Ad-gate
Is $150,000 a tremendous amount of money for an ad campaign? Not really, as TV and newspaper ads go.
Does $150,000 seem like a lot of money to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to see some real results from this deal? Yes, yes it does.
Did the provincial government need this campaign? No, I don’t think that it did, in the traditional way at least. Loyola Sullivan’s passive defense of the spending — in my view — speaks volumes:
If the Premier’s office really wanted to get the word out about the new deal, and really wanted to do something interesting, why not embrace the medium that galvanized the support of twenty-five thousand in one month? The real opportunity for the next Newfoundland and Labrador politician — and indeed any politician in Canada — is to use the internet in a compelling way to communicate their message. The technology is there, it’s cheaper than television, people are online, and it has more potential for growth. Traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers) still has it’s place, but overlooking the net is a mistake.
Guess what? Given the right message, people will spread the word for a cause or a candidate; you needn’t look further than the screen in front of you to see this truth. And under this approach, the story not only becomes “Great Deal for Newfoundland", but also “Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Channels Internet Power to Sell Message". That’s a good story to tell, and that’s something that makes people feel good, too.
The frustrating thing about the ad deal is that the government missed the boat. Twenty-five thousand — about five percent of the jurisdiction — worked to get this deal by sending letters to Martin. Now, wouldn’t it have been better to tap into that well, produce one online video ad, and ask people to spread the word via the government web site?
Instead, we’ll see TV ads that won’t get outside the province for an already very popular premier in the traditional, top-down, scattershot media, that might make a random person feel good if they happen get the newspaper that day, or for some reason happen to pay attention to a television ad.
22 Comments
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think you are totally correct, Kevin.
Imagine a post here? Lots frequent it.
There are other ways that cost less.
I don’t see it as positive spending.
Fix a school roof with that money(although I’ll question why that school chose to rebuild a floor before fixing their roof—that’s irresponsible, too).
Pauline
Comment by Pauline — 2/19/2005 @ 5:30 pmI agree Kevin.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/19/2005 @ 6:31 pmSolid idea, kevin.
If you recall, I did make a comparison on my own blog earlier between Nova Scotia and NL and their deal-related websites.
It’s pretty clear the NL site actually has nothing to do with communicating basic information about the deal itself.
That said, I am surprised that nothing has been forwarded to your site in any way. Big oversight. Government will probably reply that they are using the web since they posted the ad in pdf, the tv spot and they have a website. They may have it but are they using it and using it to its full effect?
I bet one thing, though, they never expected that your posters to this site would actually OPPOSE the campaign and its costs. They want something cheaper and, I would argue, actually more effective.
Comment by Ed Hollett — 2/20/2005 @ 7:40 amWhy wouldn’t we oppose an ineffective and obviously flawed campaign Ed? We are the Internet Generation of Political Activists & Watchdogs (IGPAW)! (Just invented that!)
We are no longer willing to tolerate irresponsible government. We are not blue, red, green or orange! I have tried to explain that in the past, party politics means nothing to those of us who want responsible, representation government! We are the votes that will matter in the future. We will sway the vote away from party power. We will vote for candidates who, Will say what they will do, and Do what they said they would do! We will create mechanisms to remove representation as fast as they were put in power. They were elected TO REPRESENT US the majority of the vote and if we feel betrayed by politicians from this point on, we should demand their recall and a by-election to fill their seat with a true representative of their riding!
I still believe that Premiere Williams and his crowd are our best option right now but if they are not willing to learn from what is going on in here, in GrassRoots Internet Politics (GRIP), they too will find themselves off of our payroll and out of our offices. GRIP, another new acronym. I really like this one because it’s what we, as voters must maintain on our politicians, be they in favour or nay!
Fred from CBS
PS I eagerly await WJM’s Labrador spin on this one. I’ll remove the obvious cliché from my comments by saying, “Get a GRIP!”
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/20/2005 @ 2:22 pmOn the whole, I would still describe the Williams government as extremely prudent and fiscally responsible. You won’t see Paul Martin agreeing to a full private audit of the books any time soon. No generally accepted accounting practices are going federal any time soon. It’s also worth noting that the true disgrace on the ad front is still the sponsorship program. If NLers are this concerned about ads, they should never vote for Maritn ever again. And they can’t very well vote for Voisey-ad-Grimes either! I think as an issue it’s lamentable but mirrored with federal Liberal “promise kept” buttons brazenly displayed at the NS deal signing…. The main thing now is to make sure that we make the most of this deal.
Comment by Liam O’Brien — 2/21/2005 @ 4:02 pmHey there:
I actually e-mailed the premier and asked him to explain a couple of things…. a couple of references to your site, Ed (hope you don’t mind).
I’ve done it before… they’ve responded then… I want to see if they do now.
Something tells me the letter will have the same reception that my letter to Inco did…none.
Hey, they don’t know unless you let them know.
Pauline
Comment by Pauline — 2/21/2005 @ 4:07 pmAn assumption that you are making regarding advertising the Atlantic Accord through the internet and not television is that all Newfoundlanders have access to the internet. However, this is an incorrect assumption. Only 56.3% of households in Newfoundland have at least one regular internet user, which is 8% below the national average. However, the average Newfoundlander watches 22.7 hours of television per week, 1.1 hours more than the national average. As well, Newfoundland has a literacy rate that is far below the national average and 42% of our population have not graduated high school.
Comment by Noleen — 2/22/2005 @ 1:46 pmAdvertising choices are based on accessibility, and the percentage of the market reached. In a province with an increasing population of seniors, one must advertise in a medium that makes sense for everyone in the target market. And besides, $150,000 is not much for an advertising campaign.
Hi Kevin, I currently am not living in Newfoundland, much to my sadness, however, I did follow and support Premier Willams in his fight for our rights to our oil revenue. While following the news at that time, I also read comments posted in Yahoo News Chat. There exists, and always has, misguided notions of who Newfoundland and Labradorians are. In fact many of the comments that I read could be deemed as racist. That is very disheartening to say the least. I absolutely agree with you with respect to using the Internet as a way of disseminating information and engaging in informed dialogue. But perhaps we should examine all the places where relevant dialogue is taking place and assign informed individuals to monitor and add comments. Many of the comments I read in Yahoo News Chat were filled with age-old rhetoric and misinformation, and although I made attempts at dispelling some of the myths that have helped to perpetuate a negative view of Newfoundlanders (the same does not necessarily hold true for Labradorians), I am not the most politically astute person I know, and therefore not the most effective. Perhaps, there are supporters out there who would feel comfortable with monitoring certain Web sites when issues facing Newfoundland and Labrador are tossed around in the media. Any thoughts? On a final note I just want to say that no matter where I chose to live my heart will ALWAYS be in Newfoundland. Kudos to you and everyone who worked so diligently to get the word out and to maintain ongoing dialogue. Bravo! and thanks!
Comment by Wendy — 2/22/2005 @ 1:49 pmPeace….Wendy
Noleen,
Thanks for your note, but I am well aware of the statistics surrounding internet usage in the province. That’s why my post reads “Traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers) still has it’s place, but overlooking the net is a mistake.” I also recognize in the post that $150,000 is not a large sum for an ad campaign.
Absolutely, blanket coverage is necessary for PR advertising goals. I don’t suggest that it isn’t.
Cheers, Kevin
Comment by Kevin — 2/22/2005 @ 1:53 pmPersonally, the first time I say the provincial ad campaign on the Atlantic Accord, I was extremely proud. Just as proud if not more when the day it was signed. It was the icing on the cake that we’ll all get to eat. For those of you who oppose this ad, I ask you one thing, when was the last time you can remember when our government actually stood up to the feds with gloves off (unlike previous spineless worms-Grimes, Tobin, Wells Peckford, Moores, SMALLWOOD…OOOOPS did I say those names) and fought tooth and nail to the bitter end for it’s proud people and WIN? If you can remember such an event of this magnitude and caliper I would love to hear it. Actually I’ll save you the time and typing and answer this question for you…..NEVER!!! So the next time you see the campaign ad on TV lets put sensitive little feelings to the one side and embrace it with open arms. This is a monumental moment we all should be very proud of because who knows, this could be the one and only time to do so. The next battle could be a loss.
Comment by Frank Hollahan — 2/22/2005 @ 6:59 pmFrank, thanks for making this point. Certainly an interesting take on the ad that made me think.
Comment by Kevin McCann — 2/22/2005 @ 7:39 pmAnd besides, $150,000 is not much for an advertising campaign.
Comment by Noleen — 2/22/2005 @ 1:46 pm
I agree that it is not all that much for an ad campaign. My bigger problem is the awarding of that money without a bidding process from other advertisers! This is the crux of the sponsorship scandal.
It’s not that the monies were awarded, it’s the proper processes to which government handling OUR money is required to adhere!
There is no way it should be written anywhere that $150K is petty cash and requires no bidding process! Loyola should explain to us what right he had to make this purchase from M5 without putting the job up for tender.
The absence of competition for this contract is an embarrassment!
Like Frank H. above, I was stirred to emotion by the Ad and felt good about supporting Danny from this site. The final product was great!
BUT I’M STILL RIGHT TICKED ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR HOW THE JOB WAS HANDED OUT!
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/23/2005 @ 9:46 amI won’t agree with Fred H. totally but it’s like anything else, “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours", “Do on to others as you have them do on to you” What do we know about this decision for the government to hire W5. Maybe W5 did a great thing for our administration at some time, maybe they gave their full support during the election to help get this government elected, and if that’s the case I salute W5. As far as I’m concerned Danny Williams and his administration deserves to rejoice in their accomplishments (god knows they worked hard enough for it) by spending a little cash to rub his victory into the noses of all the Margret Wentes out there in upper Canada land. I think it was money well spent which gives me another reason to be a proud Newfoundlanfer.
You have to admit, it’s a nice looking ad.
Comment by Frank Hollahan — 2/23/2005 @ 8:27 pmI just watched the ad again and it still gives me chills.
Comment by Frank Hollahan — 2/23/2005 @ 8:30 pmIt’s M5, Frank and the issue is exactly what you are suggesting. And, it is not acceptable for government to carry out the expediture of public money in the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” manner of business. That type of activity is akin to pandering and when government rubs the tummy of the big business dogs…
Let’s just say in many cases, it is illegal in society.
If there is a “cap” at which a bidding process is to be used, then that bidding process must be used. If $150,000 (yes, 6 figures equalling 6 years of my pension checks, that’s right ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FOLLOWED BY THREE ZEROS) is the amount that government is allow to go to their ‘friends’ businesses to hire a service with fair bidding competition, then that amount is TOO high! The only way that would be acceptable is if each and every advertising company, with an office on the Rock, receives a turn. That is to say that if there are 7 Ad agencies in N AND L, then, until $150K is spent at each of them, M5 must wait until the other 6 get their chance before they can be once again picked for the big easy money from the public coffers.
Yes, it is a very nice Ad Frank and it makes me swell up inside with pride but that, Sir, is not the point of my post. The point is the FAIR, EQUAL and ETHICAL treatment of anyone in business, who should have the opportunity to compete for the right to make a proud commercial to represent our victory.
Anything else is less than fair and demonstrates contempt towards a business system that every ethical business strives to adhere to, with due diligence.
I hope this helps to explain myself a little better.
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/23/2005 @ 9:00 pmNoleen, in a demographic analysis worthy oif a media buyer at an ad agency, misses one huge point: what was being advertised and what was the content?
Why even run a campaign like this at all? Did it produce any measureable changes in atttitudes and behaviour among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
Ed
Comment by Ed Hollett — 2/24/2005 @ 8:02 amIt seizes to amaze me, some people will always have something to complain about. I could just imagine what the tone would have been like if Grimes or Efford was premier or better yet, if there was no deal struck at all.
Comment by Frank Hollahan — 2/24/2005 @ 12:36 pmI don’t see the need for this Ad …..costing us $150,000!!!! The deal was done ! Why spend that much money unnecessarily? It may not be a large amount for an Ad but in many respects it IS a large amount of money which could be more wisely spent. Our Finance Minister has almost worn out the words “fiscal restraints” and “fiscal responsibilites” so I’m wondering how he can justify this spending for absolutely no purpose. I was always a “Proud” Newfoundlander as are most of us and I think we made that point clear on this Fair Deal site when we flooded Ottawa with letters. I strongly supported our Provincial Gov’t (re the Atlantic Accord ) but I don’t support them spending those funds to “blow their own horn” .
Comment by Enid — 2/24/2005 @ 12:43 pmKevin , you are to be commended for your role here and it’s my opinion that you contributed “greatly ” to this deal being signed. You gave us the opportunity to speak for ourselves. Would it have been done without you ? I’m not sure that it would . Thanks Kevin.
Hi Fred;
From the Public Tenders Act see below. Section 3.2 clearly states the amount of money allowed to be spent by gov’t without going to tender. Not even close to the $150,000 spent for the ad work. Shameful!
“Tenders required
3. (1) Where a public work is to be executed under the direction of a government funded body or goods or services are to be acquired by a government funded body, the government funded body shall invite tenders for the execution or acquisition.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the government funded body is not required to invite tenders
(a) where the estimated cost, in the case of goods or services is not more than $10,000, and in the case of a public work is not more than $20,000, exclusive of goods and services tax imposable under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) and retail sales imposable under the Retail Sales Tax Act;
(b) where the estimated cost of the work or acquisition is not more than $25,000, exclusive of tax imposable under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) and tax imposable under the Retail Sales Tax Act, and it appears to the head of the government funded body that in view of the nature of the work or acquisition it is not advisable to invite tenders;".
Comment by Brenda S. , St. John’s — 2/25/2005 @ 1:18 pmEnid, quoted as saying “I don’t see the need for this Ad” I ask you Enid - do you see the need for the 2.6 billion? Do you see the need for a upper handed no B.S. government (like the present)? Do you see the need for a strong and prosperous economy? Do you see the need for ability of a present day government to have the concern for a future in this province? Do you see the need to see our kids come back home from the mainland to work because we finally elected a govnerment with balls to get back what’s been stolen from us by Ottawa and the French?…If you all answered YES to my questions then stop whining about this ad. We as Newfoundlanders and labradorians don’t have any room what so ever to complain like your doing. OK, look at it this way, a two case scenario - scenario #1, Roger Grimes or John Efford was premier (just the sounds of that makes me shreek) they go to Ottawa to negotiate the Atlantic Accord, they get laughed out of Ottawa along with a boot in the ass and told “how dare you ask such a think". Scenario #2 - Danny Williams says if you elect me, I’ll go to Ottawa, beat the grap out of the mainlanders, come back with a deal, the measly $2.6 billion (like no premier as ever done)but asks “let me spend a little cash on an ad that shows everybody who watches it, how well we all stuck together as a people and won a vicious battle". Now what scenario would you pick? If it’s #2, stop whining, if it’s #1, your living in the wrong province.
Comment by Frank Hollahan — 2/25/2005 @ 8:16 pmThis ad isn’t just for Danny Williams rejoicing all by himself, this ad is to show all of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rejoicing together, this ad is everybody’s trophy.
Thats what makes the French so strong, they all unite together. Newfoundlander got a terrible history of fighting among ourselves about everything and anything. It must be the Irish in us.
Your probably saying to yourselves that I’m missing the point and that it’s all about sending out a tender and excepting the lowest bid and all that jazz.Well maybe you all are missing the point. Maybe our premier didn’t want to do the tender thing, maybe he wanted the best, maybe he wanted the most professional people to do the job. Maybe, just maybe (if it’s in your imagination to think such a thing)he wanted us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to feel the best and look the best to others. God knows we need and deserve it.
Thanks Brenda,
I knew I wasn’t the only one ticked off about this process. I can’t believe that so few people are upset about this breach of the Act, from which you cited the rules about soliciting proposals based on the firm numerical values.
It’s as scandalous (on a percentage basis and worse on an ethical basis) as the Federal sponsorship investigations. The reason that it’s worse is, the Federal investigations haven’t (and won’t) find anybody at fault and they have created a bigger above board scandal (The Gormery Inquiry) to waste even more money than the actual, “I’m scratching your back…” issue. It’s a slap in our faces to make the dollar amounts, for the Liberal’s Sponsorship dirt, seem comparatively trivial.
This is a questionable government financial transaction, which seems to contravene the quoted Act. I truly hope that the Premiere will soon step up and explain how that process was a “fair deal” for the other advertising companies in the province…
Fred from CBS
Comment by Fred Harris — 2/27/2005 @ 12:01 amThe ad also makes me swell, but not with pride. It’s a great thing Danny did and now he undermines it by awarding a contract to friends, smacks of arrogance doesn’t it? The ad is not to solicit business, it’s a $150,000 fell-good group hug–the money could have been better spent.
Comment by marie traverse — 3/4/2005 @ 7:10 am