yeah it's called direct mail to all rural addresses in NZ and it's used
successfully (direct mail) by thousands of successful businesses all
over NZ.
> Tell you what though, I won't be holding my breath while we wait.
>
It did'nt take that long !
> If the government had said "Hey, lets not waste our money on Saatchi's -
> lets just ask Mike Nelson, he's bound to know a really effective way of
> solving this problem for us", now _that_ would have been a waste of money.
>
Less of a waste than asking Derek Tearne.
> They could try and put enough traffic officers on the rural roads to make
> an effective deterrent, but that would be ridiculously expensive.
>
Oh you know the costs involved in that too huh Derek ?
> The common thread through the current crop of anti drink-driving ads
> is to make people somehow identify with the people involved. Teenagers
> out on the town, someone driving the kids, whatever. This is, one assumes,
> an attempt to make people think in terms of "If _I_ drink and drive I might
> lose my limbs/life/loved ones" rather than "She'll be right, I won't get
> caught - there are never police on that road".
>
When did you last think that way Derek ?. Speaking for me and all other
intelligent people in NZ we stopped thinking like that years ago. The
campaigns of intimidation waged by the grey ones worked on me long ago
now these adds just really piss me off.
> The sooner more people think that the better.
>
How many more ? Are you one that needs to be ? or do you think that you
are somehow cleverer than all the rest of us ? Most socialists think
they know better are you one of those ?
> If this mini series has the effect of making rural drivers identify with
> the characters and curb their drinking then it will be a success. If
> it doesn't then at least it's an honest attempt.
>
No it's civil servants being conned by smart advertising agencies and
getting away with it because "it's in the interests of road safety".
Have you not noticed how the cause of the road toll differs depending on
which cop is voicing his opinion at the time ? On a particularly bad
long weekend recently I was intrigued to hear the first cop interviewed
say "it was speed" and then the next day a different cop said it was
"drinking and driving". I would venture to say that over 50% of
accidents are caused by dopey driving and inattention to the job of
driving. And dopey driving includes inconsiderate pricks who hug the
white line doing 80kmh in a 100kmh area with absolutely no consideration
for the 10 or more cars stacked up behind them. This when they have had
ample opportunities to move to the left and allow others to get on their
way. If they want my sympathy in their campaigns then get stuck into
those cretons both with the mini series and the fines.
Explain the women with the baby in the backseat, fine day, dry road, no
alcohol, no speed moving from her side of the road across the other side
and smashing into a concrete fence.
You have no idea how much this Road Transport Division are getting away
with !
Derek Tearne
In article <321C1C...@mail.netlink.co.nz>,
Mike Nelson <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
>
>No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
>bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
>way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
>series bloody bullshit.
I think it is widely accepted by several governments that employing
saatchi and saatchi to devise advertising campaigns is not a waste
of money.
If you believe there is a more effective way of targetting rural types
then please make our (and those of rural drivers) richer by letting
us know. Perhaps you'll even get to be a life peer in the process.
Tell you what though, I won't be holding my breath while we wait.
If the government had said "Hey, lets not waste our money on Saatchi's -
lets just ask Mike Nelson, he's bound to know a really effective way of
solving this problem for us", now _that_ would have been a waste of money.
They could try and put enough traffic officers on the rural roads to make
an effective deterrent, but that would be ridiculously expensive.
The common thread through the current crop of anti drink-driving ads
is to make people somehow identify with the people involved. Teenagers
out on the town, someone driving the kids, whatever. This is, one assumes,
an attempt to make people think in terms of "If _I_ drink and drive I might
lose my limbs/life/loved ones" rather than "She'll be right, I won't get
caught - there are never police on that road".
The sooner more people think that the better.
If this mini series has the effect of making rural drivers identify with
the characters and curb their drinking then it will be a success. If
it doesn't then at least it's an honest attempt.
--
Derek Gunn
In article <stephen-2308...@netserv.waikato.ac.nz>
ste...@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Judd) writes:
> You could have a minivan and a driver in 20 pubs for the price of that campaign.
That about covers Timaru.
> Can a media-savvy sophisticate like moi rationalise a cutesy ad away? You
> bet. Will do persistent pisshead delinquents really give a shit about TV
> ads? Nah.
The advert is not aimed at them. As you say, it'd be a waste of effort.
The people in the advert, (not unlike some of my relations), are likely to
take notice.
> Raise the age for drivers licenses to 17; set a minimum of 10 hours with a
> certified instructor for licences, including night and open road driving;
> jail repeat driving offenders and forbid them to ever drive a car again,
> on pain of another jail term.
>
> There.
>
> I feel better now.
Internet catharsis.
Derek Gunn
Don Mackie
> No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
> bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
> way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
> series bloody bullshit.
Trevor Rogers seems to think TV advertising is very effective. He is
bleating about the small amount of money his Conservative Party has to
throw at TV ads this election - this will be his reason for not being next
PM.
--
Don - at home.
Things get worse under pressure
(Murphy's law of thermodynamics)
Chris Owen
First I woudl like to say this about the Danny and Tess ads: I hate
them!! I hate them!! I hate them!! The Saatchi and Saatchi executives
responsible for creating them, and the government minister responsible for
funding them should be driven off a rural road as punishment!
In article <4vims6$f...@nezsdc.fujitsu.co.nz> de...@nezsdc.fujitsu.co.nz writes:
>The common thread through the current crop of anti drink-driving ads
>is to make people somehow identify with the people involved. Teenagers
>out on the town, someone driving the kids, whatever. This is, one assumes,
>an attempt to make people think in terms of "If _I_ drink and drive I might
>lose my limbs/life/loved ones" rather than "She'll be right, I won't get
>caught - there are never police on that road".
I'm a die hard townie, so you can write my comnmets off because I don't
belong to the target demographic. The point of the teaser ads I guess was
to allow us to get to know these people, so that when Danny expires we
feel some sympathy.
Well, for me, they failed miserably. I actually felt a surge of
enthusiasm when the truck went off the road. "Yes, they're dead. Now we
won't have to put up with any more of the god-awful ads." I was mortified
to see another of those damn "More Later" messages.
>The sooner more people think that the better.
>
>If this mini series has the effect of making rural drivers identify with
>the characters and curb their drinking then it will be a success. If
>it doesn't then at least it's an honest attempt.
But you have to actually get people to think first. When was the last
time a televsion commercial made you think?
>Derek Tearne.
--
Chris Owen
ch...@iceberg.southern.co.nz
--
Paddy
> In article <321C1C...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
> <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
> > bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
> > way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
> > series bloody bullshit.
If "there has got to be a more effective way of targeting rural types"
what is it? I can't think of one.
paddy
Derek Tearne
In article <321D39...@mail.netlink.co.nz>,
Mike Nelson <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
>Derek Tearne wrote:
>>
>> I think it is widely accepted by several governments that employing
>> saatchi and saatchi to devise advertising campaigns is not a waste
>> of money.
>
>It's also been widely accepted by several governments that pouring money
>into things fixes them. They and you apparently have not seen the error
>of their ways.
Spending money on things may, or may not fix things. However _not_
spending money is guaranteed to ruin them.
Think of money as a response to entropy.
>> If you believe there is a more effective way of targetting rural types
>> then please make our (and those of rural drivers) richer by letting
>> us know. Perhaps you'll even get to be a life peer in the process.
>
>Yeah it's called direct mail to all rural addresses in NZ and it's used
>successfully (direct mail) by thousands of successful businesses all
>over NZ.
Is that right? Cite some examples.
>> Tell you what though, I won't be holding my breath while we wait.
>
>It did'nt take that long !
I said effective. You have not proved that direct mailing is as effective
a measure as television advertising.
>> If the government had said "Hey, lets not waste our money on Saatchi's -
>> lets just ask Mike Nelson, he's bound to know a really effective way of
>> solving this problem for us", now _that_ would have been a waste of money.
>
>Less of a waste than asking Derek Tearne.
How so? Have you proved in any way capable of succesfully marketting a
concept of this nature? I think the answer is going to be 'No'.
I'm not saying that I could market it any better. I would, however, in
the position of deciding how best achieve that outcome, no enough to
enlist the advice of people with a proven record in that area.
Saatchi and Saatchi have such a track record.
>> They could try and put enough traffic officers on the rural roads to make
>> an effective deterrent, but that would be ridiculously expensive.
>
>Oh you know the costs involved in that too huh Derek ?
It doesn't take a huge amount of thought to realise that putting together
a fleet of traffic officers capable of having a noticeable presence on
rural roads would cost an extremely large amount of money.
>> The common thread through the current crop of anti drink-driving ads
>> is to make people somehow identify with the people involved. Teenagers
>> out on the town, someone driving the kids, whatever. This is, one assumes,
>> an attempt to make people think in terms of "If _I_ drink and drive I might
>> lose my limbs/life/loved ones" rather than "She'll be right, I won't get
>> caught - there are never police on that road".
>
>When did you last think that way Derek ?. Speaking for me and all other
>intelligent people in NZ we stopped thinking like that years ago.
Did someone have a vote and place you in the position of speaking for
intelligent New Zealanders? Or any New Zealanders at all?
There are still plenty of people, succesful intelligent people with
succesful businesses, who speak in terms of "It's only a two minute drive
home - I won't get caught".
>The campaigns of intimidation waged by the grey ones worked on me long ago
>now these adds just really piss me off.
You know, the ads annoy me too. However, the road toll is still high.
There are still people who need to be targetted by these ads.
Should the government stop targetting these people just because Mike Nelson
got the message years ago?
I think not. And you know why? Because it might just be the case that
one of those New Zealanders who hasn't got the message yet drives
into me.
If these adverts reduce the possibility that I'm going to end up dead
in a ditch after being run off the road by a drunk driver then I'm quite
prepared to tolerate them.
Mike Nelson
Derek Tearne wrote:
>
> In article <321D39...@mail.netlink.co.nz>,
> Mike Nelson <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> >Derek Tearne wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it is widely accepted by several governments that employing
> >> saatchi and saatchi to devise advertising campaigns is not a waste
> >> of money.
> >
> >It's also been widely accepted by several governments that pouring money
> >into things fixes them. They and you apparently have not seen the error
> >of their ways.
>
> Spending money on things may, or may not fix things. However _not_
> spending money is guaranteed to ruin them.
>
Who suggested not spending money ?
> Think of money as a response to entropy.
You got me here I have no idea what you are talking about ?
>
> >> If you believe there is a more effective way of targetting rural types
> >> then please make our (and those of rural drivers) richer by letting
> >> us know. Perhaps you'll even get to be a life peer in the process.
> >
> >Yeah it's called direct mail to all rural addresses in NZ and it's used
> >successfully (direct mail) by thousands of successful businesses all
> >over NZ.
>
> Is that right? Cite some examples.
>
The Warehouse, Noel Leemings, Foodtown, Harcourts etc etc
> >> Tell you what though, I won't be holding my breath while we wait.
> >
> >It did'nt take that long !
>
> I said effective. You have not proved that direct mailing is as effective
> a measure as television advertising.
>
When you are targetting a unique identifiable group, and the farmers fit
the criteria as good as any I can think of, then direct mail is cost
effective and impact effective. Television is mass media apart from
regional stuff like Joe Bloggs tyre co who only operate in say Manawatu
and TV can be isolated on a regional basis for that type of thing but
they cannot only beam a message to farmers like direct mail can. Doing
it with the mini series on TV is a giant overkill and a highly expensive
one. Do you have any idea how much TV adverts cost in peak slots ?
> >> If the government had said "Hey, lets not waste our money on Saatchi's -
> >> lets just ask Mike Nelson, he's bound to know a really effective way of
> >> solving this problem for us", now _that_ would have been a waste of money.
> >
> >Less of a waste than asking Derek Tearne.
>
> How so? Have you proved in any way capable of succesfully marketting a
> concept of this nature? I think the answer is going to be 'No'.
>
No but I bet I could. I would also venture to say that a promotion I did
in (from memory) 1991 would have to rank as one of the most cost
effective mass exposure adverts in New Zealands history.
> I'm not saying that I could market it any better. I would, however, in
> the position of deciding how best achieve that outcome, no enough to
> enlist the advice of people with a proven record in that area.
>
You will have to edit the above it reads like nonsense I'm afraid.!
> Saatchi and Saatchi have such a track record.
>
The only record they have in respect of the ads we talk about is the
ability to spot an easy touch and work it.
> >> They could try and put enough traffic officers on the rural roads to make
> >> an effective deterrent, but that would be ridiculously expensive.
> >
Why ? they exist at the moment ! I see them in groups of 20 plus
harrasing the poor picked on city dwellers and so should you have if you
drive a car. Divert them to the country for a change.
> >Oh you know the costs involved in that too huh Derek ?
>
> It doesn't take a huge amount of thought to realise that putting together
> a fleet of traffic officers capable of having a noticeable presence on
> rural roads would cost an extremely large amount of money.
>
> >> The common thread through the current crop of anti drink-driving ads
> >> is to make people somehow identify with the people involved. Teenagers
> >> out on the town, someone driving the kids, whatever. This is, one assumes,
> >> an attempt to make people think in terms of "If _I_ drink and drive I might
> >> lose my limbs/life/loved ones" rather than "She'll be right, I won't get
> >> caught - there are never police on that road".
> >
> >When did you last think that way Derek ?. Speaking for me and all other
> >intelligent people in NZ we stopped thinking like that years ago.
>
> Did someone have a vote and place you in the position of speaking for
> intelligent New Zealanders? Or any New Zealanders at all?
No more than you claiming you know they are all thinking "She'll be
right, I won't get caught - there are never police on that road".
>
> There are still plenty of people, succesful intelligent people with
> succesful businesses, who speak in terms of "It's only a two minute drive
> home - I won't get caught".
>
You should change clubs or pubs if they are talking like that. The
people I socialise with have all got non drinking partners (non drinking
that night I mean in this case) or they use public transport.
> >The campaigns of intimidation waged by the grey ones worked on me long ago
> >now these adds just really piss me off.
>
> You know, the ads annoy me too. However, the road toll is still high.
> There are still people who need to be targetted by these ads.
>
Targeted is the key word and thats what I am bleeting about. They are
not targeting.
> Should the government stop targetting these people just because Mike Nelson
> got the message years ago?
>
Mike Nelson and all the other intelligent people in NZ don't forget !
> I think not. And you know why? Because it might just be the case that
> one of those New Zealanders who hasn't got the message yet drives
> into me.
So we have to put up with this abuse of our peace so YOU wont get hit by
a kiwi. Have you considered you could be hit by a yank tourist who only
arrived that day and did'nt get to see the marvellous mini series yet ?
> If these adverts reduce the possibility that I'm going to end up dead
> in a ditch after being run off the road by a drunk driver then I'm quite
> prepared to tolerate them.
>
>
Well let's see. If I was spending my money at the obscene rate these
adds are consuming I would want to see results and I would expect if
these adds are in any way effective to see a measureable difference
pretty well right away in the road toll. Is this the case ? Has anyone
checked ? or do they let this waste of money continue unabated because
"it's in the interests of road safety"?
MN
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Nelson.
....happiness doesn't depend upon who you are or what you
have; it depends upon what you think. Dale Carnegie (1888-1955)
Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing
a poor hand well. Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTREPRENUER'S CREDO
"I do not choose to be a common man.
It is my right to be uncommon--if I can.
I seek opportunity--not security.
I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled
and dulled by having the state look after me.
I want to take the calculated risk;
to dream and to build,
to fail and succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole;
I prefer the challenges of life
to the guaranteed existence;
the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of Utopia.
I will not trade freedom for benefience
nor my dignity for a handout.
I will never cower before any master
nor bend to any threat.
It is my heritage to stand erect,
proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself,
to enjoy the benefits of my creations
and to face the world boldly and say:
This, with god's help, I have done.
All this is what it means to be an Entreprenuer."
Mike Nelson
Don Mackie wrote:
>
> In article <321C1C...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
> <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
> > way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
> > series bloody bullshit.
>
> bleating about the small amount of money his Conservative Party has to
> throw at TV ads this election - this will be his reason for not being next
> PM.
> --
> Don - at home.
>
> Things get worse under pressure
>
> (Murphy's law of thermodynamics)
Is he bleeting about TV ad budgets or the amount of money they are
allowed to spend on ads overall. The latter I think and there he has a
point.
Mike Nelson
Paddy wrote:
>
> > In article <321C1C...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
> > <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
> > > bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
> > > way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
> > > series bloody bullshit.
>
> what is it? I can't think of one.
Look at the thread Re: danny and tess arent getting married anymore and
look at stuff between Derek Tearne and I for an explanation of that.
David Rowland
Paddy wrote:
>
> > In article <321C1C...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
> > <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
> > > bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
> > > way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
> > > series bloody bullshit.
>
> If "there has got to be a more effective way of targeting rural types"
> what is it? I can't think of one.
>
Bumper Stickers??? :-)
Derek R Tearne
In article <321FFB...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
<bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> Derek Tearne wrote:
> >
> > In article <321D39...@mail.netlink.co.nz>,
> > Mike Nelson <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> > >Yeah it's called direct mail to all rural addresses in NZ and it's used
> > >successfully (direct mail) by thousands of successful businesses all
> > >over NZ.
> >
> > Is that right? Cite some examples.
> >
>
> The Warehouse, Noel Leemings, Foodtown, Harcourts etc etc
These are examples of succesful mass mail outs to _rural_addresses_. With
the exception of Harcourts, these companies are urban. Mass mailouts work
very succesfully in an urban setting where you can pay someone less than
minimum wage to deliver to every house hold, and where enough people can
glance at the pamphlet, see a bargain and drive to the shop before they get
distracted.
Also, oh connoisseur of direct marketting, how many of these direct mail-outs
also have the phrase "As seen-on TV" stamped next to several of the prominent
bargains? I'm sure even you will agree that this is common.
TV is a very powerful medium for marketting, if the government chose not to
use that medium for road safety campaigns they would be failing in their
jobs.
> > I'm not saying that I could market it any better. I would, however, in
> > the position of deciding how best achieve that outcome, no enough to
> > enlist the advice of people with a proven record in that area.
> >
>
> You will have to edit the above it reads like nonsense I'm afraid.!
Fromm someone whose grammar and punctiation as as bad as yours, this is
a little rich. Does one mispelling throw you so badly?
I would suggest very strongly that you avoid any criticism of mine, or
anyone elses, grammar. Spelling and grammar flames are pathetic at the
best of times.
From one whose grammar is as patchy as yours they are even more so.
> > >> They could try and put enough traffic officers on the rural roads to make
> > >> an effective deterrent, but that would be ridiculously expensive.
> > >
>
> Why ? they exist at the moment ! I see them in groups of 20 plus
> harrasing the poor picked on city dwellers and so should you have if you
> drive a car. Divert them to the country for a change.
Have you ever been out of the city? Do you have any comprehension of how
much rural road there is and how sparse the population density is? It's
rare enough to see a traffic officer in Grey Lynn, let alone Opouteke.
> > >When did you last think that way Derek ?. Speaking for me and all other
> > >intelligent people in NZ we stopped thinking like that years ago.
>
> > Did someone have a vote and place you in the position of speaking for
> > intelligent New Zealanders? Or any New Zealanders at all?
>
> No more than you claiming you know they are all thinking "She'll be
> right, I won't get caught - there are never police on that road".
I'm not claiming that everyone thinks that way, or that all of a given
group think that way. I have however heard similar statements recently.
I'm sure plenty of other people reading this have heard similar statements.
> > There are still plenty of people, succesful intelligent people with
> > succesful businesses, who speak in terms of "It's only a two minute drive
> > home - I won't get caught".
> >
> You should change clubs or pubs if they are talking like that. The
> people I socialise with have all got non drinking partners (non drinking
> that night I mean in this case) or they use public transport.
Your friend and his partner should be commended on their behaviour. The
world, Mike, is very big. Even New Zealand is quite large compared to
you and your friends.
Not everyone thinks the same as you do (thank god). Your comment, that
simply changing pubs or clubs will change things is foolish. If I
overheard these conversations in a club or pub (wrong assumption by the
way), and I change clubs to one where people are more like minded - have
the attitudes of those people changed? Are they any more or less likely
to drive home drunk?
If 'change pubs' is your answer to anything then your head appears to be
stuck firmly in the sand.
> > You know, the ads annoy me too. However, the road toll is still high.
> > There are still people who need to be targetted by these ads.
> >>
> Targeted is the key word and thats what I am bleeting about. They are
> not targeting.
What? Are you serious? Whatever you might think about the current crop
of road safety ads, they are clearly targetting particular groups. That
should be trivially obvious to even the most casual of observer.
Question: Are the Danny and Tess adverts targetted at the country driver?
> > I think not. And you know why? Because it might just be the case that
> > one of those New Zealanders who hasn't got the message yet drives
> > into me.
>
> So we have to put up with this abuse of our peace so YOU wont get hit by
> a kiwi. Have you considered you could be hit by a yank tourist who only
> arrived that day and did'nt get to see the marvellous mini series yet ?
Statistically I am far more likely to be involved in an accident where
the other drivers are residents of New Zealand. I could be hit on the
head by a meteorite from Mars (heck, a dog was killed by a meteorite from
mars in 1894). If the government had a mini series promoting meteorite
avoidance techniques I would agree that it was a waste of money.
And yes, I am prepared to put up with this series of adverts so that I,
the people I care for and several thousand complete strangers can
avoid the consequences of being hit by a drunk New Zealand driver.
Is that wrong?
> Well let's see. If I was spending my money at the obscene rate these
> adds are consuming I would want to see results and I would expect if
> these adds are in any way effective to see a measureable difference
> pretty well right away in the road toll. Is this the case ? Has anyone
> checked ? or do they let this waste of money continue unabated because
> "it's in the interests of road safety"?
If you get your head out of the sand long enough to read the road toll
statistics from here and overseas, campaigns of this type have been
shown to be succesful in the past. There is no reason to believe that
they won't be succesful in the future.
If you compare the cost of series of TV adverts against the cost of caring
for a paraplegic for 70 years, I feel that if even one person avoids this
situation the campaign has been justified.
--
Derek Tearne. - @URL Internet Consultants - http://url.co.nz/
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
Derek R Tearne
In article <321FFD...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
<bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> Paddy wrote:
> >
> > > In article <321C1C...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
> > > <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No it's just another example of the out of control, brainwashing idiot
> > > > bureaucrats wasting our money. Like there has got to be a more effective
> > > > way of targeting rural types than national TV and with over the top mini
> > > > series bloody bullshit.
> >
> > If "there has got to be a more effective way of targeting rural types"
> > what is it? I can't think of one.
>
> Look at the thread Re: danny and tess arent getting married anymore and
> look at stuff between Derek Tearne and I for an explanation of that.
You can look. But that explanation isn't there yet.
There is an example of succesful targetting for urban markets.
Not really the same thing though.
Fiona Cubie
> In <4vgpb7$e...@nezsdc.fujitsu.co.nz>, de...@nezsdc.fujitsu.co.nz (Derek
Tearne) writes:
> >Not only that, if Tess had got Danny insured
> >with [insert life insurance company] they'd have been even better off.
>
> Well, she would have, anyway.
Not unless Danny had made a will to that effect,
as they were not married when he died his Dad & Mum would have got it all!
--
Fiona Cubie (fio...@waikato.ac.nz) Design is seductive propaganda- Jennifer Morla
Designer
Teaching Technology Group
The University of Waikato
Private Bag 3105 Hamilton New Zealand
Telephone 64 7 856 2889 ext 8134
Web Page http://servius.waikato.ac.nz/its/ttg/staff/fiona.html
Mike Nelson
Derek R Tearne wrote:
Mike Nelson said this about direct mail instead of mini series ad
campaigns:
> > > >Yeah it's called direct mail to all rural addresses in NZ and it's used
> > > >successfully (direct mail) by thousands of successful businesses all
> > > >over NZ.
> > >
> > > Is that right? Cite some examples.
> > >
> >
> > The Warehouse, Noel Leemings, Foodtown, Harcourts etc etc
>
> These are examples of succesful mass mail outs to _rural_addresses_.
No they are examples of direct mail which is what you asked for.
> With
> the exception of Harcourts, these companies are urban. Mass mailouts work
> very succesfully in an urban setting where you can pay someone less than
> minimum wage to deliver to every house hold, and where enough people can
> glance at the pamphlet, see a bargain and drive to the shop before they get
> distracted.
>
Oh so your suddenly an expert on mass mailing huh Brian ? I telephoned
Wrightson AG in Porirua. They do a monthly mail out to farmers,
detailing what they called monthly specials, per the rural delivery
service. It could be used to deliver a very well presented full colour
brochure advising of the realities of accidents in rural areas.
> Also, oh connoisseur of direct marketting, how many of these direct mail-outs
> also have the phrase "As seen-on TV" stamped next to several of the prominent
> bargains? I'm sure even you will agree that this is common.
>
Have'nt ever seen one that says "As seen in the tv mini series that you
the taxpayer paid for"
> TV is a very powerful medium for marketting, if the government chose not to
> use that medium for road safety campaigns they would be failing in their
> jobs.
>
Oh you think the Governments "jobs" are to spend recklessly ? Mind you
they do too so you aint alone !
> > > I'm not saying that I could market it any better. I would, however, in
> > > the position of deciding how best achieve that outcome, no enough to
> > > enlist the advice of people with a proven record in that area.
> > >
> >
> > You will have to edit the above it reads like nonsense I'm afraid.!
>
> Fromm someone whose grammar and punctiation as as bad as yours, this is
At least I know how to spell from and punctuation ! And I keep saying I
suffer the consequences of a socilaist education which was so bloody
boring I left school at 14.
> a little rich. Does one mispelling throw you so badly?
>
> I would suggest very strongly that you avoid any criticism of mine, or
> anyone elses, grammar. Spelling and grammar flames are pathetic at the
> best of times.
> From one whose grammar is as patchy as yours they are even more so.
>
Suit yourself I can't understand it and I stick by it ! And stick to the
subject or I'll start playing your silly game and you'll lose !
> > > >> They could try and put enough traffic officers on the rural roads to make
> > > >> an effective deterrent, but that would be ridiculously expensive.
> > > >
> >
> > Why ? they exist at the moment ! I see them in groups of 20 plus
> > harrasing the poor picked on city dwellers and so should you have if you
> > drive a car. Divert them to the country for a change.
>
> Have you ever been out of the city? Do you have any comprehension of how
> much rural road there is and how sparse the population density is? I used to work on farms as a labourer and I was a herd tester so I do
know a bit about farms.. Yes. Oh and I owned a farm once as well !
Whats your farming experience Derek ?
>It's
> rare enough to see a traffic officer in Grey Lynn, let alone Opouteke.
>
Oh there you are you see your looking out for Traffic Officers when
there are none any more. No wonder you think we need more. No you see
Derek some two or more years ago the Traffic Officers dissapeared and
now its the boys in blue who do that job.
How many pubs are in this Opouteke ? And is there a cop in the area ?
And if theres not who deals with the burglaries and rapes and murders.
And is this place anywhere near Opotiki ?
> > > >When did you last think that way Derek ?. Speaking for me and all other
> > > >intelligent people in NZ we stopped thinking like that years ago.
> >
> > > Did someone have a vote and place you in the position of speaking for
> > > intelligent New Zealanders? Or any New Zealanders at all?
> >
> > No more than you claiming you know they are all thinking "She'll be
> > right, I won't get caught - there are never police on that road".
>
> I'm not claiming that everyone thinks that way, or that all of a given
> group think that way. I have however heard similar statements recently.
Tell the cops who these cretons are then !
> I'm sure plenty of other people reading this have heard similar statements.
>
They should tell the cops too then !
> > > There are still plenty of people, succesful intelligent people with
> > > succesful businesses, who speak in terms of "It's only a two minute drive
> > > home - I won't get caught".
> > >
> > You should change clubs or pubs if they are talking like that. The
> > people I socialise with have all got non drinking partners (non drinking
> > that night I mean in this case) or they use public transport.
>
> Your friend and his partner
The word people is a plural. I'm dissapointed that someone able to
correct my grammar and punctuation as you can should make a balls up
like this Derek.
>should be commended on their behaviour. The
> world, Mike, is very big. Even New Zealand is quite large compared to
> you and your friends.
Oh Christ no are the bastards running this shit on CNN International too
?
>
> Not everyone thinks the same as you do (thank god).
Don't blame god for the others who don't think sensibly.
>Your comment, that
> simply changing pubs or clubs will change things is foolish. If I
> overheard these conversations in a club or pub (wrong assumption by the
> way), and I change clubs to one where people are more like minded - have
> the attitudes of those people changed? Are they any more or less likely
> to drive home drunk?
>
I've told you what to do with these cretons Derek pot em to the cops.
> If 'change pubs' is your answer to anything then your head appears to be
> stuck firmly in the sand.
>
Yours is if you mix with cretons who talk that way.
> > > You know, the ads annoy me too. However, the road toll is still high.
> > > There are still people who need to be targetted by these ads.
> > >>
> > Targeted is the key word and thats what I am bleeting about. They are
> > not targeting.
>
> What? Are you serious? Whatever you might think about the current crop
> of road safety ads, they are clearly targetting particular groups. That
> should be trivially obvious to even the most casual of observer.
>
If your speaking about the farmers, which I thought we had been for the
whole of the thread, they are not targeting them (FARMERS) with a mini
series which every man women and child in the country gets brainwashed
with.
> Question: Are the Danny and Tess adverts targetted at the country driver?
>
> > > I think not.
No they are trying to get across to urban yuppies (do they still exist?)
but they are going about it in a sneaky way as per recommendations by
Saatchi and Saatchi eh Derek ?.
And you know why? Because it might just be the case that
> > > one of those New Zealanders who hasn't got the message yet drives
> > > into me.
> >
> > So we have to put up with this abuse of our peace so YOU wont get hit by
> > a kiwi. Have you considered you could be hit by a yank tourist who only
> > arrived that day and did'nt get to see the marvellous mini series yet ?
>
> Statistically I am far more likely to be involved in an accident where
> the other drivers are residents of New Zealand. I could be hit on the
> head by a meteorite from Mars (heck, a dog was killed by a meteorite from
> mars in 1894). If the government had a mini series promoting meteorite
> avoidance techniques I would agree that it was a waste of money.
>
Now your being silly Derek. Mind you some outfit in England is offering
to insure people (men and women apparently) against the chance of being
made pregnant by a martian.
> And yes, I am prepared to put up with this series of adverts so that I,
> the people I care for and several thousand complete strangers can
> avoid the consequences of being hit by a drunk New Zealand driver.
>
> Is that wrong?
>
Ah yeah the old care for the neighbour more than anything bullshit. You
can get away with all sorts of abuses with that line as the Road Safety
enforcers know only too well.
> > Well let's see. If I was spending my money at the obscene rate these
> > adds are consuming I would want to see results and I would expect if
> > these adds are in any way effective to see a measureable difference
> > pretty well right away in the road toll. Is this the case ? Has anyone
> > checked ? or do they let this waste of money continue unabated because
> > "it's in the interests of road safety"?
>
> If you get your head out of the sand long enough to read the road toll
> statistics from here and overseas, campaigns of this type have been
> shown to be succesful in the past. There is no reason to believe that
> they won't be succesful in the future.
>
What campaigns ? Where were they conducted ? Please quote the source
accurately because I could be persuaded with the right data so I would
like to see these reports. Don't fob this off please Derek because I
know a lot of people would be interested in these reports.
> If you compare the cost of series of TV adverts against the cost of caring
> for a paraplegic for 70 years, I feel that if even one person avoids this
> situation the campaign has been justified.
>
What are the comparative costs Derek ? do you know or are you just
saying that because it's touchy feely nice to be so caring ?.
Derek R Tearne
In article <322108...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
<bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > These are examples of succesful mass mail outs to _rural_addresses_.
>
> No they are examples of direct mail which is what you asked for.
Did I? I don't recall that. To quote from my earlier post...
:If you believe there is a more effective way of targetting rural types
:then please make our (and those of rural drivers) richer by letting
:us know. Perhaps you'll even get to be a life peer in the process.
> Oh so your suddenly an expert on mass mailing huh Brian ? I telephoned
> Wrightson AG in Porirua. They do a monthly mail out to farmers,
> detailing what they called monthly specials, per the rural delivery
> service. It could be used to deliver a very well presented full colour
> brochure advising of the realities of accidents in rural areas.
Sure, they could indeed send a mass mailout to the rural areas. There is
still no reason to believe that this would be effective in reducing traffic
accidents. I would suggest that most people wouldn't read their way through
a glossy magazine full of gory pictures of people mangled in vehicles.
> > TV is a very powerful medium for marketting, if the government chose not to
> > use that medium for road safety campaigns they would be failing in their
> > jobs.
>
> Oh you think the Governments "jobs" are to spend recklessly ? Mind you
> they do too so you aint alone !
I must confess to some difficulty in parsing this sentence of yours,
however I shall say that, In this case, the governments job is to
reduce the road toll. In the absense of a police officer in every
vehicle the most effective way to do this is by educating the public
and increasing public awareness of the dangers involved with drink
driving.
> At least I know how to spell from and punctuation ! And I keep saying I
> suffer the consequences of a socilaist education which was so bloody
> boring I left school at 14.
Mike. This is Usenet. People generally don't spend hours proof reading
or using spelling checkers. Think of it as more like a conversation with
friends. At some points during that conversation someone might stutter,
or not quite pronounce a word correctly or something. Would you go
nyah nyah, you said that word funny.
Consider also that not everyone reading this forum is a native english
speaker. They may be really struggling to achieve the results that you
read on your screen. To berate them for poor punctuation or grammar
is impolite. Even if they are native speakers and capable of a fine
turn of rhetoric, they may not be adept at keyboarding - so should
one be hyper-critical of mistakes.
No, it is generally considered poor form to correct people in such a way,
However, people like you come along and start pointing at peoples spelling,
grammar and simple typographic errors - usually when their argument is
flagging. When they do this they should not be surprised to find that
their own grammar and punctuation come under scrutiny.
And to be blunt, yours frequently sucks big time.
There is a phrase about people without sin casting stones. I would suggest
that you should refrain from casting these particular stones.
> Suit yourself I can't understand it and I stick by it ! And stick to the
> subject or I'll start playing your silly game and you'll lose !
My silly game? Read a few of your own posts. Check out how many times you
have passed some derisory comment about someone elses grammar or spelling.
> >It's
> > rare enough to see a traffic officer in Grey Lynn, let alone Opouteke.
> >
>
> Oh there you are you see your looking out for Traffic Officers when
> there are none any more. No wonder you think we need more. No you see
> Derek some two or more years ago the Traffic Officers dissapeared and
> now its the boys in blue who do that job.
Did you not notice, not long ago, when the decision was made to, once again,
have officers dedicated to traffic policing.
> How many pubs are in this Opouteke ? And is there a cop in the area ?
> And if theres not who deals with the burglaries and rapes and murders.
> And is this place anywhere near Opotiki ?
Have you ever been to rural New Zealand? Come on 'fess up.
If you had you would realise that, for most rural people the nearest
pub is a fair drive away. You would also realise that the nearest police
station is often even further away.
There are more pubs than there are police stations and more publicans than
there are police.
And no. The place I'm thinking of isn't near Opotiki.
> > I'm not claiming that everyone thinks that way, or that all of a given
> > group think that way. I have however heard similar statements recently.
>
> Tell the cops who these cretons are then !
That's cretin and you don't know what one is.
> > Your friend and his partner
>
> The word people is a plural. I'm dissapointed that someone able to
> correct my grammar and punctuation as you can should make a balls up
> like this Derek.
Mike. You are the one who is casting aspertions on peoples grammar, spelling
and the comprehensibility of their posts. I have not attempted to correct
your grammar.
There are few enough hours in the day as it is.
> > What? Are you serious? Whatever you might think about the current crop
> > of road safety ads, they are clearly targetting particular groups. That
> > should be trivially obvious to even the most casual of observer.
>
> If your speaking about the farmers, which I thought we had been for the
> whole of the thread, they are not targeting them (FARMERS) with a mini
> series which every man women and child in the country gets brainwashed
> with.
Like I said, the series is aimed at rural New Zealanders (not all of whom
are farmers). This should be trivially obvious. If not 'Country people die
on country roads' should be a hint.
> > If you get your head out of the sand long enough to read the road toll
> > statistics from here and overseas, campaigns of this type have been
> > shown to be succesful in the past. There is no reason to believe that
> > they won't be succesful in the future.
>
> What campaigns ? Where were they conducted ? Please quote the source
> accurately because I could be persuaded with the right data so I would
> like to see these reports. Don't fob this off please Derek because I
> know a lot of people would be interested in these reports.
I might suggest you read through a few back copies of the AA magazine.
Or perhaps national radio.
The campaigns themselves have surely not escaped your notice. Many of the
shock horror blood on the tracks adverts we've seen in the last couple of
years are based on a very similar campaign in Australia which achieved
a noticeable reduction in their road toll. These studies have been taken
into account by the government in their decision making.
You probably don't want to hear or believe that though, seeing as it's
more fun to believe they decided to waste people money willy nilly.
> > If you compare the cost of series of TV adverts against the cost of caring
> > for a paraplegic for 70 years, I feel that if even one person avoids this
> > situation the campaign has been justified.
>
> What are the comparative costs Derek ? do you know or are you just
> saying that because it's touchy feely nice to be so caring ?.
Why don'y you find a paraplegic and ask them how much wheel chair costs.
The cost of caring for paraplegics is enormous. Even more so if they
are confined to hospital beds.
I don't think it would be unrealistic to place that cost in the millions
of dollars bracket when taken over 70 years. The real costs of initial
hospital treatment and physio will be in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
Even if you don't care about the lives involved, innocent or otherwise,
the dollar value of medical care for the seriously ill is enormous.
Or don't you watch the news... The costs of keeping someone in an old
folks home in Kaitaia is in the news just about every night.
Multiply that by 4 or eight times and then add some.
Probably works out the same as one set of ads.
Mike Nelson
Derek Tearne asked:
> > > These are examples of succesful mass mail outs to _rural_addresses_.
> >
> > No they are examples of direct mail which is what you asked for.
>
> Did I? I don't recall that. To quote from my earlier post...
>
> :If you believe there is a more effective way of targetting rural types
> :then please make our (and those of rural drivers) richer by letting
> :us know. Perhaps you'll even get to be a life peer in the process.
And just so we get it dead right Derek read this:
> > > >Yeah it's called direct mail to all rural addresses in NZ and it's used
> > > >successfully (direct mail) by thousands of successful businesses all
> > > >over NZ.
The key above is the words (direct mail) I was talking about that and
you said give me some examples .... so I did. And if you want to be
pedantic then I will give specific examples of rural ones (besides the
Wrightson AG one) in future posts.
> > >
> > > Is that right? Cite some examples.
> > >
> >
> > The Warehouse, Noel Leemings, Foodtown, Harcourts etc etc
>
> These are examples of succesful mass mail outs to _rural_addresses_.
No they are examples of direct mail which is what you asked for.
>
> > Oh so your suddenly an expert on mass mailing huh Brian ? I telephoned
> > Wrightson AG in Porirua. They do a monthly mail out to farmers,
> > detailing what they called monthly specials, per the rural delivery
> > service. It could be used to deliver a very well presented full colour
> > brochure advising of the realities of accidents in rural areas.
>
> Sure, they could indeed send a mass mailout to the rural areas. There is
> still no reason to believe that this would be effective in reducing traffic
> accidents. I would suggest that most people wouldn't read their way through
> a glossy magazine full of gory pictures of people mangled in vehicles.
>
It would'nt need to be anything more than the mini series stuff in comic
form.
> > > TV is a very powerful medium for marketting, if the government chose not to
> > > use that medium for road safety campaigns they would be failing in their
> > > jobs.
> >
> > Oh you think the Governments "jobs" are to spend recklessly ? Mind you
> > they do too so you aint alone !
>
> I must confess to some difficulty in parsing this sentence of yours,
> however I shall say that, In this case, the governments job is to
> reduce the road toll. In the absense of a police officer in every
> vehicle the most effective way to do this is by educating the public
> and increasing public awareness of the dangers involved with drink
> driving.
>
Increasing public awareness ? Think about that for a minute. Are you
aware ? What makes you think you and a few others in this country are
aware and the rest of us are'nt ? You demean the intelligence of the
citizens of this country and hold yourself up on some sort of pedastal
like you are somehow blessed with this ability to be aware the rest of
us dont have.
> > At least I know how to spell from and punctuation ! And I keep saying I
> > suffer the consequences of a socilaist education which was so bloody
> > boring I left school at 14.
>
> Mike. This is Usenet. People generally don't spend hours proof reading
> or using spelling checkers. Think of it as more like a conversation with
> friends. At some points during that conversation someone might stutter,
> or not quite pronounce a word correctly or something. Would you go
> nyah nyah, you said that word funny.
>
Listen pal you started this silly crap. I was being deadly serious about
not understanding what you said and I mean it. I am being critical of
your spelling because you were going on about my grammer and
punctuation. But look back and you will see that until you rubbished my
punctuation I had not once criticised your spelling.
> Consider also that not everyone reading this forum is a native english
> speaker. They may be really struggling to achieve the results that you
> read on your screen. To berate them for poor punctuation or grammar
> is impolite. Even if they are native speakers and capable of a fine
> turn of rhetoric, they may not be adept at keyboarding - so should
> one be hyper-critical of mistakes.
>
Oh stop sounding like a bloody school teacher or are you one ?
> No, it is generally considered poor form to correct people in such a way,
>
> However, people like you come along and start pointing at peoples spelling,
> grammar and simple typographic errors - usually when their argument is
> flagging. When they do this they should not be surprised to find that
> their own grammar and punctuation come under scrutiny.
>
> And to be blunt, yours frequently sucks big time.
>
> There is a phrase about people without sin casting stones. I would suggest
> that you should refrain from casting these particular stones.
>
> > Suit yourself I can't understand it and I stick by it ! And stick to the
> > subject or I'll start playing your silly game and you'll lose !
>
> My silly game? Read a few of your own posts. Check out how many times you
> have passed some derisory comment about someone elses grammar or spelling.
>
Oh are we dealing with this danny and tessa stuff or every other post I
have been involved in ?
> > >It's
> > > rare enough to see a traffic officer in Grey Lynn, let alone Opouteke.
> > >
> >
> > Oh there you are you see your looking out for Traffic Officers when
> > there are none any more. No wonder you think we need more. No you see
> > Derek some two or more years ago the Traffic Officers dissapeared and
> > now its the boys in blue who do that job.
>
> Did you not notice, not long ago, when the decision was made to, once again,
> have officers dedicated to traffic policing.
>
I did but as yet that has not happened. Personally it can't come soon
enough for me because it's much easier to spot a black and white than
try and decide if the cop car has a detective in it on his way to a
murder or if it's one of the ticket issuing ones.
> > How many pubs are in this Opouteke ? And is there a cop in the area ?
> > And if theres not who deals with the burglaries and rapes and murders.
> > And is this place anywhere near Opotiki ?
>
> Have you ever been to rural New Zealand? Come on 'fess up.
I told you Derek I worked on farms when I first left school and I was a
herd tester in the Waikato and I owned a farm myself once. Why did you
snip that and then ask me to 'fess up about ever being to rural NZ. It
would be difficult to herd test in Queen St or Lambton Quay.
> If you had you would realise that, for most rural people the nearest
> pub is a fair drive away. You would also realise that the nearest police
> station is often even further away.
>
> There are more pubs than there are police stations and more publicans than
> there are police.
But you make it sound like the cops have to cover every country pub all
at the same time on the same night. There are enough cops to be able to
have a gang of them 1 mile down the road from the Opouteke pub Thursday
night and the Opotiki pub on the Friday night.
>
> And no. The place I'm thinking of isn't near Opotiki.
>
Where is it then Derek ?
> > > I'm not claiming that everyone thinks that way, or that all of a given
> > > group think that way. I have however heard similar statements recently.
> >
> > Tell the cops who these cretons are then !
>
> That's cretin and you don't know what one is.
>
Now listen some short while ago you raved on about netiquete and how
rude it was to correct people etc etc and then you turn around and do
this stuff above. Please ! And what are cretins then Derek ?
> > > Your friend and his partner
> >
> > The word people is a plural. I'm dissapointed that someone able to
> > correct my grammar and punctuation as you can should make a balls up
> > like this Derek.
>
> Mike. You are the one who is casting aspertions on peoples grammar, spelling
> and the comprehensibility of their posts. I have not attempted to correct
> your grammar.
>
> There are few enough hours in the day as it is.
>
Oh jeez how can you say that. Read the thread and I then expect your
retraction of that outlandish claim.
> > > What? Are you serious? Whatever you might think about the current crop
> > > of road safety ads, they are clearly targetting particular groups. That
> > > should be trivially obvious to even the most casual of observer.
> >
> > If your speaking about the farmers, which I thought we had been for the
> > whole of the thread, they are not targeting them (FARMERS) with a mini
> > series which every man women and child in the country gets brainwashed
> > with.
>
> Like I said, the series is aimed at rural New Zealanders (not all of whom
> are farmers). This should be trivially obvious. If not 'Country people die
> on country roads' should be a hint.
>
How many country people are not farmers ? And if they are in rural areas
then the direct mail to rural areas gets them even if they are running a
knock shop. You know Fionas Place Rd2 Oputeke or wherever.
> > > If you get your head out of the sand long enough to read the road toll
> > > statistics from here and overseas, campaigns of this type have been
> > > shown to be succesful in the past. There is no reason to believe that
> > > they won't be succesful in the future.
> >
> > What campaigns ? Where were they conducted ? Please quote the source
> > accurately because I could be persuaded with the right data so I would
> > like to see these reports. Don't fob this off please Derek because I
> > know a lot of people would be interested in these reports.
>
> I might suggest you read through a few back copies of the AA magazine.
> Or perhaps national radio.
>
Well as I thought you can't quote an actual article. How does one get
back issues of National radio ? Quote what article in what edition so I
can refer to it please Derek.
> The campaigns themselves have surely not escaped your notice. Many of the
> shock horror blood on the tracks adverts we've seen in the last couple of
> years are based on a very similar campaign in Australia which achieved
> a noticeable reduction in their road toll. These studies have been taken
> into account by the government in their decision making.
>
Once again I would appreciate the source of your information and as I
say I may be persuaded.
> You probably don't want to hear or believe that though, seeing as it's
> more fun to believe they decided to waste people money willy nilly.
>
You misunderstand me clearly. I dont see anything funny in anyone
wasting our money but I am obviously a little more sceptical of how my
money is spent than you.
> > > If you compare the cost of series of TV adverts against the cost of caring
> > > for a paraplegic for 70 years, I feel that if even one person avoids this
> > > situation the campaign has been justified.
> >
> > What are the comparative costs Derek ? do you know or are you just
> > saying that because it's touchy feely nice to be so caring ?.
>
> Why don'y you find a paraplegic and ask them how much wheel chair costs.
Not all paraplegics are the result of car accidents.
> The cost of caring for paraplegics is enormous. Even more so if they
> are confined to hospital beds.
>
See above !
> I don't think it would be unrealistic to place that cost in the millions
> of dollars bracket when taken over 70 years. The real costs of initial
> hospital treatment and physio will be in the hundreds of thousands of
> dollars.
>
Not all paraplegics are that way because of road accidents so the
figures are not applicable.
> Even if you don't care about the lives involved, innocent or otherwise,
> the dollar value of medical care for the seriously ill is enormous.
>
Thats exactly why they should not waste it on TV mini series ads when
more cost effective mediums are available.
> Or don't you watch the news... The costs of keeping someone in an old
> folks home in Kaitaia is in the news just about every night.
>
Yes I saw that pornography on the news and Holmes several times but I
thought she was there because of alzheimers disease not a road accident.
> Multiply that by 4 or eight times and then add some.
>
Not at all relevant.
> Probably works out the same as one set of ads.
> Also, oh connoisseur of direct marketting, how many of these direct mail-outs
> also have the phrase "As seen-on TV" stamped next to several of the prominent
> bargains? I'm sure even you will agree that this is common.
>
Have'nt ever seen one that says "As seen in the tv mini series that you
the taxpayer paid for"
> Not everyone thinks the same as you do (thank god).
Don't blame god for the others who don't think sensibly.
> Question: Are the Danny and Tess adverts targetted at the country driver?
>
> > > I think not.
No they are trying to get across to urban yuppies (do they still exist?)
but they are going about it in a sneaky way as per recommendations by
Saatchi and Saatchi eh Derek ?.
> Well let's see. If I was spending my money at the obscene rate these
> > adds are consuming I would want to see results and I would expect if
> > these adds are in any way effective to see a measureable difference
> > pretty well right away in the road toll. Is this the case ? Has anyone
> > checked ? or do they let this waste of money continue unabated because
> > "it's in the interests of road safety"?
>
Why did'nt you answer this Derek or don't you care that they are
spending money unsupervised which Mrs Findlay could use ?
MN
What follows is an attempt to get this to post and not go on about "too
much included text and not enough blah blah" !!
ENTREPRENUER'S CREDO
"I do not choose to be a common man.
It is my right to be uncommon--if I can.
I seek opportunity--not security.
I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled
and dulled by having the state look after me.
I want to take the calculated risk;
to dream and to build,
to fail and succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole;
I prefer the challenges of life
to the guaranteed existence;
the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of Utopia.
I will not trade freedom for benefience
nor my dignity for a handout.
I will never cower before any master
nor bend to any threat.
It is my heritage to stand erect,
proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself,
to enjoy the benefits of my creations
and to face the world boldly and say:
This, with god's help, I have done.
All this is what it means to be an Entreprenuer."--
Simon Travaglia
Mike Nelson (bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz) wrote:
> Derek Tearne asked:
> It would'nt need to be anything more than the mini series stuff in comic
> form.
I think you'll find that the point of the ad is to have characters that
people can identify with - on screen "friends" perhaps. The idea is that
you realise that people with LIVES die on roads (unlike computer sorts)
and not just some faceless statistic. It's also (by virtue of the wedding
buildup) saying that just because things are going good for you doesn't
mean that you're invulnerable. Boil it down, drink driving can wreck
lives.
> > I must confess to some difficulty in parsing this sentence of yours,
> > however I shall say that, In this case, the governments job is to
> > reduce the road toll. In the absense of a police officer in every
> > vehicle the most effective way to do this is by educating the public
> > and increasing public awareness of the dangers involved with drink
> > driving.
> >
> Increasing public awareness ? Think about that for a minute. Are you
> aware ? What makes you think you and a few others in this country are
> aware and the rest of us are'nt ? You demean the intelligence of the
> citizens of this country and hold yourself up on some sort of pedastal
> like you are somehow blessed with this ability to be aware the rest of
> us dont have.
Mike, I think you should try to look at postings as other people's opinions
and not a personal attack upon you. I agree with the opinion prior to yours
that it increases public awareness. INCREASING is the keyword here. It's
not an affront to you. No-one's calling you a weiner. No-one's saying
that they are better than you.
> Oh stop sounding like a bloody school teacher or are you one ?
Ah! 14 feet. This must be the deep end then.
> > And to be blunt, yours frequently sucks big time.
But not to be left out of the "Nyah Nyah" Stakes, Derek jumps in as well.
>> My silly game? Read a few of your own posts. Check out how many times you
>> have passed some derisory comment about someone elses grammar or spelling.
>Oh are we dealing with this danny and tessa stuff or every other post I
>have been involved in ?
Now *this* sort of spat is best handled in email.
> I did but as yet that has not happened. Personally it can't come soon
> enough for me because it's much easier to spot a black and white than
> try and decide if the cop car has a detective in it on his way to a
> murder or if it's one of the ticket issuing ones.
It's even easier not to speed or drink drive.
(I gave up at this point. Mike's attention-span-expiring signature deleted)
--
Simon Travaglia, (s...@waikato.ac.nz) Unix Systems Administrator,
http://prime-mover.cc.waikato.ac.nz
University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand..
Derek R Tearne
In article <32216A...@mail.netlink.co.nz>, Mike Nelson
<bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> > In the absense of a police officer in every
> > vehicle the most effective way to do this is by educating the public
> > and increasing public awareness of the dangers involved with drink
> > driving.
> >
>
> Increasing public awareness ? Think about that for a minute. Are you
> aware ? What makes you think you and a few others in this country are
> aware and the rest of us are'nt ? You demean the intelligence of the
> citizens of this country and hold yourself up on some sort of pedastal
> like you are somehow blessed with this ability to be aware the rest of
> us dont have.
Over the last ten years I have seen the attitudes to drinking and driving
in New Zealand change dramatically. Far more people are acting responsibly
and one sees fewer people driving around town in a clearly drunken state.
This attitudinal shift has come about by what? Osmosis?
This shift has come about largely because of education, because campaigns
in schools, on television, in magazines and newspapers and on radio. Campaigns
like the current Danny and Tess campaign, like the teenagers in the car
(come on, nobody is drunk this early), I'm sure everyone knows the ones
I mean.
That people are still involved in accidents with far greater than the
legal limit of alcohol in their bloodstream shows that there are still
some people who are either unaware that alcohol and driving don't mix,
or who seem to think that only other people are affected.
As long as the road toll continues to be an issue then campaigns of
education are necessary. There are also new young drivers every year -
there needs to be continuing education for these people - and reminders
for the rest of us. Less frequently of course.
> > Did you not notice, not long ago, when the decision was made to, once again,
> > have officers dedicated to traffic policing.
>
> I did but as yet that has not happened.
I'm almost certain I saw, not only a photograph of one of the painted
vehicles in the New Zealand Herald, but one of the vehicles themselves on
the side of the road. Perhaps I was mistaken.
> Personally it can't come soon
> enough for me because it's much easier to spot a black and white than
> try and decide if the cop car has a detective in it on his way to a
> murder or if it's one of the ticket issuing ones.
Now, I was under the impression that you were one of the intelligent few
New Zealanders for whom a visible deterrent isn't necessary for you to drive
carefully and safely. If this is the case why do you wish for more visible
traffic enforcement officers? So you can alter your behaviour when
you see one?
This certainly seems the most obvious implication of your statement.
> > Have you ever been to rural New Zealand? Come on 'fess up.
>
> I told you Derek I worked on farms when I first left school and I was a
> herd tester in the Waikato and I owned a farm myself once. Why did you
> snip that and then ask me to 'fess up about ever being to rural NZ. It
> would be difficult to herd test in Queen St or Lambton Quay.
Oh, I'm sorry. You seemed to have such great difficulty giving examples
based in a rural setting, and seem to have such little grasp of the population
density, distances between communities and number of pubs/police stations
that I assumed you hadn't been there - or at least hadn't been there recently.
>
> > If you had you would realise that, for most rural people the nearest
> > pub is a fair drive away. You would also realise that the nearest police
> > station is often even further away.
> >
> > There are more pubs than there are police stations and more publicans than
> > there are police.
>
> But you make it sound like the cops have to cover every country pub all
> at the same time on the same night. There are enough cops to be able to
> have a gang of them 1 mile down the road from the Opouteke pub Thursday
> night and the Opotiki pub on the Friday night.
OK. Even assuming that there are enough cops to cover a rural pub one
night a week, you are only addressing a seventh of the time. Also, if one
assumes that most of the drinking occurs on Friday and Saturday nights,
some pubs will not be targetted at the most risky times.
However, there aren't anything like enough cops to do this. The 'Gang'
(or flying squad - see AA directions magazine about a year ago) does
indeed exist. It consists of around twenty vehicles who travel in
a group and are intended to target speed and alcohol infringements on
rural roads. This doesn't really give adequate cover to be a deterrent
based on police presence. It is the best they can do however, without
taking police from other tasks in local areas to spend a day on traffic
infringements. The thin blue line is already stretched ridiculously
thin in rural New Zealand. To put a 'gang' outside every pub at least
once a week would stretch it beyond breaking point - it would require every
rural police officer and a few more.
> > And no. The place I'm thinking of isn't near Opotiki.
>
> Where is it then Derek ?
Farther North.
> > > Tell the cops who these cretons are then !
> >
> > That's cretin and you don't know what one is.
> >
>
> Now listen some short while ago you raved on about netiquete and how
> rude it was to correct people etc etc and then you turn around and do
> this stuff above. Please ! And what are cretins then Derek ?
A cretin is a rather archaic term used to describe a person with a deformity
or mental retardation caused by thyroid deficiency. I don't think that
is a reasonable description of the people in question.
> > Mike. You are the one who is casting aspertions on peoples grammar,
> > spelling
> > and the comprehensibility of their posts. I have not attempted to correct
> > your grammar.
> >
> > There are few enough hours in the day as it is.
> >
>
> Oh jeez how can you say that. Read the thread and I then expect your
> retraction of that outlandish claim.
Read the thread? I would only have to read your previous sentence.
> How many country people are not farmers ? And if they are in rural areas
> then the direct mail to rural areas gets them even if they are running a
> knock shop. You know Fionas Place Rd2 Oputeke or wherever.
How many country people are not farmers? There are the herd testers for
instance. The doctors, the vets, the mechanics, the shopkeepers, the
people in the local council, the police and the publicans. To mention
but a few.
This is not even including the distressingly high number of people who are
listed as unemployed. Rural mail gets to most of the _households_,
except perhaps the ones who refused to pay the cost of rural delivery
out of protest...
This campaign is designed to get to most of the _people_ in those households.
Methods which are succesful in affecting the decision making of a small
number of interested parties (Wrightson's target market for instance) have
different requirements to those aimed at altering the behaviour of any
family member old enough to drive a vehicle.
Wrightsons know that the people they target are going to be buying products
of the kind they sell - they merely have to persuade them to buy their
agricutlural needs from Wrightons instead of one of their competitors.
They rarely have to change the way their customers behave in a radical
fashion.
> > I might suggest you read through a few back copies of the AA magazine.
> > Or perhaps national radio.
>
> Well as I thought you can't quote an actual article. How does one get
> back issues of National radio ? Quote what article in what edition so I
> can refer to it please Derek.
I have quoted publications where you can find those articles. There
are archives of AA Directions (which covers these campaigns relatively
frequently). No, I don't keep old copies of the radio news on tape.
I'm sorry. Ditto the TV news, or even old copies of the Herald.
They do exist though.
> Once again I would appreciate the source of your information and as I
> say I may be persuaded.
Somehow I doubt that you would be persuaded. You'd say that the
figures were fiddled, or that a survey in Australia or the UK no
matter how conclusive has no relavence.
> > Why don'y you find a paraplegic and ask them how much wheel chair costs.
>
> Not all paraplegics are the result of car accidents.
This is very true. However, when discussing the incidental cost to
individuals and the nation it is a useful metric.
If one takes the example of an able bodied person - just an average able
bodied person - and assumes they are paralysed and either hospitalised
or in need of constant medical care for the rest of their lives the
cost is enormous. A standard wheel chair costs around a thousand dollars
if I recall correctly - the tyres cost something ridiculous like 50 bucks
each and only last about 4 months. A powered staircase costs several
thousand dollars.
In the Herald this morning there is a discussion of an attempt to recoup
a billion dollars by finding people who are currently claiming on the
ACC even though they are fit to work.
A billion dollars of ACC for 7000 people who aren't quite as sick as they
say they are. This is not even taking into account any other benefits they
may be claiming.
Now, if one assumes for a moment that these people - instead of defrauding
the government are people who have been involved in fairly serious
motor vehicle accidents due to the other party being drunk.
That's a billion dollars saved a year straight away.
This isn't even taking into account the loss of earnings (or potential earnings
in the case of the 3 teenagers killed by a drunk driver recently), or the
loss of earnings or those who now have to spend all their time looking after
the victim.
> > I don't think it would be unrealistic to place that cost in the millions
> > of dollars bracket when taken over 70 years. The real costs of initial
> > hospital treatment and physio will be in the hundreds of thousands of
> > dollars.
> >
>
> Not all paraplegics are that way because of road accidents so the
> figures are not applicable.
Even if only _one_ person is saved from that fate by this current advertising
campaign then the costs are covered. If two people are saved then we are
ahead.
Even the cost of burying someone is considerable.
Road accidents don't just cost lives they cost thousands of dollars
each time.
From a cost benefit point of view the current TV campaigns are cheap.
Rural mailing might be a little bit cheaper, but why use that - or that
alone, when TV advertising is proven to give a very good return on the
money spent.
> > Or don't you watch the news... The costs of keeping someone in an old
> > folks home in Kaitaia is in the news just about every night.
> >
>
> Yes I saw that pornography on the news and Holmes several times but I
> thought she was there because of alzheimers disease not a road accident.
It doesn't matter why she is there. It is an example of the cost of
long term hospital care. Once you have ascertained the cost
you can them simply substitute one old lady with maybe ten years to
live with a young road accident victim with perhaps 80 years to live.
I use this as an example as it is current enough for you to simply
read the paper to work out the costs.
Chris Wilkinson
Hi there!
Chris Owen (ch...@iceberg.southern.co.nz) wrote:
: >
: >If this mini series has the effect of making rural drivers identify with
: >the characters and curb their drinking then it will be a success. If
: >it doesn't then at least it's an honest attempt.
It won't work because the targets of this advertisement series are too
busy down the pub boozing to be watching television...
: But you have to actually get people to think first. When was the last
: time a televsion commercial made you think?
Thats the other problem. The only thing that comes to my mind while watching
ads on TV is 'shame I can't hit fast forward!!' :)
Chris W.
/|\
WWW page for Atari users - http://www.southern.co.nz/~chriswil/index.html
Fiona Cubie
>
> I'm a die hard townie, so you can write my comnmets off because I don't
> belong to the target demographic. The point of the teaser ads I guess was
> to allow us to get to know these people, so that when Danny expires we
> feel some sympathy.
>
> Well, for me, they failed miserably. I actually felt a surge of
> enthusiasm when the truck went off the road. "Yes, they're dead. Now we
> won't have to put up with any more of the god-awful ads." I was mortified
> to see another of those damn "More Later" messages.
>
Same here, Danny deserved to die after being such a tosser.
What 20 something male talks and acts the way he did?
Looked like a forty something advertising copywriter wrote this one.
Icky
Dave Horn
Simon Travaglia <s...@its.waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
[A good, level-headed summary of ad relevance and Mike and Derek's
personally aimed, publicly aired, cat-scratch]
Nicely put, Simon. I must admit, I have read very little of Mr Nelson's
posts since I killfiled him two weeks ago, but Derek has been keeping bits
of his posts alive well after their 'use-by' dates.
I always remember what my intermediate teachers had to say... "Who is the
more foolish? The Fool who knows nothing, or the person who argues
with-HORN! STOP PICKING YOUR NOSE!"
Or something like that.
-dave^h.
--
ja...@comedy.co.nz
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Welcome to 'Bookwatch', the Crimewatch for Librarians. Three weeks
ago,a man borrowed 'The Art of Photocopying' by Sabina Lovetriangle.
"Since then, that book has been returned 48 times.
"If you have any information..." - Caffiene Comedy Hour, 1995
Mike Nelson
Derek Tearne wrote:
> Over the last ten years I have seen the attitudes to drinking and driving
> in New Zealand change dramatically. Far more people are acting responsibly
> and one sees fewer people driving around town in a clearly drunken state.
Derek this is surely emotional stuff to fluff up your story. I have been
driving for 33 years and apart from the bad old days (I mean 20 years
ago) I can't remember seeing "people driving around town in a clearly
drunken state."
>
> This attitudinal shift has come about by what? Osmosis?
>
> This shift has come about largely because of education, because campaigns
> in schools, on television, in magazines and newspapers and on radio. Campaigns
> like the current Danny and Tess campaign, like the teenagers in the car
> (come on, nobody is drunk this early), I'm sure everyone knows the ones
> I mean.
>
Yes it has been very effective Derek has'nt it ? And as these mini
series are a new addition and have not been a factor in the reduction of
"This attitudinal shift" it lends further weight to my claim that the
mini series are over the top and a waste of money.
> That people are still involved in accidents with far greater than the
> legal limit of alcohol in their bloodstream shows that there are still
> some people who are either unaware that alcohol and driving don't mix,
> or who seem to think that only other people are affected.
>
> As long as the road toll continues to be an issue then campaigns of
> education are necessary. There are also new young drivers every year -
> there needs to be continuing education for these people - and reminders
> for the rest of us. Less frequently of course.
>
I have never said we dont need campaigns I have only said we dont need
these over the top campaigns.
> > > Did you not notice, not long ago, when the decision was made to, once again,
> > > have officers dedicated to traffic policing.
> >
> > I did but as yet that has not happened.
>
> I'm almost certain I saw, not only a photograph of one of the painted
> vehicles in the New Zealand Herald, but one of the vehicles themselves on
> the side of the road. Perhaps I was mistaken.
>
And perhaps I am mistaken. I really dont know for sure.
> > Personally it can't come soon
> > enough for me because it's much easier to spot a black and white than
> > try and decide if the cop car has a detective in it on his way to a
> > murder or if it's one of the ticket issuing ones.
>
> Now, I was under the impression that you were one of the intelligent few
> New Zealanders for whom a visible deterrent isn't necessary for you to drive
> carefully and safely. If this is the case why do you wish for more visible
> traffic enforcement officers? So you can alter your behaviour when
> you see one?
>
Derek I do more than 100kmh but I do not speed.
> This certainly seems the most obvious implication of your statement.
>
See above!
> Oh, I'm sorry. You seemed to have such great difficulty giving examples
> based in a rural setting, and seem to have such little grasp of the population
> density, distances between communities and number of pubs/police stations
> that I assumed you hadn't been there - or at least hadn't been there recently.
> >
> > > If you had you would realise that, for most rural people the nearest
> > > pub is a fair drive away. You would also realise that the nearest police
> > > station is often even further away.
> > >
> > > There are more pubs than there are police stations and more publicans than
> > > there are police.
> >
> > But you make it sound like the cops have to cover every country pub all
> > at the same time on the same night. There are enough cops to be able to
> > have a gang of them 1 mile down the road from the Opouteke pub Thursday
> > night and the Opotiki pub on the Friday night.
>
> OK. Even assuming that there are enough cops to cover a rural pub one
> night a week, you are only addressing a seventh of the time. Also, if one
> assumes that most of the drinking occurs on Friday and Saturday nights,
> some pubs will not be targetted at the most risky times.
>
Oh Derek I just said "There are enough cops to be able to
have a gang of them 1 mile down the road from the Opouteke pub Thursday
night and the Opotiki pub on the Friday night" as an example. I don't
mean they have to be posted there every night and it's not 1/7th it
2/7ths coz they are out two nights. But I repeat that is an example.
They don't sit outside the same pub and in the same place all the time
in town they circulate right ? And so they can in the country.
> However, there aren't anything like enough cops to do this. The 'Gang'
> (or flying squad - see AA directions magazine about a year ago) does
> indeed exist. It consists of around twenty vehicles who travel in
> a group and are intended to target speed and alcohol infringements on
> rural roads. This doesn't really give adequate cover to be a deterrent
> based on police presence. It is the best they can do however, without
> taking police from other tasks in local areas to spend a day on traffic
> infringements. The thin blue line is already stretched ridiculously
> thin in rural New Zealand. To put a 'gang' outside every pub at least
> once a week would stretch it beyond breaking point - it would require every
> rural police officer and a few more.
That could be because they spend too much with Saatchi and Saatchi and
not enough employing more cops.
>
> > > And no. The place I'm thinking of isn't near Opotiki.
> >
> > Where is it then Derek ?
>
> Farther North.
>
Farther north of where ?
> A cretin is a rather archaic term used to describe a person with a deformity
> or mental retardation caused by thyroid deficiency. I don't think that
> is a reasonable description of the people in question.
>
You learn something every day !
> How many country people are not farmers? There are the herd testers for
> instance. The doctors, the vets, the mechanics, the shopkeepers, the
> people in the local council, the police and the publicans. To mention
> but a few.
>
> This is not even including the distressingly high number of people who are
> listed as unemployed. Rural mail gets to most of the _households_,
> except perhaps the ones who refused to pay the cost of rural delivery
> out of protest...
>
> This campaign is designed to get to most of the _people_ in those households.
> Methods which are succesful in affecting the decision making of a small
> number of interested parties (Wrightson's target market for instance) have
> different requirements to those aimed at altering the behaviour of any
> family member old enough to drive a vehicle.
>
> Wrightsons know that the people they target are going to be buying products
> of the kind they sell - they merely have to persuade them to buy their
> agricutlural needs from Wrightons instead of one of their competitors.
> They rarely have to change the way their customers behave in a radical
> fashion.
>
They do if they have always been customers of Joe Bloggs Ag Supplies
Ltd.
> I have quoted publications where you can find those articles. There
> are archives of AA Directions (which covers these campaigns relatively
> frequently). No, I don't keep old copies of the radio news on tape.
> I'm sorry. Ditto the TV news, or even old copies of the Herald.
> Somehow I doubt that you would be persuaded. You'd say that the
> figures were fiddled, or that a survey in Australia or the UK no
> matter how conclusive has no relavence.
>
Oh thats not fair Derek you have'nt actually shown me anything concrete
yet to be able to judge what way I am likely to interpret stuff you may
yet show me.
> This is very true. However, when discussing the incidental cost to
> individuals and the nation it is a useful metric.
Surely you mean matric ?
>
> If one takes the example of an able bodied person - just an average able
> bodied person - and assumes they are paralysed and either hospitalised
> or in need of constant medical care for the rest of their lives the
> cost is enormous. A standard wheel chair costs around a thousand dollars
> if I recall correctly - the tyres cost something ridiculous like 50 bucks
> each and only last about 4 months. A powered staircase costs several
> thousand dollars.
>
> In the Herald this morning there is a discussion of an attempt to recoup
> a billion dollars by finding people who are currently claiming on the
> ACC even though they are fit to work.
>
> A billion dollars of ACC for 7000 people who aren't quite as sick as they
> say they are. This is not even taking into account any other benefits they
> may be claiming.
>
> Now, if one assumes for a moment that these people - instead of defrauding
> the government are people who have been involved in fairly serious
> motor vehicle accidents due to the other party being drunk.
>
> That's a billion dollars saved a year straight away.
>
Ahh break it down. They are talking about people who woke up one morning
with a sore back and have had it for 4 years and yet still manage to go
skiing in the winter and golfing in the summer.
> This isn't even taking into account the loss of earnings (or potential earnings
> in the case of the 3 teenagers killed by a drunk driver recently), or the
> loss of earnings or those who now have to spend all their time looking after
> the victim.
>
Hey dont go of on this tangent I dont dispute the consequences of road
accidents and drunk drivers. I still maintain that these mini series ads
are over the top and a waste of money.
> Even the cost of burying someone is considerable.
>
Unless they have some magic potion, that cost will be faced sooner or
later road accident or not, so it's not relevent.
> Road accidents don't just cost lives they cost thousands of dollars
> each time.
>
So do mini series TV ads.
> From a cost benefit point of view the current TV campaigns are cheap.
> Rural mailing might be a little bit cheaper, but why use that - or that
> alone, when TV advertising is proven to give a very good return on the
> money spent.
>
How is it proven ?
MN
P Dansted
Mike Nelson <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> writes:
>Derek this is surely emotional stuff to fluff up your story. I have been
>driving for 33 years and apart from the bad old days (I mean 20 years
>ago) I can't remember seeing "people driving around town in a clearly
>drunken state."
Well "a clearly drunken state" is probably in the eyes of the
beholder isn't it. I regularly see "clearly drunken" drivers.
By this I mean people who weave over two lanes, vary in speed
and ignore all traffic signs, lights etc.
A few years ago I had one try and ram me, only to miss and
drive off the road.
>MN
[excessive .sig deleted]
Paul
Derek Tearne
In article <3222B3...@mail.netlink.co.nz>,
Mike Nelson <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
>Derek Tearne wrote:
>> Now, I was under the impression that you were one of the intelligent few
>> New Zealanders for whom a visible deterrent isn't necessary for you to drive
>> carefully and safely. If this is the case why do you wish for more visible
>> traffic enforcement officers? So you can alter your behaviour when
>> you see one?
>
>Derek I do more than 100kmh but I do not speed. [1]
This is really the key to this whole issue. You think that 100k is too
conservative a speed limit - so you choose to flaunt that particular law.
You do this, one assumes, because you consider yourself an educated
and expert driver and know better than the people who set that limit.
Now you _tell_ us that you don't drink and drive, and that your friends
don't drink and drive.
But you also tell us that you don't speed - even though you admit that you
drive over the legal speed limit.
So, when you tell us you don't drink and drive do you mean "I, Mike Nelson,
don't drink over the legal limit and drive a vehicle" or "I Mike Nelson,
intelligent adult who doesn't want to be nannied by the state[2],
drink to the point at which I feel I am still safe to drive - even
though that level is above the legally defined limit".
Even given that _you_ don't drink over the legal limit and drive, is it
not likely that there are people who view drinking and driving the same
way you view 'speeding' and driving. People who think that they are
still OK after 4 glasses of wine, even though they are surely over the
legal limit. Or people who think that a skinfull is still OK if they
know the road really well and there is little traffic.
It is these people who are being targetted by the current 'over the
top' campaigns. And I would predict that the campaigns will necessarily
become more over the top as a smaller percentage of the population is being
targetted.
Now I confess that I have been known to drive over the speed limit,
I also confess that the percentage with which I exceed that speed
limit (and the set of conditions under which I do so) has reduced
considerably over the last couple of years.
Now, I don't know whether this is due to TV advertising, the onset of
old age, maturity, or what - probably a combination of those and more.
I also mostly wear seat belts in the back seats these days - something
which I attribute almost entirely to TV advertising (even though I watch
minimal amounts of TV).
I must confess also that I don't know whether this particular campaign
is going to be succesful, I have my own reservations (mostly based on the
target audience being down the pub at prime screening time). However,
I'm not a marketting professional, one has to assume they have done their
job.
However, bleating about the cost, which is relatively small compared to
the value of benefits, or complaining that they could have had a marginally
cheaper campaign seems to me ridiculous.
I'd much rather they mounted an effective campaign that costs a little
more than some theoretical perfect strategy - but gets results - than
tried cost cutting and mounted a cheaper campaign that has no effect.
--- Derek
[1] Dave, I only included one line. And how did you know about my nose?
[2] This is a reference to Ade Edmonson who, although an amusing comedian
is coming over as a complete jerk. He was convicted for drunk driving
in Britain once again and complained about the nannying state and
old people who didn't have enough fun when they were young making the
laws - or something.
--
Derek Tearne. -- Ruapehu Eruption Information at http://url.co.nz/ruapehu.html
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the
Bruce Hoult
The worst I've seen was a five or so years ago when I was riding my
motorcycle from Wellington to Whangarei one night, just before
Christmas, and passed through Auckland at around 4 am.
On the Auckland southern motorway, before you get into the first of
the suburbs, I came up to a car that was wandering all over the place.
He wasn't going fast -- maybe 80 km/h -- and I wanted to overtake, but
it was clearly going to be very hazardous to do so.
As I awaited my chance the car went completely of the left hand side
of the road, down the three or four foot high grass slope onto flat
ground below, then turned back up the slope and rejoined the motorway.
It actually settled down a bit after that, and I redlined past in
2nd, resolving that if I came across a cop I'd be giving him a
tip-off -- something that I've never done, before or since.
-- Bruce
Derek Gunn
In article <fionac-2708...@fiona.ttg.waikato.ac.nz>
fio...@waikato.ac.nz (Fiona Cubie) writes:
> Same here, Danny deserved to die after being such a tosser.
> What 20 something male talks and acts the way he did?
Plenty of them. Even plenty of "townies" do.
Perhaps you live somewhere very exclusive and don't ever leave it?
> Looked like a forty something advertising copywriter wrote this one.
Should we listen to someone so out of touch?
My god, I can't believe it, I'm defending advertisers!
What have I come to?!! Argh!
Derek Gunn
Alan Brown
In article <4vvjtt$l...@net.auckland.ac.nz>,
P Dansted <pdan...@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>Well "a clearly drunken state" is probably in the eyes of the
>beholder isn't it. I regularly see "clearly drunken" drivers.
>By this I mean people who weave over two lanes, vary in speed
>and ignore all traffic signs, lights etc.
In 1990 a garage attendent in Palmerston North noted that a driver was
clearly drunk and called the police - he didn't prevent the man leaving
the garage forecourt, but was considering it.
2km down the road the driver ran a red light and hit a car crossing the
intersection on a green.
2 people were killed in that collision. I don't know what the outcome
of charges against the drunk driver were.
Understandably, most garage attendants in the city will now hold onto
keys of drivers they consider shouldn't be behind the wheel.
AB
Mike Nelson
Derek Tearne wrote:
>
> In article <3222B3...@mail.netlink.co.nz>,
> Mike Nelson <bb2...@mail.netlink.co.nz> wrote:
> >Derek Tearne wrote:
>
> >> Now, I was under the impression that you were one of the intelligent few
> >> New Zealanders for whom a visible deterrent isn't necessary for you to drive
> >> carefully and safely. If this is the case why do you wish for more visible
> >> traffic enforcement officers? So you can alter your behaviour when
> >> you see one?
> >
>
No I stick to what I said and I could attempt to enlarge on that claim
but I wont.
> This is really the key to this whole issue. You think that 100k is too
> conservative a speed limit - so you choose to flaunt that particular law.
> You do this, one assumes, because you consider yourself an educated
> and expert driver and know better than the people who set that limit.
>
Well I do consider myself an educated and expert driver but I have other
reasons.
> Now you _tell_ us that you don't drink and drive, and that your friends
> don't drink and drive.
>
I Mike Nelson do not drink and drive ever. If I am intending to drink
somewhere I have an agreement with my wife that she will not drink and
be the driver or if we both intend to drink then we get a taxi. Actually
we sometimes get the in-laws to drive us to the venue and we get a taxi
home.
> But you also tell us that you don't speed - even though you admit that you
> drive over the legal speed limit.
>
To be truthful if I drove at 100kmh all the way to Auckland (a trip I do
perhaps 12 times a year) I would be asleep or my attetion would wane. I
need to be at a speed well within my capabilities to stay concentrated
on the job.
> So, when you tell us you don't drink and drive do you mean "I, Mike Nelson,
> don't drink over the legal limit and drive a vehicle" or "I Mike Nelson,
> intelligent adult who doesn't want to be nannied by the state[2],
> drink to the point at which I feel I am still safe to drive - even
> though that level is above the legally defined limit".
>
> Even given that _you_ don't drink over the legal limit and drive, is it
> not likely that there are people who view drinking and driving the same
> way you view 'speeding' and driving. People who think that they are
> still OK after 4 glasses of wine, even though they are surely over the
> legal limit. Or people who think that a skinfull is still OK if they
> know the road really well and there is little traffic.
>
No, no, no
> It is these people who are being targetted by the current 'over the
> top' campaigns. And I would predict that the campaigns will necessarily
> become more over the top as a smaller percentage of the population is being
> targetted.
>
> Now I confess that I have been known to drive over the speed limit,
> I also confess that the percentage with which I exceed that speed
> limit (and the set of conditions under which I do so) has reduced
> considerably over the last couple of years.
>
Welcome to the club !
> Now, I don't know whether this is due to TV advertising, the onset of
> old age, maturity, or what - probably a combination of those and more.
> I also mostly wear seat belts in the back seats these days - something
> which I attribute almost entirely to TV advertising (even though I watch
> minimal amounts of TV).
>
I stay out of back seats !
> I must confess also that I don't know whether this particular campaign
> is going to be succesful, I have my own reservations (mostly based on the
> target audience being down the pub at prime screening time). However,
> I'm not a marketting professional, one has to assume they have done their
> job.
>
That's all I have been on about Derek. And trust me on this Saatchi and
Saatchi did'nt get to be the name advertising agency they are by just
being good advertisers. They are professionals in every sense of the
word but the very nature of their remuneration makes it highly likely
they will oversell where they can because that way they make more money.
If they are selling to Continental soup for instance they would be
selling to another professional in the advertising game. The overkill of
these mini series says to me that they dealt with a bunny who had more
money (yours and mine) than sense.
> However, bleating about the cost, which is relatively small compared to
> the value of benefits, or complaining that they could have had a marginally
> cheaper campaign seems to me ridiculous.
>
I asked you this before and you did'nt answer. Do you have any idea how
much TV advertising costs ?
It may seem that way to you but "look after the pennys and the pounds
look after themselves" applies to them (and us taxpayers) too.
> I'd much rather they mounted an effective campaign that costs a little
> more than some theoretical perfect strategy - but gets results - than
> tried cost cutting and mounted a cheaper campaign that has no effect.
>
That's what I have been on about... the effectiveness of their campaign.
It is overkill !!
> --- Derek
>
> [1] Dave, I only included one line. And how did you know about my nose?
Is this meant for me Derek ?
>
> [2] This is a reference to Ade Edmonson who, although an amusing comedian
> is coming over as a complete jerk. He was convicted for drunk driving
> in Britain once again and complained about the nannying state and
> old people who didn't have enough fun when they were young making the
> laws - or something.
>
No I don't drink and drive !