Today, those of us on the anti-âWellywood’ sign page got some welcome news: that Wellington Airport would reconsider.
But, I had to point out, this is again dĂŠjĂ vu. Last time, the Airport flip-flopped as well, and said it would consult the public.
Given that the resource consent for ‘Wellywood’ was for nine smaller signs, any alternative proposed by the public that didn’t fit the specification would have needed a new consent. In the latest round of interviews, I called the process a sham.
We’ve had so many mixed messages from Steve Fitzgerald of Wellington Airport and his colleagues that it’s hard to take anything seriously.
March 10, 2010: we will do the sign. A few weeks later: we won’t do the sign and we’ll consult. By September: we will still do the sign. May 21, 2011: we will do the sign. May 24, 2011: this is part of branding Wellington. May 25: it’s just some airport landâit’s not as if we’re branding Wellington. June 1: we won’t do the sign and we’ll consult. And round we go again.
Those opposing the sign were dubbed ‘small’ and an ‘element’, but now we’re the ‘community’. Sure beats being called ‘whingers’, which we were labelled last year.
This is the sort of unimaginative management that is driving this country into the water.
The public is against the sign. The film industry, from representatives I have heard from, is against the sign. The Mayor and the majority of the council are against the sign. Hollywood, as the trade mark and copyright owner of the original, is against the sign. The Prime Minister indicated he disliked the sign. The law is against the sign.
You’d think that with such overwhelming evidence, Wellington Airport would have seen the light a long, long time ago, especially, as I said on Back Benches last week, yet another party owns the ‘Wellywood’ trade mark.
Ignoring the lot suggests that Wellington Airport believes it is above the law. And that the councillors who elected to support the Airport’s position do not believe in upholding the laws of New Zealand.
If you begin counting from March 10, 2010 to June 1, 2011, then the Airport has taken 448 days (and 26,000 Facebook users) for the penny to drop. If you look at the period between May 21 to June 1, then that’s still a shameful 11 days.
Contrast this to another Facebook movement that happened in Australia today: the protest against posters for a safe-sex campaign being removed because of a few dozen complaints from a so-called Christian group, ACL.
APN’s Adshel unit chose to remove the posters but, by 4 p.m. AEST, Adshel’s Australian CEO made a statement to say they would be reinstated.
It’s a shame to note that Adshel would cave in to very similarly worded, homophobic complaints, while its rival, Goa, honoured its contract with its client, the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities, a non-profit organization.
The irony is that ACL has brought the campaign, which features a real-life couple, far greater prominence than it otherwise would have had.
While Adshel didn’t apologize, merely saying it had been duped, it’s still a credit to Adshel CEO Steve McCarthy that the right course of action was taken given a 30,000-plus-strong movement at the time of his announcement. It wasn’t the perfect PR statement, but at least it didn’t attack campaigners and the Australian publicânot to mention a few of us from overseasâas a small element or a minority.
Does this other Aussie Steve have egg on his face? Of course he does. But he made the right call and he can, at least, move forward and not become Queensland’s most hated man. (Reading the comments, a Kiwi-born premier still holds that distinction.)
One day for the penny to drop, versus 11. And a good deal of that 11 was spent alienating the people of Wellington. Not exactly paving the way for a great consultative process.
Above is the Australian ad. Complaints included that it looked like ‘foreplay’. My, my, it shows what is on the minds of certain people.
If advertising featuring a couple might “turn people gay”, then, with all the “straight propaganda” out there, there wouldn’t be any gay people in the world.
If we’re actually concerned about sexualized images out there, as the ACL claims, there is far more nudity in “straight advertising” to worry folk.
If an eight-year-old who sees this ad understands sexuality, then that’s a bloody dirty eight-year-old. When I was eight, not only did I not know what sex was, but all I would have seen in this ad are two blokes. Now move on and let me play with my Matchbox cars.
Above I’d mention the war, but Honda was founded after the surrender.
I despise fax-spam, and under my reading of the Telecommunications Act, these come under nuisance calls. But regardless of the legality, it seems rather hypocritical for Honda to have sent me one for its Insight hybrid car.
Think about it: a lot of people who have a fax line use paper faxes. The Insight is meant to be eco-friendly, and the fax ad even says so. So what is eco-friendly about using people’s paper and film or toner?
It runs counter to what the car is supposed to stand for. And if it is educated people who opt for these hybrid cars, then they will be able to see the mixed message in this marketing technique.
Typographically, it doesn’t follow Honda’s other advertising.
This had pissed me off for me to Tweet about it, and be nasty toward Hondaâwhich has typically been one of the few brands I steered my Corolla-wanting friends to. I have a feeling the effect of the campaign has led to more negativity about Honda than its other marketing channels.
Way to go, Honda, for steering even more people to the Toyota Prius.
In 2008, I also wrote about text spam, and Vodafone was guilty of sending me at least one promotional message after it promised (in writing) that it would not. When confronted about it, the company clammed up. It was, I believe, the last message I ever sent to them, and I was delighted to end our contract with them.
Seems Vodafone isn’t the only party doing this, post-Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007. Hamish McConnochie has stayed on Telecom for doing it to him last year, and I agree with his reading that this is a breach of s. 11.
It’s clear text spam falls under the Act, and neither Hamish nor I had ever consented to receive such messages.
Telecom has some agreements around but he was not ever shown the one that covered his XT upgrade. As if the XT name wasn’t tarnished enough already.
Hamish will be going on Back Benches (TVNZ 7, 9 p.m.) this Wednesday night, and I’m looking forward to seeing this issue get wider coverage.
Paul Henry isnât alone on this: a lot of New Zealand media have been making fun of Delhi Chief Minister Smt. Sheila Dikshitâs surname, purposely mispronouncing it as dick-shit and then giggling away. (For the record, the pronunciation is close to dixit.) Though after his comments about HE Sir Anand Satyanand earlier this week, itâs easy to draw a connection and ask: does Mr Henry have it in for anyone of Indian ethnicity?
Apparently, before the quips about the Governor-General, Mr Henry stated on his Breakfast programme:
The dip shit woman. God, whatâs her name? Dick-shit. Is it dick shit? ⌠It looks like dick shit ⌠Itâs so appropriate, because sheâs Indian, so sheâd be dick-in-shit wouldn’t she, do you know what I mean? Walking along the street ⌠itâs just so funny.
The Fairfax Press reports that TVNZ received relatively few complaints (four) about the mispronunciation of Dikshit, while the inappropriate comments about Sir Anand are in the 600s. Prime TV reports that the complaints have hit a ârecord numberâ.
This is no surprise, given that the later comments related directly to how New Zealanders felt about ourselves.
Thereâs apparently been fresh criticism as TVNZ has allowed Henryâs mispronunciation clip to remain on its website after the furore on Monday. From Fairfax:
New Zealand Indian Central Association president Paul Singh Bains said the fact TVNZ was still promoting the clip on its website showed it had âtotally lost the plotâ and was insensitive to the offence Henry had caused.
The segment is now gone, though the tiny 14-day suspension that TVNZ gave Paul Henry seems even weaker in this context.
Making it worse was the TVNZ spokeswoman, who defended Henry on Monday and worsened the matter then. I think TVNZ needs a new spokesperson. Hereâs how Fairfax reported her response:
TVNZ spokeswoman Andi Brotherston said the website was an independent news organisation. â[It] is part of TVNZâs news and current affairs department, which has its editorial independence enshrined in legislation.â
Translation: we canât do anything about how we promote the channel because of the law.
Why, pray tell, was the clip then removed?
It might be nice to get the context in which Ms Brotherston made her comment.
I wrote to the network today suggesting that Mr Henry at least meet with the New Zealand Indian Central Association in his 14 days off. (I called it, wrongly, the Indian New Zealand Association, mixing it up with one in Wellington.) Letâs do something beyond the on-air apology and learn just why these âethnicâ associations are necessary in New Zealand. (One big reason: the Paul Henrys of this world.)
One thing has bugged me: this idea from Henry that Sir Anand Satyanand does not sound like a New Zealander. I have met the Governor-General on several occasions and I never remembered him having any accent but a Kiwi one. I even had to look for clips of Sir Anand just to make sure my memory wasnât playing tricks on me. I remember that his wife, Lady Satyanand, is very well spoken. So just how much like a New Zealander did Henry think the next Governor-General should sound like? Fred Dagg? Him?
Thereâs nothing wrong with a Fred Dagg-sounding Governor-General, but it seems that Mr Henry believed that a Kiwi accent is not a Kiwi accent if its speaker has Indian heritage.
Yesterday, as some of you know, Sir Michael Fowler endorsed me, saying that I am the âintelligentâ mayoral candidate and he likes the programme I have outlined for our city. It goes beyond what is on my campaign site, of courseâthe programme includes plans to bring Waterfront Ltd. back under council control, increased transparency through webcasting council meetings, streamlining the processes within the Council, and reviewing Wellingtonâs asset and risk management (which needs serious work). Most of these have been voiced during the last three weeks of very entertaining debates with my opponents.
Iâm grateful to get the endorsement of a three-term (1974â83) mayor and had the pleasure of campaigning with Sir Michael yesterday up in Brooklyn.
He is right on many points. The present council is in disarray. And he believes I am more of a unifier. I imagine that is right: in branding, if you are going into a company to redo their strategy, you need unity. If you donât have it, you need to find a way to create it.
I was also encouraged by the fact that Sir Michael sees huge value in social networking. âYou reach a literate, voting population,â he told me. I am glad he is not as dismissive of technology as at least two of my opponents, who pay IT lip service and little more. He agrees with me that it can help create jobs and give a career pathway for our youth.
Aside from Sir Michaelâs endorsement, those of you who watched Back Benches, listened to Radio Active or watched the video Scoop know that Bernard OâShaughnessy, one of my opponents, has asked his supporters to back me. Iâm very grateful to Mr OâShaughnessy as well for his support.
And while itâs not asking supporters to give me their 1, Councillor Celia Wade-Brown has told her supporters to give me a 2 or, at least, a high ranking. I reciprocate that for Councillor Wade-Brown: if we want change, and we can rank our candidates, then please consider a 2 or a high ranking for her.
Remember that your votes are due in the post by tomorrow (Wednesday). Our own small-sample poll shows that the newspaper one is inaccurate, and suggests that the race is far tighter than has been reported. But the margin of error is also quite large, so if I donât put much stock in either, I wonât let them sway you. Iâve posted plenty over the last while, more so on Facebook, and Iâve met so many of you in person at the debates and forums, for you to know who the best and most engaged candidate is. One only wishes that more of these were televised!
Vote with your hearts and minds, but the important thing is: vote.
Yesterdayâs mainstream media was more taken with the dĂŠbâcle surrounding breakfast TV host Paul Henry and his implication that the Governor-General, HE Sir Anand Satyanand, did not look and sound like a New Zealander. He asked the Prime Minister, John Key:
Are you going to choose a New Zealander who looks and sounds like a New Zealander this time ⌠Are we going to go for someone who is more like a New Zealander?
A strange comment, considering Sir Anand was born in Auckland, has had more years in New Zealand than Mr Henry himself, has a distinguished record of public service, and is definitely a New Zealander through and through. His judicial service is probably as recognized as that of former Governor-General, Sir Michael Hardie Boys.
What Henry really wanted to say is that you can put in decades being a judge and, for the last few years, our viceregal representative, but if you are ethnic Indianâor, more to the point, not Caucasianâthen youâre not âreally a Kiwiâ.
As the mayoral candidate who would never get a Paul Henry backing because I look nothing like him, the furore struck a chord. Because there is a racist undercurrent in some circles that Henry represents. Any minority has witnessed it, particularly in areas where minorities have typically not ventured due to the earlier prejudices of a bygone age. I am sorry to note that it is still there and I have even noticed it in this electionâfortunately not from the Wellington public, but from some of our establishment institutions.
TVNZ initially defended the man (saying that he simply vocalizes what is on peopleâs minds) before suspending him (for a mere two weeksâI Tweeted a 30-day minimum would be appropriate). Henry stood by his comments before apologizing. But it all looks like too little, too late, as was the inaction by the Prime Minister, who critics say should have had Henry up on the comment during the interview.
If one looks at the outrage on Twitter (a small sample, I know), then Henry is well out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. He has a responsibility as someone who reaches over 100,000 people. And yesterday, he crossed the line. Intentional or not (and only he will ever know), this sort of thinking has no place on our airwaves except, perhaps, in a drama where Sam Tyler wakes up in 1973 and meets a tobacco-stained, borderline alcoholic homophobe by the name of Gene Hunt.
As one friend of mine says, Henry has a right to be a dork. However, we are paying for this manâs salary as he is employed by the state broadcaster, and heâs less happy with that. As am I. Make such insinuations in other parts of the civil service, and youâd get a more severe reprimand than a TV network defence and a delayed suspension. Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand would know, and they worked for a state broadcaster, too. At least there, the BBC immediately recognized what was indefensible.
The fallout from the Henry incidentâwhom my friends note still appeared on telly this morningâincluded the resignation of Ben Gracewood as the showâs gadget commentator. Ben felt it was the last straw and Tweeted late last night, âDo you know what made me quit? I wanted to say this, and then realised I was holding back: what a f***ing cock that Paul Henry guy is.â
Pop over to Benâs blog where more of the debate has taken place. I think he did the right thing, and I applaud him for acting and having principles.
There have been a few times in the history of this blog where I stepped away from writing regularly. At the end of 2006, I had a pretty good excuse: I was in France. This time, my reasons for stepping away for a few weeks do not include: (a) I was spending too much time with the Miss Universe New Zealand contestants; (b) laziness; (c) being trapped in 1983 and discovering that DCI Gene Hunt controls the Lost island.
I was, however, chatting to a few more of the parties that we needed to realize some of my election promises. And doing a few media interviews. And looking at more ways Wellington could get nearer balancing its budget, as our deficit has ballooned over the last decade.
On May 15, I joined my opponent, Councillor Celia Wade-Brown, on Access Radioâs Espace Français, in what was my first political interview in French. I expected a nice-natured chat till our hosts said they wanted a political debate. So the Councillor and I gave the audience one, coming from very different angles. I believe we are the only two Francophone candidates. And I donât think Access does a Cantonese programme.
You can listen to the interview here, though they only store the programmes for six weeks. You can also download from this link.
I kept Leauna Zheng waiting for weeks while I prepared my emailed responses to her interview for Skykiwi, the leading Chinese expatsâ site in New Zealand. Despite her wait, she wrote a marvellous article (in Chinese, here), and for those of you relying on Google Translate, please note that the term Chinese expatriate is not translated correctly. (I believe this is the first Chinese-language interview to include my name in Chinese ideographs.)
And, finally, my interview with Bharat Jamnadas on Asia Down Under aired last Sunday. Heâs very kindly put it on YouTube, though the aspect ratio is a tad off and I look thinner than usual. There are very nice comments from two members of the Wellington business community, Laurie Foon of Starfish and Brent Wong of Soi, to whom I am extremely grateful.
The conversation at the end about Wellington v. Auckland was a good laugh, but there were some serious bits.
And this Tuesday just gone, it was a pleasure to play a âdragonâ in a Dragonâs Den-style setting analysing some of New Zealandâs entrepreneurs for New Zealand Trade & Enterprise.
My thanks to Bharat, Leauna, Kenneth Leong, Laura Daly at Access Radio, Jean-Louis Durand and Arlette Bilounga, and Maria Gray and David Powell.