-
It's actually QI how the "marketing" works.
I thought that Mark Mitchell would be the Nat candidate for my area until I saw a billboard (of all antiquated things) with Chris Penk on it.
They redefined the boundaries, which I also didn't know, until I was trying to find out what happened to Mitchell.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
Filter bubble is in effect for TV as well as most jounalists are left-leaning.
You can at least adjust the bubble on social media by following at least the two main parties and see their biased content directly. Then you can make your own mind up.
Also, local events where the MPs interact with the public directly also share the same content. My main point was that National's strategy has more policy than the sources that Dogmeat is viewing may indicate.
More than under the Key version of National too, some of the long term view subjects that he was looking for.
For those that look for information, yes.
Many people form opinions based on what reaches them without searching.
They are the ones that will be affected by media and advertising.
I guess my point is that the comments were around the advertising approach which is light on anything other than 'we think we are better than them'
Not much saying 'we have strong plans, check them out'That's not how advertising works on Facebook. You can target the people you think are going to vote for you (very granular, by demographics, creepy level of detail) and get those people to view your policy detail. People don't have to go searching at all.
Significantly more effective than radio or TV advertising.
Consumer classification and targeting is standard practice in these circles that facebook sells on all its platforms eg Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp etc, it just feels even creepier when politicians do it. Not quite the levels of Cambridge Analytica, but you will probably see all sorts of unwanted ads in your social feeds.
-
@bayimports said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
Filter bubble is in effect for TV as well as most jounalists are left-leaning.
You can at least adjust the bubble on social media by following at least the two main parties and see their biased content directly. Then you can make your own mind up.
Also, local events where the MPs interact with the public directly also share the same content. My main point was that National's strategy has more policy than the sources that Dogmeat is viewing may indicate.
More than under the Key version of National too, some of the long term view subjects that he was looking for.
For those that look for information, yes.
Many people form opinions based on what reaches them without searching.
They are the ones that will be affected by media and advertising.
I guess my point is that the comments were around the advertising approach which is light on anything other than 'we think we are better than them'
Not much saying 'we have strong plans, check them out'That's not how advertising works on Facebook. You can target the people you think are going to vote for you (very granular, by demographics, creepy level of detail) and get those people to view your policy detail. People don't have to go searching at all.
Significantly more effective than radio or TV advertising.
Consumer classification and targeting is standard practice in these circles that facebook sells on all its platforms eg Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp etc, it just feels even creepier when politicians do it. Not quite the levels of Cambridge Analytica, but you will probably see all sorts of unwanted ads in your social feeds.
and they are ads that you have to conciously click on. They don't just appear on tele.
Personally I don't click on any ads in FB.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@bayimports said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
Filter bubble is in effect for TV as well as most jounalists are left-leaning.
You can at least adjust the bubble on social media by following at least the two main parties and see their biased content directly. Then you can make your own mind up.
Also, local events where the MPs interact with the public directly also share the same content. My main point was that National's strategy has more policy than the sources that Dogmeat is viewing may indicate.
More than under the Key version of National too, some of the long term view subjects that he was looking for.
For those that look for information, yes.
Many people form opinions based on what reaches them without searching.
They are the ones that will be affected by media and advertising.
I guess my point is that the comments were around the advertising approach which is light on anything other than 'we think we are better than them'
Not much saying 'we have strong plans, check them out'That's not how advertising works on Facebook. You can target the people you think are going to vote for you (very granular, by demographics, creepy level of detail) and get those people to view your policy detail. People don't have to go searching at all.
Significantly more effective than radio or TV advertising.
Consumer classification and targeting is standard practice in these circles that facebook sells on all its platforms eg Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp etc, it just feels even creepier when politicians do it. Not quite the levels of Cambridge Analytica, but you will probably see all sorts of unwanted ads in your social feeds.
and they are ads that you have to conciously click on. They don't just appear on tele.
Personally I don't click on any ads in FB.
Who watches ads on television? Mute, change channel, not on streaming, and the younger lot don't even watch TV.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@bayimports said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan that message detail won’t get through to the unconverted if it is coming via Facebook.
Filter bubble is in effect for TV as well as most jounalists are left-leaning.
You can at least adjust the bubble on social media by following at least the two main parties and see their biased content directly. Then you can make your own mind up.
Also, local events where the MPs interact with the public directly also share the same content. My main point was that National's strategy has more policy than the sources that Dogmeat is viewing may indicate.
More than under the Key version of National too, some of the long term view subjects that he was looking for.
For those that look for information, yes.
Many people form opinions based on what reaches them without searching.
They are the ones that will be affected by media and advertising.
I guess my point is that the comments were around the advertising approach which is light on anything other than 'we think we are better than them'
Not much saying 'we have strong plans, check them out'That's not how advertising works on Facebook. You can target the people you think are going to vote for you (very granular, by demographics, creepy level of detail) and get those people to view your policy detail. People don't have to go searching at all.
Significantly more effective than radio or TV advertising.
Consumer classification and targeting is standard practice in these circles that facebook sells on all its platforms eg Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp etc, it just feels even creepier when politicians do it. Not quite the levels of Cambridge Analytica, but you will probably see all sorts of unwanted ads in your social feeds.
and they are ads that you have to conciously click on. They don't just appear on tele.
Personally I don't click on any ads in FB.
Who watches ads on television? Mute, change channel, not on streaming, and the younger lot don't even watch TV.
Apart from Sport, I don't watch any "live" TV. Everything I watch is recorded.
(Except Movie Channels)
-
Saw something today that said Jacinda and Ashley are now politely disagreeing about the origin of the clusters. He says must have been introduced through the borders (airport/isolation facility/ports) she says no evidence of that.
Nifty trick to follow science when it suits.
-
@Mokey said in NZ Politics:
Saw something today that said Jacinda and Ashley are now politely disagreeing about the origin of the clusters. He says must have been introduced through the borders (airport/isolation facility/ports) she says no evidence of that.
Nifty trick to follow science when it suits.
Just what we all knew. Cold store? Yeah right
-
@Mokey said in NZ Politics:
Saw something today that said Jacinda and Ashley are now politely disagreeing about the origin of the clusters. He says must have been introduced through the borders (airport/isolation facility/ports) she says no evidence of that.
Nifty trick to follow science when it suits.
Reminds me of an ancient "joke" (term used loosely) -
How did VD get into NZ?
In a box.
How does she think it got in? FFS. Making herself look like an idiot.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Mokey said in NZ Politics:
Saw something today that said Jacinda and Ashley are now politely disagreeing about the origin of the clusters. He says must have been introduced through the borders (airport/isolation facility/ports) she says no evidence of that.
Nifty trick to follow science when it suits.
Reminds me of an ancient "joke" (term used loosely) -
How did VD get into NZ?
In a box.
How does she think it got in? FFS. Making herself look like an idiot.
But she gets a pass from the media and the sheeple
-
@Mokey said in NZ Politics:
Saw something today that said Jacinda and Ashley are now politely disagreeing about the origin of the clusters. He says must have been introduced through the borders (airport/isolation facility/ports) she says no evidence of that.
Nifty trick to follow science when it suits.
It's a good example on how she lies when it suits. The genome shows it's from Oz or the UK, so obviously it came through the border.
She can't say that though, because that means they threw away the elimination pain of lockdowns through mismanagement.
-
@canefan Which is why I hate the 'be kind' mantra so much. Any attempts at holding the government accountable for border fuck ups was seen as 'bullying', asking questions again and again because she evaded answering or replied with a whole lot of nothing were regarded poorly. (Yes, some reporters asked dipshit questions, but a lot have taken flack because they didn't say yes ma'am no ma'am when she beamed and spun bullshit.)
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
The genome shows it's from Oz or the UK, so obviously it came through the border.
No, no, no. It was on a packet of refrigerated kangaroo or some stilton.
A highly infectious disease couldn't possibly have been people.
-
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Mokey said in NZ Politics:
Saw something today that said Jacinda and Ashley are now politely disagreeing about the origin of the clusters. He says must have been introduced through the borders (airport/isolation facility/ports) she says no evidence of that.
Nifty trick to follow science when it suits.
It's a good example on how she lies when it suits. The genome shows it's from Oz or the UK, so obviously it came through the border.
She can't say that though, because that means they threw away the elimination pain of lockdowns through mismanagement.
The most transparent politician ever is no different from the rest. Just has very glossy polish
-
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@canefan We'll see I guess. Not around here though.
We are hardly representative of the country
No, we aren't. I wasn't actually referring to the Fern specifically.
I would be keen on seeing more Polish chicks around though.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@canefan said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@canefan We'll see I guess. Not around here though.
We are hardly representative of the country
No, we aren't. I wasn't actually referring to the Fern specifically.
I would be keen on seeing more Polish chicks around though.
I figured you meant the Fern, The Polish thing is unsurprising too
-
@Kirwan I am aware that Nats are spending large on social media but I don't do Farcebook as I'm in no way interested in knowing when someone needs to take a dump. I don't watch television news either but I have seen lots of images of Collins in a hi viz with a rictus grin.
There's plenty of faux policy coming out but it's all recycled garbage that didn't excite the electorate when Nats were led by Key and English so how is it going to now?
I think National have given up and this whole election is about damage limitation. I'd far rather they go on the attack and hold Labour to account for their many bungles. Of course as was pointed out by doing so they risk highlighting their own many incompetencies.
TBH I think politicians of every ilk are over 2020 as much as the rest of us. All I hope for from this election is the final permanent rejection of Winnie and NZF.
8-10 seats for ACT would do as well.
-
@dogmeat didn't Soiman try that route? The sheeple backlash was strong and he lost his job. Ardern is borderline untouchable with middle NZ right now. Now if the Fern was representative of most of NZ that strategy would be very effective....
NZ Politics