Monday, June 09, 2008

Media for Nothing, and the Ads for Free

Oily the splot may not air.

While some will try to spin this as a Tory screw-up, as far as screw-ups go, getting a few days worth of wall-to-wall publicity for your ads at no cost isn't the worst screw-up a party can make.

Anyone know what a front page colour ad on the Toronto Star is worth these days? A commercial slot during the CTV evening news?

Labels: , ,

posted by calgarygrit at 9:47 p.m.

36 Comments:

  • No, this is a fuck-up. They released the ads yesterday, and now the next two days there will be stories of their incompetence.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:15 p.m.  

  • Toronto Sun. Four-colour Sunday ad is $9,000, but that's inside the paper. Elections Canada will ignore this, as they should, and the Tories will contain their gratitude.

    By Blogger Paul Wells, at 10:26 p.m.  

  • Honestly... whatever happened to fool me once etc... is the media going to provide the Conservatives with free coverage that they don't even need from now until the election?

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 11:38 p.m.  

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGUMCWjvoAg&feature=related

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 12:08 a.m.  

  • “is the media going to provide the Conservatives with free coverage that they don't even need from now until the election?”

    I guess not since the conservatives and liberals are tied at the polls.

    The point is this. Dion’s ratings are near zero, and similar to John Turner’s. So, the party is holding up despite a poor leader. Are the conservatives flogging a dead horse (so to speak) when they attack dion?

    Should the conservatives focus on better policies and people skills? How about a positive attitude to life? What do you guys and gals say?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 12:47 a.m.  

  • Paul Wells,

    Elections Canada should probably also ignore the pro Liberal editorial and reporting stance at the TO Star, which occurs not in an isolated instance, but on a daily basis.

    Yes, wall to wall anti conservative coverage, and editorials,

    daily.

    Imagine the value of that in terms of advertising dollars.

    Imagine the inherent value of all those j school graduates and "journalists", such as yourself, who inherently lean left, consider themselves progressive, and come from an insular world where "conservatism" is a dirty word that's tut tutted amongst the proper urban crowds,

    who are to a large extent (though thankfully to a lesser extent now) the gatekeepers of public information, determining for us what is, and what is not, important and employing reams of editorialists to tell us how to properly interpret that news.

    But good on you Paul, for staying ever vigilant to the dangers of the pro conservative slant in the press.

    Now, lets change the channel back from the petty little issue of a major tax and how it would dramatically affect millions of Canadians,

    and get onto important "news" to every day Canadians, like, say.... who a Conservative politician's ex girlfriend dated ten years ago, and what that ex's ex thinks of her now.

    Now THAT'S news to that trucker in St. John's who has to debate whether to fill his next tank of gas or tell his wife and young kid he has to call it quits and try to find a new job.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:37 a.m.  

  • Then again,

    while China, Russia, India ect, pump out "carbon" to an extent that makes Canada a meaningless participant in the contribution to world emissions (pretending now that the oceans are rising and flooding coastal cities, winters are becoming balmy ect - none of which is actually happening as predicted ten years ago mainly due to the fact that the "science" was computer model driven, and the model, like all such models, are woefully inadequate in predicting all but the simplest of mechanisms [climate is the opposite of a simple mechanism] but I digress),

    the trucker in St. John's is going to have to take that hit,

    so we can feel good about ourselves.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:53 a.m.  

  • "No, this is a fuck-up. They released the ads yesterday, and now the next two days there will be stories of their incompetence."

    Ya and the nerdy blog readers will pay attention to the "incompetence" story while the vast majority of folks will see the free ads.

    some f-u

    By Blogger Northern PoV, at 8:04 a.m.  

  • mitch said...

    "Elections Canada should probably also ignore the pro Liberal editorial and reporting stance at the TO Star, which occurs not in an isolated instance, but on a daily basis."

    Maybe you could find us an example where the Star dedicated their entire front page not simply to cover something Liberal... but literally opting a Liberal ad campaign.

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 8:36 a.m.  

  • I see this fiasco involves Retail Media, the same one involved in emails about how the CPC might get around the federal advertising ceiling and in the questionable invoices submitted to EC. Now, word is there was a contract with them for something that is illegal in Toronto. Are they simply being used by the CPC or are they actively involved in trying to get around the rules?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:05 a.m.  

  • How exactly do you know that Dions'rating is near zero when the polling firms are all run by conservatives. He is held in high esteem in and around my abode in ontario.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:06 a.m.  

  • "...polling firms are all run by conservatives..."

    Care to uhh... qualify that one? Even Pollara ("The Liberal party pollster") is run by conservatives?

    And how come the "esteem" for Dion has translated into a loss in Outremont and that northern Saskatchewan riding, as well as a near loss in what should have been a safe Vancouver riding?

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 11:30 a.m.  

  • The CPC can spend on ads, then let the MSM NEWS broadcast them for a few daze.

    brilliant.

    dion's carbon tax went over like a led zeppelin.

    where was the MSM NEWS then?

    i guess the great ideas get buried, like the 100mpg carburetor

    By Blogger Unknown, at 11:52 a.m.  

  • Bingo... Warren figured it out days ago.

    Brilliant plan... millions of Canadians have seen it, and all it cost us was the price of production.

    By Blogger Christian Conservative, at 12:34 p.m.  

  • Christian Conservative said...

    "Brilliant plan... millions of Canadians have seen it, and all it cost us was the price of production."

    Pushing your political message for free when you totally have the money to pay for it... brilliant... or slimey / the media should be ASHAMED for letting this happen again.

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 12:36 p.m.  

  • Like they say, a week in politics is a long time. I hear that the Liberals will realese the details of their enviormental plan soon (maybe next week) and these ads will be forgotten. The Conservatives will then have to pay for new ads. I'm not taking anything away from Christian Conservatives glee but I don't think these ads will have much of an impact. Except for the people who already support doing nothing about lowering GHG emmissions. And like Red Tory pointed out, when Dion does release the details there is going to be ALOT of interest (in part because of the Conservative hysteria over Dions Tax shift proposel).

    By Blogger Blues Clair, at 1:05 p.m.  

  • For what it's worth, I tend to think the Tories intended to run the ads on gas pumps - if only because that'd be pretty smart targeting of your message. It may only have been for 5 gas pumps for all I know and the larger purpose was probably the earned media, but I don't think this mix-up with fuelcast was neccesarily organized.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:08 p.m.  

  • The Liberals have been promising to release the details of this plan "next week" for two months.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:09 p.m.  

  • “none of which is actually happening as predicted ten years ago mainly due to the fact that the "science" was computer model driven, and the model, like all such models, are woefully inadequate in predicting all but the simplest of mechanisms [climate is the opposite of a simple mechanism] but I digress),”

    Mitch,

    Please see this article for a discussion of model building

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Modeling_trends

    And, this article for the consensus at this time

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    “These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

    Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] This range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.[1]”

    By Blogger JimTan, at 1:30 p.m.  

  • Blues said: I don't think these ads will have much of an impact.

    I'm beginning to think nothing can impact public opinion anymore.

    Cadscam? NAFTAgate? Bernier resigns? Tory support stalled at 36%.

    Abstentions? No policies? Unintelligible leader? Lib support stalled at 30%.

    I'm beginning to think that even if Dion was revealed to be an axe murderer, his party would not lose more support and Harper wouldn't gain any.

    By Blogger Mike514, at 2:45 p.m.  

  • I'm beginning to think nothing can impact public opinion anymore.

    The problem is that support won't change because this truly has denigrated to the lesser of two evils. Voters have had to balance whether scandalettes, puerile advertising, and offering little more than "the Liberals sucked ever more than we did" as justification for some things, or poor leadership and weak policy. Nothing that happens with the former will change opinions with the latter and vice versa.

    What a sad age of Canadian politics this is. Small wonder I've turned my attention all but entirely to the US Presidential Election, and will likely focus more on provincial politics once that's over.

    By Blogger MB, at 4:14 p.m.  

  • Should the conservatives focus on better policies and people skills? How about a positive attitude to life? What do you guys and gals say?

    I agree with you here, jt. Despite their natural assholic tendencies, they are giving the LPC a chance to win another opposition role. If they would do both attack, and focus on policies, they would be far, far ahead.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 8:00 p.m.  

  • but I don't think this mix-up with fuelcast was neccesarily organized.

    Yep, probably just serendipitous. I haven't seen much intelligent forethought from them in the last year. Having an opposition leader propose huge tax increases as a new policy was just a gift, what more would they need.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 8:03 p.m.  

  • Möbius said...

    "Having an opposition leader propose huge tax increases as a new policy was just a gift, what more would they need."

    I didn't think the details of the policy were out yet... isn't it difficult to call the increases huge without I dunno first seeing what the plan is?

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 8:26 p.m.  

  • Methinks that the Liberals have a serious case of "Ad envy".

    They should stop their whining and give Kinsella a call and make nice with him. Maybe he'll do a little pro bono.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:53 p.m.  

  • At first I thought it was a Conservative cumshot and the intended message was: we *really* enjoy getting paid to destroy Earth.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:18 p.m.  

  • I didn't think the details of the policy were out yet... isn't it difficult to call the increases huge without I dunno first seeing what the plan is?

    The Lib blogs are suggesting it won't be applied to gasoline. Amazing that they would say that without first seeing what the plan is. That specific point would make it a joke....and I'm a proponent of carbon taxes.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 7:10 p.m.  

  • Möbius said...

    "The Lib blogs are suggesting it won't be applied to gasoline. Amazing that they would say that without first seeing what the plan is. That specific point would make it a joke....and I'm a proponent of carbon taxes."

    So when the deputy leader of the party says "There are no plans - repeat no plans - to increase the excise tax"... we should assume that he hasn't seen the plan?

    http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/blog/194_Putting-a-Price-on-Carbon.aspx

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 10:58 p.m.  

  • "So when the deputy leader of the party says "There are no plans - repeat no plans - to increase the excise tax"... we should assume that he hasn't seen the plan?"

    That is exactly Möbius' point. Sparing putting a price of carbon in gasoline reduces the environmental benefit of pricing carbon for political expediency.

    In Stephane Dion's on words:

    "Economists increasingly point to the benefits of taxing things we want less of – like pollution – while lowering taxes on things that we want more of – like productivity and income."

    Do we not want less GHGs produced from gasoline? Should we not then include gasoline so that we can then further reduce taxes on things we want like productivity and income?

    How can the Liberals sell this as an overall net benefit to people if they are not prepared to defend raising gas taxes and lowering income taxes as good economics?

    Why is charging me more for operating my natural gas furnace but giving me back the money as an income tax cut good policy, but charging me more to drive my car but giving me the money back as an income tax cut bad policy? That's basically what the Liberals will be trying to explain to people if they include natural gas but not gasoline.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:48 p.m.  

  • Anonymous said...

    "That is exactly Möbius' point. Sparing putting a price of carbon in gasoline reduces the environmental benefit of pricing carbon for political expediency."

    Well except we already have an additional tax on gas... maybe when the other products reach a similar tax level gas will get an increase as well... but for now they're not doing it to gas.

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 11:56 p.m.  

  • "Well except we already have an additional tax on gas... maybe when the other products reach a similar tax level gas will get an increase as well... but for now they're not doing it to gas."

    Do you think the smart money for Dion's carbon tax is on $42/tonne CO2e? If he simply plans to convert the federal excise tax to a carbon tax for gasoline, then he would need to implement the same tax level across the board or he leaves himself open to accusations of not pricing carbon evenly throughout the economy and distorting the market.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:50 a.m.  

  • Anonymous said...

    "If he simply plans to convert the federal excise tax to a carbon tax for gasoline, then he would need to implement the same tax level across the board or he leaves himself open to accusations of not pricing carbon evenly throughout the economy and distorting the market."

    Given that we've had the excise tax on just gas for awhile... making that a target for X years from now for other products would be reasonable... but until we see the plan... hard to say how reasonable it is.

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 10:03 a.m.  

  • So when the deputy leader of the party says "There are no plans - repeat no plans - to increase the excise tax"... we should assume that he hasn't seen the plan?

    So when the leader of the party says "we will scrap the GST", we should assume that he actually will do so.

    Don't worry, I fell for that one too.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 5:42 p.m.  

  • Möbius said...

    "So when the leader of the party says "we will scrap the GST", we should assume that he actually will do so.

    Don't worry, I fell for that one too."

    What you're saying doesn't make raising gas taxes any more part of the Liberal carbon tax plan which is currently being debated... if they get elected on that promise and then break it... by all means call them on it... but until then... honestly if you're at that level of cynicism... why participate in political debate at all?

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 5:53 p.m.  

  • What you're saying doesn't make raising gas taxes any more part of the Liberal carbon tax plan which is currently being debated...if they get elected on that promise and then break it... by all means call them on it... but until then... honestly if you're at that level of cynicism... why participate in political debate at all?


    I participate because I can, and wish to.

    If politicians lie consistently to get elected (and it certainly seems that they do), it's not cynicism, it's realism.

    As a carbon tax supporter, the LPC leader is proposing something I cannot agree with, i.e., no additional taxes on fuel for cars. It's a sop, and a stupid one. I assume that it's another lie, because it only makes sense that it is, if the objective is to reduce carbon usage.

    If gasoline doesn't reach $2+ per litre, and quickly, people will adjust, and not change their lifestyles.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 7:24 p.m.  

  • Möbius said...

    "As a carbon tax supporter, the LPC leader is proposing something I cannot agree with, i.e., no additional taxes on fuel for cars. It's a sop, and a stupid one. I assume that it's another lie, because it only makes sense that it is, if the objective is to reduce carbon usage."

    You do realize that the alternative to the Liberal environmental plan is the barely do anything plan that the Tories are desperately trying to peddle right?

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 8:42 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home