Waste, waste, waste
The Herald reports:
Figures obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act showed Tātaki spent a total of $737,208.58 to address what it said was a decline in perceptions of Auckland among locals and the rest of the country.
Would abolishing Tataki improve perceptions?
The agency said the campaign was designed to turn sentiment towards Auckland around.
“Globally, city brand experts point to negative-trending sentiment leading to people spending less time and money in a place, thereby unfavourably impacting economic outcomes.
Hmmm so city brand experts have said that they think spending more money on city brand experts is good for regional economies. How surprising.
Post-campaign research by the Research Agency showed the campaign lifted sentiment towards the city, it said, and 60% “took action such as considering spending money to enjoy Auckland and/or considering a trip to Auckland”.
That is not an action. ticking a box on a survey saying you are considering something is not an action. Did they ask about actual actions such as actual travel, or just thoughts?
“Campaign likeability and uniqueness both outperformed a benchmark group of 146 ads from established brands.”
Translation: these ads did better than our other ads. Wow wee.
The post Waste, waste, waste first appeared on Kiwiblog.