Tuesday, September 05, 2006



Against "ambush marketing" laws

Yesterday, the government announced plans to outlaw "ambush marketing" at major events. But why? What's the public interest here? Such laws will bar companies from doing things like buying billboards around the entrance to an event sponsored by their competitors. But to me, that seems like an example of good marketing, rather than a crime. But I guess the perspective is rather different if you've just paid a lot of money, only to have your investment undermined by someone doing something you hadn't thought of (like renting a billboard you've been too cheap to rent yourself).

If large corporations want to play silly buggers believing they can have a sanitised world where only their logo is allowed to exist, let them. But I don't see any reason why government should support their fantasy.

15 comments:

How about banning _all_ corporate advertising and sponsorship, and increasing the corporate tax rate to fund public subsidies for such events?

Posted by Commie Mutant Traitor : 9/05/2006 11:27:00 AM

3 words - Rugby World Cup

Posted by Anonymous : 9/05/2006 12:09:00 PM

I'm guessing the real reason they are doing this is because of Rugby World Cup rules that probably ban such behaviour, and the government is moving to make those policies enforceable over here. There may well have been implications that the World Cup will go elsewhere if this doesn't happen, which probably explains why they are doing it, even if I don't like the idea of our government being held hostage by outside forces (though it's nothing new for any NZ government).

Frankly, anything that results in less advertising I'd be happier with, but then I've got a pet theory that a large chunk of modern day stress suffered by people, especially anyone that has to go into the inner city, is having to spend a chunk of their mental processing time on actively ignoring large parts of their surrounding environment to filter out the endless wall of adds that make up the modern urban environment. But that's just me.

-- Brett, brought to you by People Fed Up With Wall to Wall Adverts

Posted by Anonymous : 9/05/2006 12:20:00 PM

Icehawk: sure, big events like the Rugby World Cup are Good Things (insofar as we can use them to suck money out of rich, stupid foreigners). But really, this is a problem between sponsors, event managers, and local advertisers. Sponsors demand "clean venues", and they pay through the nose for the privilege. But this goes beyond that, to granting them a "clean" city, by law, without having to pay for it.

Bluntly, if sponsors want to control every piece of advertising within x miles of their venues, then they have a simple solution: pay for it.

As for the other forms of "ambush marketing", venues are of course free to impose conditions on entry. But outside? We're talking public streets, and people's chosen attire here. This has significant freedom of expression implications, and I don't think that's worth infringing in any way simply so Coke or McDonald's or some international beer company can make an even bigger profit.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 9/05/2006 01:07:00 PM

I/S: I am in total agreement with you on this one.

Just a question though: last I heard you supported public funding for electioneering by political parties. Why not apply the same, excellent, principle: if you want advertising, you pay for it?

What's good for the goose, etc.

Posted by Duncan Bayne : 9/05/2006 01:31:00 PM

Duncan: public funding of political parties supports democracy by removing the power of the rich to buy elections. I really don't see the connection with this at all - probably because I don't buy into Libertarian slogans about government being evil and taxation being theft.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 9/05/2006 01:58:00 PM

Brett

I agree with you, our cities are becoming butt-ugly with ads plastered everywhere. The absolute killer was Wgtn city council letting Adshel tear down perfectly good bus shelters and replace them with ad-laden ineffective roof-and-one-wall structures that do nothing to keep out the Wellington weather 300 days a year.

And don't get me started on anything that moves, flashes, or makes noises. Only 5-second attention span airheads who spent their childhoods drinking fanta in front of cartoons for 2 hours a day have evolved the mental skills to not be bugged by these things.

Hmmph

Posted by Anonymous : 9/05/2006 02:13:00 PM

> Duncan: public funding of
> political parties supports
> democracy by removing the power of
> the rich to buy elections.

Interesting ... so presumably you'd fund all parties in an election to the same extent? And prevent individual parties from spending their own money on advertising?

I just don't get how this is likely to have the effect you claim it'll have.

I mean, you still have free political advertising leading up to the election, and a Prussian indoctrination system, sorry, public education system, convincing the sheeple that Statism is the cure to their woes.

Powerful, rich interests will still buy politicians by donations outside the election period (that won't stop until the powers of Government to regulate trade are removed by a Constitution - as Mencken wrote, "when buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold are the legislators").

Furthermore, your argument that the rich buy elections doesn't stack up: in terms of the American election, the Democrats spent more per vote than the Republicans, and still managed to lose.

I think that the real problem with democracy as implemented in most countries is summed up by Alexander Fraser Tyler:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury."

He was talking about Athens, but it applies equally well to New Zealand.

Of course, if:

- the Government were Constitutionally prohibited from wealth redistribution in any form

- compulsory taxation was outlawed

- the citizenry screamed blue murder every time the Government started violating the Constitution

... then we might have a stable democracy. But until then? Not a chance, & I don't think tweaks to electoral advertising legislation will cure the problem.

> probably because I don't buy into
> Libertarian slogans about
> government being evil and taxation
> being theft.

Actually, those aren't Libertarian slogans at all. Government is not evil, and only compulsory taxation is theft (or, arguably, slavery).

But then it's easier to attack strawmen than real arguments, isn't it? :-)

Posted by Duncan Bayne : 9/05/2006 02:30:00 PM

anonymous,

Did you ever see the moving ads on the side of buses? You know, made like they used to make rules with pictures inside that changed depending upon your viewing angle?

Anyway, my favourite of those distracting monstrosities was the one preaching about road safety :-)

Posted by Duncan Bayne : 9/05/2006 02:31:00 PM

I/S - further to the "rich buying elections" issue, consider that many rich individuals and groups 'lobby' both major contenders in an election.

Given that, the actual campaign advertising becomes even more of a red herring.

Posted by Duncan Bayne : 9/05/2006 02:41:00 PM

Perhaps the Greens will tack on an ammendment to ban advertising completely. Now that I could support :p

Posted by Anonymous : 9/05/2006 09:03:00 PM

Duncan: Well, I'd prefer a more equal funding system than, say, the one we have currently for allocating broadcasting funding. This is supposed to be about the public being able to judge parties on their merits (however defined), rather than on who has the most cash. And yes, I would combine it with a far more robust transparency regime, if not significant restrictions on public donations. The point of publicly funding parties is to free them from dependence on (and hence influence by) those with wealth. And given what we've seen since the 80's, and particularly recently, I think the integrity of our political system depends on it.

As for the rest, if you want those sorts of changes, you can always vote for them. But as I keep telling you, the rest of New Zealand doesn't agree, and sees government as a solution, rather than the problem.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 9/06/2006 01:54:00 AM

Icehawk:

Well, I've nothing against corporate sponsorship of events - after all, I attended a number of screenings at the Auckland Film Festival this year. Big ups to Telecom for continuing their support of an event I consider a major addition to Auckland's cultural life - and one that is, incidentally, a reliable and substantial earner for the ACC-owned Civic Theatre.

Oddly enough, I don't recall the Auckland City Council passing a by-law to make sure patrons weren't 'ambushed' by Vodaphone advertising around the venues during the festival. Patrons weren't turned away for being inappropriately branded or (quelle horreur!) being Vodaphone customers. The world didn't end, and it was the least of Telecom's problems that there was a huge Vodaphone billboard across the road from the Civic.

For once, I/S is sounding dreadfully like a right-wing market fundamentalist and he's right. :) To put it crudely, you don't have to be a Randoid to argue it's not the legitimate function of Government - or a Minister of the Crown - to represent the commercial self-interest of the NZRFU and it's sponsors. They can either pay for their advertising space like everyone else, or at least stop chanting "Rugby World Cup 2011" like it's the name of God. I've got a three word response: "I care because?"

Posted by Craig Ranapia : 9/07/2006 01:11:00 PM

It sounds like banning this ambush marketing would simply raise the poularity and level of fun ordinary citizens could have in their own ambush marketing?

I wonder will wearing a non official sponsor branded T-shirt become a crime? How about ordinary citizens or groups thereof with a legitmate ticket (possbily paid for by a sponsor) painting themselves with a logo or fake logo (a spoof of some sort) and attempting to attend?

Sounds like some of those greedy overpaid dicks in sport's orgs (particularly like the IRB, NZRFU, IOC...ecc) are looking to protect their fat cut of the overinflated deals. I'm sure people will suggest that it's ultimately hurting sports but so is overpaying idiots to do a job.

Ambush marketing seems to be a postive process towards creating a shakedown of over inflated prices paid for rights and should serve to remind decisionmakers everywhere that they should both keep their feet planted on the ground and retain their faith in the strength of the human spirit in the face of ad-versity.

Posted by Anonymous : 9/07/2006 06:09:00 PM

I don't think it's an obvious market failure that sports sponsors can't suppress all promotion by their rivals.

It doesn't seem an obvious "public good" to have big-dollar sponsored sport. Some years ago rugby was semi-amateur and low budget. There's no real reason why it needs to get bigger and bigger - we could have a world cup final at Eden Park with 48,000 seats.

Posted by Rich : 9/09/2006 11:04:00 PM