The Australian government's latest attempt to scare away asylum seekers.
How effective will it be?
It depends on whether the dangers you're trying to escape are more or less scary than being lost in a stormy ocean,, doesn't it?
Showing posts with label government advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government advertising. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
David Marr sums up just about everything you need to know about the supershouty fiasco of yesterday's, and most of the rest of this week's, Question Time :
One bunch of hypocrites who spent millions on government advertising in the Howard years is brawling with another bunch of hypocrites spending millions on government advertising after denouncing the practice all through the Howard years.
A good average to stage what Marr calls "The Show Nobody's Come To See" is about a couple of million dollars a day.
.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Friday, April 02, 2010
There's Nothing Like...Fake Fakes?
By Darryl Mason
Within just two hours of Tourism Australia's new international "There's Nothing Like Australia" advertising campaign being launched, a parody site with an almost identical web address, was posting mock ads, and scoring the sort of widespread media attention that the original campaign launch sought, but did not get.
Some of the first images on the parody site.
The parody site is now taking suggestions for future slogan and image combinations.
As is the legitimate site.
The cynic in me wonders if, in fact, the real and parody sites are not more connected than it would appear.
After all, what's a major Australian tourism campaign without parodies and mockery? Why let someone else get in first and do something much worse with the slogan than any of the above?
Word got out that Tourism Australia was going to take legal action against the parody site, which bumped up the media coverage of the real and fake campaign sites, before Tourism Australia announced that no legal action was on the cards.
An example of a fake fake ad campaign?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
ASIO : You Can Find All Of Us Right Here, Now Check Out Our Trippy Ad
By Darryl Mason
While Australia's most public spy agency, ASIO, advertises for new recruits ...
....on the same Sydney Morning Herald page as a story finely detailing the public service history of the ever more curious fake email-linked Godwin Grech....
....the ground is about to be broken in Canberra for ASIO's spiffy new headquarters, or 'Central Office'. Here's the exact location of our chief spy agency's new HQ :
Both of those images come from ASIO's own website.
Some more screengrabs of the tall, wide ASIO's recruitment ad in the Herald, reminiscent of William Burrough's word and sentence cut-ups :
William Burroughs on the cut-up method :
I wonder if you get a special prize from ASIO for deciphering, or re-arranging, the sentences spread across those three ads?
By Darryl Mason
While Australia's most public spy agency, ASIO, advertises for new recruits ...
....on the same Sydney Morning Herald page as a story finely detailing the public service history of the ever more curious fake email-linked Godwin Grech....
....the ground is about to be broken in Canberra for ASIO's spiffy new headquarters, or 'Central Office'. Here's the exact location of our chief spy agency's new HQ :
Both of those images come from ASIO's own website.
Some more screengrabs of the tall, wide ASIO's recruitment ad in the Herald, reminiscent of William Burrough's word and sentence cut-ups :
William Burroughs on the cut-up method :
I wonder if you get a special prize from ASIO for deciphering, or re-arranging, the sentences spread across those three ads?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Change You Can Indulge In
By Darryl Mason
An exciting ABC News headline declaring Victory for Australians who know what is bad for them, but who give not a fuck, regardless:
Wait a sec....Okay, I'm still a plodder when it comes to screen captures. That wasn't the full headline.
Damn.
That doesn't sound like any kind of fun.
The New Poverty could be expected to take care of too many people smoking and drinking, unless they brew their own beer and wine and grow their own smokeables, and let's face it, the dedicated drinkers and smokers will do exactly that. Obesity? Toxic intakes of cheese and peanut butter are expensive, and you kind of get the feeling, watching even mild fortunes vanish, that most people will be doing a lot more walking. Very soon.
So lay off all the expensive mood-blackening ads flash-blasting our evenings with death-plagued declarations that even the few occasional relieving luxuries left for the many are actually suicidal acts for which appalling guilt is mandatory.
By Darryl Mason
An exciting ABC News headline declaring Victory for Australians who know what is bad for them, but who give not a fuck, regardless:
Wait a sec....Okay, I'm still a plodder when it comes to screen captures. That wasn't the full headline.
Damn.
That doesn't sound like any kind of fun.
The New Poverty could be expected to take care of too many people smoking and drinking, unless they brew their own beer and wine and grow their own smokeables, and let's face it, the dedicated drinkers and smokers will do exactly that. Obesity? Toxic intakes of cheese and peanut butter are expensive, and you kind of get the feeling, watching even mild fortunes vanish, that most people will be doing a lot more walking. Very soon.
So lay off all the expensive mood-blackening ads flash-blasting our evenings with death-plagued declarations that even the few occasional relieving luxuries left for the many are actually suicidal acts for which appalling guilt is mandatory.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
To Drink Or Not To Drunk, Heavily
Australia is a binge-drinking nation. Apparently. That's binge-drinking where 'to binge' now means sipping back three or four mildly boozy drinks in an hour. Or a wine-tasting session as it's also known.
Times have changed.
Binge-drinking used to mean chugging half a large bottle of cheap scotch or burboun just before you stumbled into the party or nightclub, and then finishing yourself off with whatever was handy, and didn't have cigarette butts floating in it.
The Rudd government wants to reduce binge-drinking, so the 'Don't Do It!' ad campaigns begin.
The first ad tells us that if you have boozy barbecues with your mates in your suburban backyard and you tell your kid to go in and get dad a beer from the fridge, he'll grow up to have boozy backyard barbecues and will also tell his own kid to go and get dad a beer from the fridge. And so the terrible cycle of beer-fetching passes down through the generations.
At first I thought the message was that too much booze will make you too lazy to go and get your own frigging beer. Or that children who always do what their parents tell them will grow up to become bossy clones of their piss-addled dads.
And why is it that anti-booze and anti-drug ads always seem to be centred on rural or suburban Australians, living under grey skies or washed-out flourescent lighting?
Why no ads showing rich celebrities doing dunny lines of gak at an awards show? Or a politician downing eight martinis in a flash city restaurant before weaving back to parliament? Or the boss of a financial mega-corporation keeping the board waiting while he hides in his executive toilet and tries to empty a tall glass of vodka into his mouth with trembling hands?
You can do anti-drug ads without grimming the shit of the people you're trying to reach and hopefully teach something worthwhile. Here's one example :
Discouraging binge-drinking in Australia is a particularly tough mission, though something with the gloss, humour and style of the one above would be a good start.
A lot of people binge drink because they enjoy getting that utterly smashed and bombed, the faster the better. A far smaller number gulp down six or seven beers, for three or four hours, because they don't like themselves much and they find this kind of self-punishment satisfying. It's next to impossible to convince hard-core alcoholics to do anything they don't want to do, or anything much at all except drink.
But most Australians binge-drink because it feels good. So how do you stop those who enjoy it? Preach moderation? Or go the illegal drugs line and waste millions of dollars telling people who love ecstasy because it makes them feel absolutely awesome that they're really not having fun at all?
If it was my gig to do an ad to discourage people from drinking heavily, particularly now, I'd show someone coming home from the pub, falling against the table as they empty out their pockets, and wallet to discover they have no money left. Just a bit of silver shrapnel. Way overdue credit card and utilities bills on the table catch the eye. They go to make something quick to eat. Nothing to eat in the fridge, the cupboards are next to bare. The milk in the fridge is lumpy. The frustration and hunger is obvious.
They go for a piss. A stream of gold coins arc into the toilet bowl.
Then they puke.
A nearly endless stream of $20 and $50 notes geyser from the mouth, the toilet overflows with cash.
You might not get them to stop binge-drinking, but they'll have a hard time forgetting what they keep blowing all their money on.
Australia is a binge-drinking nation. Apparently. That's binge-drinking where 'to binge' now means sipping back three or four mildly boozy drinks in an hour. Or a wine-tasting session as it's also known.
Times have changed.
Binge-drinking used to mean chugging half a large bottle of cheap scotch or burboun just before you stumbled into the party or nightclub, and then finishing yourself off with whatever was handy, and didn't have cigarette butts floating in it.
The Rudd government wants to reduce binge-drinking, so the 'Don't Do It!' ad campaigns begin.
The first ad tells us that if you have boozy barbecues with your mates in your suburban backyard and you tell your kid to go in and get dad a beer from the fridge, he'll grow up to have boozy backyard barbecues and will also tell his own kid to go and get dad a beer from the fridge. And so the terrible cycle of beer-fetching passes down through the generations.
At first I thought the message was that too much booze will make you too lazy to go and get your own frigging beer. Or that children who always do what their parents tell them will grow up to become bossy clones of their piss-addled dads.
And why is it that anti-booze and anti-drug ads always seem to be centred on rural or suburban Australians, living under grey skies or washed-out flourescent lighting?
Why no ads showing rich celebrities doing dunny lines of gak at an awards show? Or a politician downing eight martinis in a flash city restaurant before weaving back to parliament? Or the boss of a financial mega-corporation keeping the board waiting while he hides in his executive toilet and tries to empty a tall glass of vodka into his mouth with trembling hands?
You can do anti-drug ads without grimming the shit of the people you're trying to reach and hopefully teach something worthwhile. Here's one example :
Discouraging binge-drinking in Australia is a particularly tough mission, though something with the gloss, humour and style of the one above would be a good start.
A lot of people binge drink because they enjoy getting that utterly smashed and bombed, the faster the better. A far smaller number gulp down six or seven beers, for three or four hours, because they don't like themselves much and they find this kind of self-punishment satisfying. It's next to impossible to convince hard-core alcoholics to do anything they don't want to do, or anything much at all except drink.
But most Australians binge-drink because it feels good. So how do you stop those who enjoy it? Preach moderation? Or go the illegal drugs line and waste millions of dollars telling people who love ecstasy because it makes them feel absolutely awesome that they're really not having fun at all?
If it was my gig to do an ad to discourage people from drinking heavily, particularly now, I'd show someone coming home from the pub, falling against the table as they empty out their pockets, and wallet to discover they have no money left. Just a bit of silver shrapnel. Way overdue credit card and utilities bills on the table catch the eye. They go to make something quick to eat. Nothing to eat in the fridge, the cupboards are next to bare. The milk in the fridge is lumpy. The frustration and hunger is obvious.
They go for a piss. A stream of gold coins arc into the toilet bowl.
Then they puke.
A nearly endless stream of $20 and $50 notes geyser from the mouth, the toilet overflows with cash.
You might not get them to stop binge-drinking, but they'll have a hard time forgetting what they keep blowing all their money on.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Howard Keeps Australia's Media Moguls Rich With Your Money
16 Months, $500 Million
Nobody does more to keep the flow of taxpayer cash running hot into the pockets of Australia's extremely wealthy media moguls than John Howard.
In just 16 months, according to this story, the Howard government has spent a mind-boggling $500 million dollars on anti-Labor, anti-union fear campaigns, pro-WorkChoices propaganda and so-called 'government-funded information advertising'. The Howard government has spent more than $1 million a day on ads, for almost 500 days running.
But it's not government-funded advertising, it's You Fund It :
You won't be surprised to learn that the Herald Sun, one of the big beneficiaries from such advertising splurges, buried this story under a headline about how John Howard backs his "good mate" Peter Costello to takeover the Liberal Party leadership when he finally quits.
John Howard calls directing half a billion dollars of your money into the pockets of some of Australia's richest people being economically responsible and "fiscally conservative."
UPDATE : I shouldn't be so hard on the Herald Sun. At least they ran the $500 Million In 16 Months On Ads story, even if they did so under a headline about another story. The Australian managed to wind back the impact of the revelations of Howard government ad spending this way :
Government Spends $196 Million On Ads
True enough, but as the Herald Sun article clearly reveals, it's not even half the real story.
16 Months, $500 Million
Nobody does more to keep the flow of taxpayer cash running hot into the pockets of Australia's extremely wealthy media moguls than John Howard.
In just 16 months, according to this story, the Howard government has spent a mind-boggling $500 million dollars on anti-Labor, anti-union fear campaigns, pro-WorkChoices propaganda and so-called 'government-funded information advertising'. The Howard government has spent more than $1 million a day on ads, for almost 500 days running.
But it's not government-funded advertising, it's You Fund It :
The Howard government now spends more taxpayer dollars on advertising, per head of population, than any other country in the world.The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's annual report showed $281 million was spent on government advertising last financial year.
And the splurge didn't stop in July. Another $209 million was spent in the run-up to the poll announcement five weeks ago.
The most recent ad campaigns centred on changes to WorkChoices, climate change policy, changes to superannuation and internet safety.
Mr Howard defended the spending, declaring it all "legitimate", but Labor leader Kevin Rudd condemned it, pledging if elected on Saturday to tighten rules governing the use of taxpayers' money for publicising information campaigns.
You won't be surprised to learn that the Herald Sun, one of the big beneficiaries from such advertising splurges, buried this story under a headline about how John Howard backs his "good mate" Peter Costello to takeover the Liberal Party leadership when he finally quits.
John Howard calls directing half a billion dollars of your money into the pockets of some of Australia's richest people being economically responsible and "fiscally conservative."
UPDATE : I shouldn't be so hard on the Herald Sun. At least they ran the $500 Million In 16 Months On Ads story, even if they did so under a headline about another story. The Australian managed to wind back the impact of the revelations of Howard government ad spending this way :
Government Spends $196 Million On Ads
True enough, but as the Herald Sun article clearly reveals, it's not even half the real story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)