Watching one of the Liberal party attack ads, the premise bothered Ellice, Treffyn and myself. As we sat in the office, we asked ourselves, “Is the economy central to everything?”. We decided to remix the ad.
Here’s the original Liberal Party ad:
And here’s our environmental twist:
So by remaking the video with the environmental twist, we ended up producing what is tantamount to a Greens ad. Thanks to Treffyn and Ellice – both worked on the concept with me, and Ellice produced the audio at 1am. I think we’ll be playing with quite a few of the videos this election. Stay tuned.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Francis // Oct 19, 2007 at 1:54 pm
You should add a ‘Pro-Tree Growth’ tag at the end!
2 JD Miller // Oct 19, 2007 at 2:20 pm
John howard an peter costello a “team” eh? Scoff!
Brilliant photo of Bob and Kerry
3 Treffyn // Oct 22, 2007 at 2:09 am
This issue was also touched on by John Hartigan from News Corp in this years Andrew Olle Media Lecture.
In short, he was of the view that online media allowed diversity of new outlets, as well as accessability to old media overcoming distances of countries. However that the only downside of this was that while consumers have more sources than ever before, they don’t have the time to watch and aggregate them all. (And why is it that when i use the word ‘aggregate’ i always assume i’m talking about online news readers?) But because of this, there was increased demand for distinguished, trusted or reputable sources to deliver content. And from what i could gather, he thought that while this could mean a drive back to a fewer range of institutions that already have a form of this credibility or distinction, he thought that there was no reason this could not happen online. In fact he promoted a native, but not exclusive online presence from established media outlets, and thought that this would be the new big demand for such organisations.
Although this is taking it on a tangent, In a sense i agree with him in that ‘web 2.0′ has largely manifested itself into a particular source or killer app for a particular need. eg. flicker, google etc.. Their model for this is however to be the killer app by aggregating all others content. While this is not to say they don’t try and rank it or give some more credibility over others. I feel that in regards to news and media, there will be a slight return to singular trusted sources that aggregate and create content that they are happy to publish under their trusted name. But that the difference there from current online situations is that google, for example, is a search engine, it amasses and organises others content. And say the SMH, doesn’t amass as much as write and create. Thus in essence the difference and perhaps middle ground. Is an organisation that both creates and amasses, yet publishes according to standards associated with their name. However, having said this, I realise I haven’t explicitly addressed the notion of dumbing down content for the medium, and am not necessarily advocating this type of media formation, only questioning there is any real difference in an organisation I have outlined from the current, and if so, if this is a possible future form that will address anything of what people are currently feeling in regards to this topic of what media presence there will be in the evolving online form.
4 Treffyn // Oct 22, 2007 at 2:17 am
While I took it well at first, I suppose that it could be argued ‘Former Banker’ doesn’t necessarily equate to anti-green. I mean not that i once again necessarily believe it, but take a look at Westpac’s big pro-environment, socially responsible advertising blitz. :p
5 Katie Chatfield // Oct 22, 2007 at 11:47 am
Inspiration from yesterday’s Sun Hearald
http://blogs.smh.com.au/sit/archives/2007/10/who_we_are_a_weekly_column_abo.html
The Bureau of Statistics published a report showing that Australians are vastly better off than they were ten years ago.
The revelation was part of the bureau’s annual MAP analysis, where MAP stands for “Measures of Australia’s Progress”. The word “growth” appears often in that report, just as it does in the Liberal Party’s campaign slogan.
Other effects of the Growth is Good decade show up in sections of the MAP report headed “The Natural Landscape”, “The Air and Atmosphere” and “Oceans and Estuaries”. Here’s what the Bureau says:
“Between 1996 and 2006, the number of bird and mammal species assessed as extinct, endangered or vulnerable rose by 44 per cent from 119 to 171 (of which 68 were birds and 103 were mammals). At 1 June 2006, just under half (47 per cent) of those species were vulnerable, around one third (35 per cent) were more seriously threatened (endangered) and the remainder (18 per cent) were presumed extinct over the ten year period …
“In 2005, for fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, 24 of the 83 principal species … were overfished or subject to overfishing. This compares with 3 species in 1996″.
The bureau reports that for 2005, Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions were estimated to be 559.1 megatonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”. This was 2.2 per cent higher than in 1990, which is “the base period for the reporting of emissions under the Kyoto protocol”. Apparently we’ve managed to achieve the highest per capita level of greenhouse gas emissions of all the OECD countries.
So along with the economic boom, Australia has enjoyed a boom in animal extinctions, overfishing and air pollution. Going for growth may not be an aspirational goal in every aspect of our lives.
6 Ben Griffin // Oct 23, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Beautiful
7 Anna Rose // Nov 2, 2007 at 1:53 am
Love it
Leave a Comment