Cos we can advertise where we like. And we didn't like that.
I was involved in the decision of one of the advertisers to withdraw from radio live.
We did not and do not see it as in any way exercising some form of editorial control over another business
As a business we have a choice as to where we put advertising dollar and decisions about that are made constantly for all sorts of reasons. And heck, any business that sells ad space knows this.
In this case, after much discussion, we elected to withdraw, for what we believe were entirely the right reasons.
We felt very comfortable with the decision and our customer feedback strongly supported it.
maybe, but politics is a blood sport, so while it would be nice to think that any opposition will consider such an approach entirely on its merits, I'm cynical enough to think that political opportunism will always be a factor.
Heh, yes that would be a good guide. But what does it mean to you?. Take, for example, the Lange/Douglas Government policies. Surely they were motivated by a genuine belief that long-term future well being of NZ would be best served by modernising the economy, knowing there would be a lot of pain on the way. Is that humane? Is the belief that something is humane enough, or does it need to pass another test for basic humanity? Say, an election? Or a Parliamentary bill?
Well .., it would be a helluva precedent. You might not like this particular government deal with a corporate (for good reasons) and may well be ok with the idea of a new government reneging and telling them to go fuck themselves.
But who gets to decide what is a 'good' deal or not, and what would unintended consequences be on future corporate interest in investing in NZ when deals or regulations (e.g. auckland airport and OIO rules) might get reneged on or changed with the political wind?
Thanks Mikaere. In this particular case I was referring to the candidates responses cited by RB to the Sky City question. I do understand that there are some considered responses out there (I generally vote Green and have a passing acquantance with Scoop).
And really my bigger question was more about the effectiveness of tribalism in politics in terms of making a difference to the non-tribal. You see a lot of it on blogs of all political persuasions where reaction to political events quickly falls along tribal or partisan lines, regardless of the issue at hand. I get that for most of us we are political junkies, but I think we run the risk of being disappointed if we think that everyone will respond to the same signals.
Hmmm, I get that JK isn't your cup of tea (nor is he mine), but it seems to me to be a little bit too tribal to imply (and apologies if that was not your intention) that those who voted for him have been 'baffled by bullshit'. I would have thought it was very clear by now (two election victories in) that this is a Government that should not be underestimated.
Shouting your strident opposition to a policy in ever-increasing volumes is not, in my view, a political tactic that is likely to appeal to an electorate in sufficient numbers to win an election. But I'm no political strategist so I could be wrong.
But for that very reason I tend to agree with Craig. I'd be much more interested in an approach to an unpopular policy or piece of legislation that clearly communicated to lay-people the 'why it sucks', and 'how it can be improved', rather than the blunt instrument of (short-hand) of 'fuck-em' to big-business.
That sort of tactic might play well with the tribal base, but clearly (on the evidence of the last two elections) is not convincing enough people that this is a viable alternative Government.
Got my Neil Young ticket. And my Laneways ticket. Check. And with any luck, a Stone Roses ticket.
I live near the Manukau coast. Havent had the fortune of visiting the West Coast for over 25 years, will be rectifying that with my children this January. Cannot speak with any authority at all on impact of tourism on the area. Can speak with some authority on tourism trends.
Fair enough Islander, I have not seen the effects of tourism on the West Coast. But maybe that detrimental impact supports an argument that NZ should be targeting quality rather than quantity in terms of tourism?