So on Media7 this week, we'll bring the two Fair Go veterans together to discuss what it's okay to sell when your most valuable asset is your reputation.
Which you be an interesting question to put to Doctor Edwards - considering what he does to earn a crust nowadays. :)
. . . Bob Charles (magnetic mattresses) . . . urge us to buy products whose real health benefits are very questionable indeed.
Charles - who had no use for the right-handed club, being a left-hander - said he wanted to give the driver to someone who had done good work for the quake-hit city.
An interesting paper here.
It does seem that privacy breaches are treated extremely leniently, with an apology often being sufficient to avoid financial cost (and with damages being compensatory rather than punitive, a wealthy corporation or state body will always be in a position of nonchalance as to any action).
Are chauffeurs being exchanged as chattel slaves nowadays?
the same blogger has declared he would make himself subject to a new media regulator along the lines proposed by the Law Commission
He was also involved in the drafting of the Commission's discussion paper. Not sure how ironic they were intending to be, but the only other blogger they consulted at that stage seems to have been the oily one's chum, Mr Farrar.
Both 'men' seem to have trouble moderating or leading the discussions they host to even slightly resemble fair or decent. One therefore wonders what particular expertise or mana they lent to the process.
Not to mention Colin Meads fronting for deer velvet too.
The celebrity endorsement is a fixture in the world of marketing .
Yeah having abused their own intelligence wilfully, these meretricious loons foist the insult on the rest of us. The money better be worth it. Not that such questioning would ever occur.
Client; we wanna use Mr X
Agency; gee that's a really neat idea
Agency; (Production company); hey you should use Mr X
Client; (not the bill payer); Sure, lunch on you?
The use of the words "Reputation" and "celebrity" in the same sentence is a tautology in a conversation about advertising.
In terms of which "Personalities" are acceptable for use in advertising. This used to be a problem when we could trust the News but now all is infotainment and you pays your money and you take your choice, I don't need to be told what I need.
If the Celebrity is our vision of our own integrity, I worry.
Richard Long and Colin Meads have regretted spruiking for failed finance companies – although probably not as much as the people who bought the finance companies’ products.
Quite. And their reputations and market worth have suffered accordingly. Edwards can call it what he wants, but this is clearly a case of the free market self regulating. (not that I'm suggesting, as some would that the free market always self regulates)
Quite. And their reputations and market worth have suffered accordingly. Edwards can call it what he wants, but this is clearly a case of the free market self regulating. (not that I’m suggesting, as some would that the free market always self regulates)
And because broadcasters were dependent on advertising revenue from the Hanovers and Bridgecorps of this world, they likely dared not bite the feeding hands. When a maggot was found in a burger at a certain fast-food multi-national, it reputedly threatened to cancel its advertising unless the news story was dropped.
Rumours are that the Human Rights Commission is facing cuts up to a third of its funding (although I haven't been able to find confirmation of this), which will affect the ability of its Human Rights Review Tribunal to do its work. Punishment for taking up the case of the solo mother v the Minister?
One therefore wonders what particular expertise or mana they lent to the process.
Being kiss arsed, shallow, malleable and willful with it.
but this is clearly a case of the free market self regulating. (
I disagree. The whole thing is a result of a lack of regulation and the markets being in a state anarchy.
The original post - So where do we draw the line?
For Paula Bennett her behavior damaged her credibility – she has paid a price for that and is a List rather than an electorate MP.
Largo in Othello:
Men should be what they seem;
Or those that be not, would they might seem none!
And then went further with:
Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
In the media and in marketing there is a lack of discernment between being famous and being infamous (fama and infamy) so much so that being an outright dilberry doesn’t seem to matter – as long as one is convincing for a time – that behaving like an arse or being outright dishonest doesn’t seem to matter much.
If say you “work for yourself” or you are “creating something of value” you are forever building your “good name” – it is a process that is constant and all embracing in every sphere of your life/endeavour/pursuit.
To lose your good name is to lose the platform upon which everything else you do rests.
So it depends on who you are and what you chose to do.
There is a big difference between what Richard Long has done and what Doug Graham and Bill Jeffries have done.
Although I know neither I feel that what will piss Graham and Jeffries off is the lose of entitlement ( the receipt of uber welfare- which I truly hope they no longer recieve) – whereas Richard long will have heart felt regret for what has happened to others and his good name is damaged.
Richard Long has had his good name filched by the dishonesty of others whereas Dough Graham and Bill Jeffries are self filchers who have IMHO being outright dishonest . I guess you could add to that list, (the list of self filchers) Nick Smith.
Being what you seem - what you seem should be what you are, and that thing should be good and of worth at its core if you desire to avoid the consequences of infamy and damage to your good name.
When a maggot was found in a burger at a certain fast-food multi-national, it reputedly threatened to cancel its advertising unless the news story was dropped.
Red, that doesn’t really make sense to me in that the story about the company threatening to withdraw advertising is so much bigger than the one about the maggot burger, and revealing it would have been both newsworthy as well as forcing the company not to withdraw their advertising. Besides, what real news value does a story about maggot burgers actually have?
The whole thing is a result of a lack of regulation and the markets being in a state anarchy.
Dexter, I in turn disagree. Some things need regulation, others don’t. What we need is effective regulation, not more of it, such as a separation of the banking industry from the derivatives market for instance.
Besides, what real news value does a story about maggot burgers actually have?
None - I bought some bean salad and found it had a maggot in it - I took it back to the deli and the guy wouldn't give me my money back - he first accused me of planting the maggott - what he eventually did was weigh it and give me the value by weight of what was left - yes I had eaten some - as I turned to leave he tossed the balance back into the cabinet.
as I turned to leave he tossed the balance back into the cabinet.
Heh, well that story certainly has entertainment value. You could sell it to Larry David.
In the media and in marketing there is a lack of discernment between being famous and being infamous (fama and infamy) so much so that being an outright dilberry doesn’t seem to matter
Oh shit, or should that be more reverential. Fame? Or r u going latin on our arse.
I in turn disagree. Some things need regulation, others don’t.
That bloody line! Where was it again?
For Paula Bennett her behavior damaged her credibility – she has paid a price for that and is a List rather than an electorate MP
I think you'll find that Bennett won in Waitakere, after specials and recounts.
And the character in Othello is Iago. You're getting confused with National party ministers - understandable as they are equally treacherous ;-)
Besides, what real news value does a story about maggot burgers actually have?
Exsqueeze me? Got Marmite???
I think you’ll find that Bennett won in Waitakere, after specials and recounts.
Although by a razor-thin majority.
That is a bummer - I though she was out on the night and I wish it had stayed that way.
Bennet should be history - she should have been sacked for the privacy issue re Natalie Fuller and Nick Smith should be gone for the Bronwyn Pullar letter.
An MP should not be able to beat up on a member of the public in the manner Bennet has done.
The question to also ask is, did Nick Smith know about the massive ACC privacy issue, was it kept from the ACC Board and Senior Management? – If so his skates should be on and he should be trundled out the door.
MPs are trusted to legislate and administrate and they should at least uphold the recognised principles of law - if they can't get their head around doing that they should be gone.
The Auckland City should be looking into the POAL privacy issue and getting a report on it – if the Council asks for this and the POAL board doesn’t attend to the matter effectively then they should be gone – whosever disclosed this should be gone.
The Pullar/Fuller thing is of concern and if you look at what is coming out of cabinet ministers and Key re Local Govt, the Super Ministry they are just making the shit up as they go along – perhaps, because they are so great, they are running with the fantastic ideas that get formed in cabinet meetings without any reference to the real world or Senior Public Servants or others– the direction they are taking the country in seems, to me, vague and groundless.
Mr Key's comfortable is about to shift to a world of pain.