Yes, there is something un-Australian about these ads

I hate those adverts. Pure propaganda. The fact that it’s Authorized by X from Y screens this even further.

You never hear about anything being unBolivian or unJamaican – why have we got to have some a jingoistic adjective?

That is lowest common denominator work that we as an industry should be embarrassed to produce, no matter how much the client is paying.

Disgraceful.

I’ll tell you what’s un-Australian this add….

It’s amazing that amongst all the doom and gloom of the GFC most countries in the world are taking a stand against the rampant greed of big business and pressuring corporations to become more responsible for their actions, be it paying decent amounts of tax rather than hiding it in offshore operations or promoting ethical business.

Where as our mining and banking sectors have somehow sucessfully argued that they are on hard times and down to their last few billion in profit each year , while cigi’s and pokie companies who do untold damage to society present themselves as the decent thing – if all this is that horrible Howard term un-Australian, then who’d want to be Australian?

Tim – did you see the CEO of the AHA on the 7pm project attempting to defend this last night? The panel pointed out that they had a typo on their poster. The icing on the cake was Charlie Pickering saying ‘you might have spent some of your $20m on a spell checker’. Gold.

It has reached the point where saying that something is “un-Australian” is simply un-Australian. the only time it is acceptable in my book, is when it is done sarcastically to poke fun at our own bigotry.

These are disgusting. Mass lobbying in this manner should be banned or heavily regulated at the very least. Shut this Americana bullshit down.

Wow, that’s a stinker.

Would love to see the tracker study on that pile.

You have to love the logic on the plain cigarette packet spot – it won’t work so why do it. How about – if it won’t work why fear it?

You can see that at least they can’t get good planners to work on this crap.

Which agency created this?

And why not create a list of all the agencies that work for big tobacco while we are at it? Would be handy for potential clients to know when they are putting their work out to pitch. One day the ad industry will have to come clean. It was us after all that created the beast.

Umm… you forgot to mention the ‘ads’ churned out by GetUp?

Bad brief, bad strategy, bad execution. Everything you’d hope for, really, as someone who cares about Australia.

Wow what a horrible, horrible ad.

Banjo Advertising created the un-australian website and the campaign.

The naughty men from Banjo Advertising don’t seem keen on twittering about their “It’s un-Australian” campaign!? https://twitter.com/#!/banjosydney

Do they need help with their social media campaigning? I have met many lovely young experts in the social media!

You know, whilst I’m not a fan of the quality of the ad, I have to admit, if not for this article, I would have not known of this proposal being put forward.

So I guess if the aim was to make the public aware of what’s happening, maybe they acheived that with me. Not bad, $20million spent and that’s one person covered.

Having said that, I don’t play pokie machines, (money into a machine programmed not to lose overall = stupid?), so I dont actually care about the proposal.

And before people come back at me for saying it’s stupid playing pokies (which there will be someone), it’s only my opinion, what you do with your money is up to you, (and soon make sure you have your licence so Big Brother Brown can watch what you do)

Twisted logic from the cigarette companies posing as Alliance of Australian Retailers:

“If it won’t work then why do it?”

But, if it won’t work ie. cigarette sales won’t suffer because of it, then why are cigarette resellers so worried about it. In fact, the only reason for cigarette resellers to worry about it is because it will work!

Couldn’t agree more Tim. Kenny Craig anyone? “Look into my eyes, not around the eyes, click and you’re under”.

So I went to their website and saw a poll asking “Do you support a license to punt?”. So I clicked yes, and nothing happened. I clicked it again and again, nothing. I refreshed the page in case there was an error, still nothing.

It’s ok though, when you select No nothing happens either.

I think it’s some of Goebbels best work. All it’s missing is an animation of Gillard turning into a rat then running down a sewer. Perfect.

i LOVE this ad, especially the overly dramatic ending when he stares directly into the camera for effect.

Ummm…they already do tell you how many beers you can have if you are driving your little blue car home from the Pub!!

“Community good” should never be funded by community harm.

Who is the agency taking this brief. Name names. Who was the creative director? Make sure this sticks on his/her resume.

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. AHA and your agencies – you are a disgrace.

yes Accountant, let’s name and shame all the agencies that worked on big tobacco….and while we’re at it alcohol brands because we can’t handle our drink, and car brands because we have traffic accidents, and fast food because adults and parents don’t know how to manage their food consumption, and gaming companies because they cause violence……..

why don’t we just shut down the whole advertising industry so we never have to fear the ill-effects of ANY LEGAL PRODUCT we might have a hand in selling?

Anyone want to come clean about either working for or turning down work for these sorts of clients?
As far as taking money off Big Tobacco, I once heard it explained that “If you think you do things ethically, you’re better taking the job, as if you don’t then it could well be someone who doesn’t do something as ethical – you can make a better impact from within, than from outside”
I pointed out that “Yeah, but I’m [bloody awesome] so ultimately I’d drive more sales than some unethical [not so awesome] person. So no thanks.”
As a Pom, I can’t believe the number of campaigns/Australians that are sticking up for big business, tobacco, anti-public transport, campaigning *against* lower prices in supermarkets (which help 99% of people). But then I guess I’m un-Australian…

Nice opinion piece Tim.
I just don’t necessarily agree with it.
Of course, no one can defend these ads on a creative level. But to say they don’t work is a bit rich.
That’s precisely why we see the same crap churned out time and time again, issue after issue. It’s because these ads, no matter how bad, work.
I would wager that none of these ads would have aired without massive amounts of research. Unfortunately, since they get researched to death, most of them are written not just in “client speak” but “client who doesn’t make or watch or take an interest in advertising speak”.
They’re nothing anyone would ever own up to in decent company or on their CV, but it’s called freedom of speech.
All they’re doing is arguing their position.
It’s a free country Tim. Which means the government is free to push policies that will hurt big, nasty industries. But those big, nasty industries are free to fight the fair fight back at them. No matter how ugly and unwatchable it gets.

…have a long hard look at yourselves and look at the vacuous platitudes that you have kindly offered to us lesser mortals… i guess none of you work for any multi-nationals, of-course not, your all in the industry for the betterment of man kind. So your brands are more important than mining, tobacco and gambling? One word… hypocrisy… think next time you get into your bmw, put on your tag heuer watch, and check your da vanci porcelain veneers in the rear view mirror… and ask your self are you really guilt free?

I am amused that when I try and vote “Yes” on the “Do you support a license to punt?” poll on the Un-Australian website, I get an error message.

Not letting you vote? That’s unaustralian!

‘Spare us the lecture’ to equate alcohol. cars and fast food with cigarettes is utterly stupid and smacks of the sort of argument put forward only by someone who works for a tobacco PR company. Every cigarette does you harm. Not every drink, every car, or every bite of fast food does you harm. If this is the best you can do then if you don’t already work for a tobacco company go and do so please. With your input the battle will be half won.

‘A quick flutter down the pokies…” Not only un-Australian, but un-grammatical, unreal (not in the 70’s way) and un-creative. Who the f*ck talks like that anyway? Apart from Alf on Home and Away. Struth!

I don’t believe some of the comments on here. While I couldn’t care less about smokers or gamblers I do care about protecting their right to express their opposition to any new regulations.
So agencies should boycott campaigns such as these due to the same pressure as lawyers being told not to represent violent criminals?

Michael,

Australia has 20% of the world’s poker machines in the world and NSW has 50% of Australia’s poker machines. I DO care about the misery that problem gambling causes for the gamblers and their families.

D

@version

Great point!

I don’t actually think the bottom AHA ad is that bad. It effectively communicates that the new laws will mean you need to have a “licence to punt” (even though this may be a misleading message) and I reckon average Australians will oppose these new laws based on that. So not sure how it’s a bad ad.

The cigarette ad is a whole different story – TERRIBLE!

groucho, let me put it more plainly for you….this is not an argument for or against tobacco, or any other product that may be harmful to any degree. it’s against the moralising by those seeking to have agencies named and shamed that work in this category, or on the un-australian clubs campaign that started the debate in the first place.

if an agency chooses to do work in a legal product category, then that is their choice, and should be theirs alone. for those with a particular moral or ethical stance, choose differently……and then feel free to shut the hell up and spare the rest of us the lecture

For what it is worth i posted a middle of the ground comment (not completely negative but not anti gov) and it has not been published…

Lest one forgets…

The AHA were very vocal about their “community spirited” opposition to the small bar licencing in Sydney – Declaring the end of life as we know it, with gangs of crazed drunks roaming the streets looking for hip, cozy laneway bars to get tanked on goon.

No-one really believed them, it didn’t occur and the net effect was actually immensely positive on the local areas. Though the goon monsters still plague the AHA outlets…

They’ve lost focus of their business. To survive they need to reverse the balance of them being a mini-casino that also serves grog and food in a mediocre fashion. Maybe then their core customers would return.

‘Spare us the lecture’ – why don’t you read what you wrote. You say that we should name and shame people who promote alcohol, cars and fast food. This lump them all together technique is , as I said , utterly stupid. And anyway, why not name and shame them. They are part of the process that markets a product ( I refer to tobacco here of course) that is a proven killer. That it is legal doesn’t make it moral.
That way marketers can make an informed choice. I wouldn’t want to share the reception area of my agency with them.

If you want to be spared the lecture look away.

groucho, if you’re that passionate about these issues why don’t you pack up and go run for office and instigate some change at a level where it counts. that way the rest of us can choose to live our lives without your moral filter applied.

the nanny state and its associated do-gooders and wowsers are at least as harmful to the functioning of a happy and balanced society than any manufacturer of any product you choose to demonise

‘Spare us the lecture’ your logic is illogical, your wheezing is audible.Even though you work for a tobacco company you don’t have to smoke you know. It’s rotting your brain, it’s making you huffy, Go back to the script they have given you where they say address the argument put forward. Defend your proposition, attacking is futile, and still stupid.

and you my friend, while appropriately named, lack all the humour and endearing characteristics of your namesake

spare us the lecture..

Moral filter? What? This isn’t about morals. Pokies cause harm. Fact. It’s just an entirely rational response to reduce harm.

I guess you’d like to remove car seat belts and drink driving laws too? All those nannystate do-gooders and wowsers who keep reducing harm…

The legislation doesn’t stop you playing pokies – it just allows you to pre-set you own limits. No moral judgement or filter implied or imposed on you.

The joke is the AHA. They operate a rational-free zone. The only argument the could sustain was to wrap themselves in the flag a tell what it is and isn’t to be “Australian”. The last refuge of scoundrels etc.

Garn.

‘Spare us the lecture’ I’m not your friend. My friends are not as dumb as a bag of hammers. When they disagree with me they address the issue which you avoid. They mount intelligent arguments which you don’t. They don’t work for tobacco companies which you do.

geez, you guys on your high horses really take the cake.

Andrew Maloney, I’m all for effective government regulations and intervention (car seat belts for example), but draw the line at government fiddling (alcopops tax anyone?) in industries/categories that are designed to make it look like they are acting but are not prepared to ban them.

I say to the government go ahead and ban smoking then, or the pokies, or whatever else it is we need to be protected from. but until the government (state or federal) admits they are the ones addicted to the revenue streams from these vices, leave the business people, marketers and advertisers who seek to promote these legal activities alone, and let the consumer decide.

let’s not forget this whole pokies fiddling is the mission of one renegade politician who has done a deal to keep the government in power only if they act on his personal crusade. put the blame where it lies, not with the people just trying to run their businesses within an existing legislative framework.

If the AHA or Clubs Australia took responsibly and picked up the tab for the violence and heartbreak their ‘product’ causes then they might be in a position to complain.

But they don’t. They take their profits and run, leaving others to pick up the pieces.

Right now at this very minute, there are children in Australia who are hungry because a parent has stuck their pay cheque or weekly pension into a poker machine at an Club Australia or AHA venue. And it happens every day of the year.

That’s a fact that can’t be argued with, and no amount of bad, jingoistic advertising will change it.

But so what? That’s their own fault! People should be free to be adults and make their own choices in life! Nanny-State, Nanny-State!! Poker machines are a legal product! All true, but some things are only legal by default.

We’ve all been out late at night and seen the carnage alcohol fueled violence causes. Some parts of Sydney resemble war-zones on a Friday or Saturday night.

But again, “that’s not our fault!” cries the AHA. “Nothing to do with us – we are responsible citizens!”

It’s the tax payer who pays for the extra police, ambulance and hospital services needed to clean up the mess their customers cause on an average night.

On a bad night, some people even pay with their lives.

So here’s some free advice for the AHA and Clubs Australia – stand up and take some ownership of the problems you cause. Stop labeling concerned citizens as ‘wowsers’ and do something to help solve the problems, and maybe, just maybe, you might start getting some respect in the community.

The bad news is that it will cost you more than the occasional ad campaign though.

Sorry.

The only comment that has made any sense on here is “Michael’s”. And the immediate response from “Doughboy” is to reel off a rather specific statistic that purely aims to demonise without responding to the actual point above.

So I’d say there’s definitely at least one PR hack posting on here, not just the non-sensical splutterings of ‘spare us the lecture’.

Here’s the rub. We live in a democratic capitalist society. If you’re just waking up and realising that this is how such a society operates then I’m sorry, you can either catch up and join the game or go back to sleep. All of these clients, no matter who is behind them, are simply exercising their democratic right to voice their opinions. Whether you agree or disagree with their opinions or their method of delivery is a matter for you to decide on. And guess what? You’re completely free to do so! How awesome is that!

I couldn’t care less about which clients you don’t feel morally obliged to work for. If an agency chooses to work for the ‘dark side’ so be it. That’s their prerogative.
As long as they do the right thing by their client and can sleep at night, good luck to them. They know what they’re in for when they sign on the dotted line.

So feel free to have an opinion. Just don’t judge others for expressing theirs. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order. Especially on a Marketing and Advertising site in democratic capitalist society.

Perhaps if everyone who makes a living in this industry just thought for a minute about the long-term ramifications on their own clients once a precedent is set with some of these proposed policies that are being lobbied against, a few of the smarter ones who aren’t less than five years off retirement might change their tune.

does anyone else think that there seems to be a lot of government intervention in a heap of industries since this mob negotiated their slim hold on power that has done nothing but cause a whole lot of trouble and angst and no real positive changes?

carbon tax, nbn, pink batts, green loans, alcopops, pokies reform, mining tax etc. etc.

shuffling deck chairs on the titanic springs to mind

I hope “lead the way, Brucey” becomes a meme. Kids in playgrounds everywhere should be using it.

Very emotive conversations going on here, though I never like when it gets personal, as much for the reason is that people who get personal on forums do so hiding behind the security of cyberspace, when in the real world whilst they would still passionately argue their point, they most likely wouldn’t resort to petty insults at the end of their point. Why? Because that’s not acceptable social behaviour and probably likely to end with a fist in the face (not condoning violence but that’s a fact), so not sure why it’s accepted here.

What I will say to this arguement is whether people agree with many of “Spare us the lecture” points, one very valid one is this. Government get involved only to the point of being seen to get involved, but not really taking action.

Adam Paull makes a valid point with “Right now at this very minute, there are children in Australia who are hungry because a parent has stuck their pay cheque or weekly pension into a poker machine” (at not just a Club Australia or AHA venue but also sports clubs and Casinos), so this isn’t an issue like smoking where *generally* speaking, the only person harmed is the smoker, but a HUGE issue that hurts families, friends, communities (crime goes up to feed the addiction).

So the government’s solution? Ban pokie machines? No, that would result in BILLIONS of dollars of lost tax revenue. So lets do a bit of a token effort here that might help a few responsible gamblers but realistically have no effect on the truly problem gamblers.

So I’m not saying ban pokie machines either, god no. And let me declare I’m also not a gambler, I like my money too much to throw it away.

But I do believe that a small part of the message of this ad is correct (probably inadvertedly by the AHA) is that is this going to make a difference to the issue? No it wont, and the government which rakes in Billions in tax revenues from Pokies and other gambling, wouldn’t have it any other way.

Just my opinion, you are welcome to agree or disagree, just lets keep it civil people, ok?

It makes no more sense to “name and shame” agencies that have promoted these campaigns and to encourage people to boycott them, than it would be to boycott the actors, the media owners/TV stations that have aired them, or the pubs that have pokies in them.

As Miss Hall wrote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

good to see some reasonable thinking coming to the table Bucks. I daresay Groucho et al got me a bit off topic with their misguided attacks.

for the record i’m neither a PR hack nor do i work for a tobacco company, hell I’m not even a smoker or gambler.

what i am is a proud member of a free capitalist society who works in advertising and sees no reason for a group of people promoting a legal product to not be allowed to advertise to protect their patch. rather than whinge, the alternative argument from the likes of GetUp can have its own voice. what could be more simple?

i cant believe people on this forum can so vehemently criticise the perfectly legitimate workings of industry that exists to communicate and provide choices to consumers – nothing more and nothing less. lets argue about the work, not whether it should exist.

as other commenters have pointed out, where does this industry end up if we take these attacks on free speech to their natural conclusion, beyond the easy targets of tobacco and pokies?

But Gav Miss Hall, who was a delightful lady as I recall, probably didn’t intend to defend the right of the tobacco and alcohol companies to hire people to write to the editors of the newspapers and blogs like this pretending to be real humans with opinions. Their only intent is to defend the indefensible and mislead the reader. With practice you can pick them, but then with practice you can walk the streets of Paris in your good shoes too.

Bucks:
AHA and you believe the measures won’t work. How can anyone know that? I don’t know either.

I know one extremely intelligent guy (yep, sample size n=1) whose life has been destroyed by pokies – utterly destroyed. Not online gaming, not casinos, not poker tournaments – pokies.

He is in favour of the legislation change and is terrified it won’t go through. Ten minutes talking to him and you’ll think its worth the try.

Gav:
You too should have 10 minutes with my mate. You might find yourself less civil in pokies debates afterwards. When you see the destruction up close, its just human to get a bit emotional.

I also will join you in defending the right of free speech in a democracy.

But without any inconsistency, want to know who is saying what. “Name and shame” is about my freedom to choose not to hire or work for organisations that I believe promote harm. I want to add my economic weight to the argument. I don’t want to prevent their free speech, I just don’t want to do business with these guys. So Banjo Advertising, don’t call.

So we all hate the pokies? Want to rid the state of the scurge? Lets set a pokie reduction target – say 20% of machines per year in NSW (we are way over-represented in pokie numbers in this state anyway). But because the pub and club owners paid for the pokie licenses, the only fair thing to do is to compensate, or buy the licenses back.

But surely this is a small price to pay for an improvement in society? The government needs to set a pokie license buy-back price, and it needs to be worthwhile to the club and pub owners to take it up.

Set a reducing price per year per license over say a 10 year period to create the incentive for the pokie owners to act fast before the value of the licenses they hold is drastically reduced.

Only fair way to go, as opposed to the symbolic stuff we’re seeing right now.

@ Real Change – In Victoria we had a bidding process on our most recent pokie licenses for clubs.
I have spoken to some licensed clubs owners who have told me they received their licenses for a fraction of what they were willing to pay per machine.
If we were going to buy the licenses back, we would not be allowed to do so at the amount they paid but rather at the likely nett amount each machine would be likely to make them over that period of time.
I would hate to guess how much that would amount to?
Given the licenses brought $1billion into the state coffers, and assuming the clubs are likely to make 15x as much over 10 years, that would amount to $15billion.
That is $3750 per man, woman and child in this state over 10 years.
While it may seem like a brilliant idea and socially responsible, in practice it would be a whole lot harder to facilitate.

Real Change:

I wrote to the NSW premier yesterday proposing the same thing. An annual target of 10% reduction in government pokie revenue.

That’s the other side of this problem – the government is addicted to the tax revenue, just as much as the players are to the machines.

An annual 10-20% reduction would be a great policy.

ahhhhh so Groucho @ 52 free speech is OK as long as it doesn’t apply to those you disagree with? aren’t you guys at GetUp too busy learning the Greens/Labor playbook to hang around here?

@ andrew maloney – apologies if I made it sound like I believe (like the AHA) that this wont make any difference, because you’re right, I don’t know that, and 100% admit that your friend has a better insight into the issue than nearly everyone commenting on here.

Sure, I put my hand up though and say that I’m skeptical that it will, in regards to serious hard core addicts. Using drugs as an example, they are 100% illegal/banned never mind you have to have a licence to get them, yet we know that addicts can get them none-the-less, so I just think those who have a real problem will still have that problem. (I agree drugs vs pokies = long bow to draw, but you know what I mean). So that’s where I guess my line of thinking is coming from.

I will also declare my hand that I’m in general terms a pessimist, so that doens’t help with my skepticism, but tha’s just me.

What we do agree with is that as much of an issue here, is the various governments own addiction…addition to the tax revenue from gambling

Firstly, I agree the ad is terrible and presents a focus on the wrong point. I am not a gambler, I will put 20 dollars in the pokies from time to time, but that’s about it. And I’m not having a go at anyone here.. but i wanted to share this information so that there is less ill-informed debate about how this will affect you . NOT A GAMBLER? ITS STILL YOUR PROBLEM. Here’s why:

I work at a Community Club, in this “devil” industry that so many of you are quick to flatten as evil corporations out to “harm” innocent civilians with their alluring poker machines. YES… there are families and many individuals who are broken due to gambling addictions (just as there are MORE people affected by alcohol, which is relatively unregulated in comparison).

But I put this to you… why propose a brand new system thats never been tested or proven to work… where the success of it depends on the “problem gambler” individual to set their OWN pre-commitment limit for poker machines (shouldnt we encourage them NOT to gamble instead!!?).. and make it mandatory across all industries (clubs, pubs, hotels, casinos).. which will cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to roll out (can you see your local bowls club which is struggling to keep afloat as it is managing this?) …when out of the TOTAL poker machine playing population, problem gamblers (who this system is designed to protect) is approx. 9% (given approx 30% of Australians play pokies).

So tell me… where do people think all that funding for your kids to play soccer or football… OR SURF LIFE SAVERS will come from? Another fact to remember… is that Community Clubs MUST (by law) provide community contributions from their revenue. Yes, they make a profit (so does every business).. but they supply jobs, community support, welfare for pensioners and pump hundreds of thousands of dollars each year into their local community. Why do you think they are fighting tooth and nail for this not to roll out (even if it is in a badly executed way).

If this comes into effect…say goodbye to your local bowlo, say goodbye to some of the life savers on the beach, goodbye to your son’s local football support, your local weekend events, to pensior welfare support…the list goes on.

The industry is not denying there are problem gamblers out there who need help… but there has to be other ways to manage it other than taking away the freedom of the other 21% of Australians for the sake of a smaller few who can escape the system once its in place anyway. PLUS, send broke the many local Clubs that just simply don’t have the money (yes, surprise yourself to know that many of the smaller clubs are finding it tough to serve their members now)

@andrew maloney – if someone had of given your intelligent friend a card to gamble with which he had to set the limit of during his addiction…do you honestly believe that this would have saved him? That he would have been smart enough to make the right choice?

This system really is just like giving an alcoholic the permission to have 6 beers. Can someone please pass the common sense? It needs to be voluntary and they need to come up with a hell of a lot more suggestions of how to tackle a very HUMAN problem with HUMAN repercussions without introducing expensive technology that will damage more of society than it will help. and that’s my rant done.

Ok – here’s a wideball.

Heroin is illegal and wreaks havoc on our society. However, studies are proving that the provision of LEGAL injecting rooms helps users – and by default their families and their ‘would be’ victims. Humanising junkies and making their vice (synthetic) legally available to them, IS making positive changes to the user and the community.

Are we arguing for the right of the user to imbibe? Or the seller to profit from the sale?

Me thinks that the Government is playing with our balls, whilst we are (pleasantly?) distracted from the main game – which is – inexperienced strategists fucking around with policy.

Not dissimilar to having your best client’s son do work experience – useless, full of shit and really hard to get rid of.

Stay with me….

back to the quality of the ads and whether agencies who do them should wear the shame…..yep, name and shame so that the writer fights the polling and research to deliver a better piece of communication.

Thanks for sharing 😉

@Informed – I’ve always found it amusing that the club industry justifies its existence by touting all the ‘good’ they do. It’s a bit like the local thug that keeps mugging people declaring himself an upstanding citizen because he throws a few coins the kiddies way occasionally…

Clubs are mini-casinos – they make their profits from poker machines. Poker machines take billions and billions of dollars out of the pockets of Australians every year. Problem gamblers are a major contributer to those profits.

Those cheap schooners, chicken parmigianas, and Elvis impersonator floor-shows are there to lure the patrons (often referred to as ‘punters’ – for good reason) through the doors.

Poker machines have slowly but steadily taken over many aspects of Australian life like lantana invading a property. Profits and taxes from pokies now fund everything from, as you point out, kids soccer and surf lifesaving right through to major government infrastructure projects.

It also funds your pay packet.

Governments are addicted to poker machines in exactly the same way as many of those punters, and they are now so firmly entrenched into our economy that slowing the noxious weed’s growth is proving to be difficult – and getting rid of it impossible.

Regardless of the outcome of the proposed poker machine reforms, there will still be children across the country going to bed hungry.

But at least they’ll get to play soccer on Saturday morning.

It’s a funny old world.

Macca’s help our children become obese, yet run a ‘house’ for sick kids..?

At least the tobacco industry and organisations like Woolworths (owner of an enormous amount of ‘pokies’) take, take take with little give back to the community.

Macca’s pollute and clean up in another area. They are bad and nice; (they are even investing into the fire service now…)

I smoked when I was in my late teens. It was cool to smoke B&H and I would have been taunted smoking a Silk Cut. Branding works and by removing the brands, this will be a good thing and help to further reduce smoking in Australia.

I wish clubs / pubs would ban smoking outdoors. I love beer gardens, however now prefer the interior of pubs as they are smoke free.

I think that a website that lists who agencies represent would be great for clients. I remember the conversation on Mumbrella regarding Frontier Media’s representation of the Ashley Madison website. In 2011 these agencies cannot hide. Naming and shaming them would be a very good way for clients to use the right agency for their brand.

Well the ads suck but what could they do ?

Pokies are brainless rot played by sad old losers.
The pub trade is run by sociopaths who constantly whinge about young people, bogans, druggies etc while happily taking their money.

Noone seems to have mentioned this yet, so I’m gonna say it. This ad is crappy because it lies. All the arguments about whether or not agencies should be ‘named and shamed’, and whether pokies are harmful or not, and whether agencies should do work for business that harm people, are all very interesting and important topics, but not really relevant to the main issue here. This ad is bad because it LIES. There is no ‘license’. The AHA ad is misleading, it uses misinformation to attack its opponent instead of building a case based on a core truth or ‘benefit’ of its product. How cowardly. As a professional, regardless of whether I was selling pokies or puppies, I would not be happy to be involved in bringing a message to the public that is simply untrue. Our business is to persuade, but there is a line beyond which persuasion becomes propaganda. So yeah, why not name and shame agencies that cross that line? It is unethical and behaviour that brings our industry into disrepute.

I agree with your point Meg.

Banjo Advertising are backed by John Singleton. They do not appear to have a website and have a Twitter page saying how great they are…

One quote from their, erm, Twitter website thingy is:
“Striving for one goal. To create great, enduring Australian brand stories that sell.”

Perhaps they should rephrase that to”
“Striving for one goal. To create dull, unethical, Australian lies that aim to cause misery”

Banjo are without a shadow of a doubt ‘Un-Australian’. (There is definitely no ‘mate-ship’ in their work featured above.) Banjo are nothing more than heartless, senseless, money takers out to make a buck and evidently they couldn’t care about hurting others. No social responsibility whatsoever(.)

Nice work Banjo!

I wonder if a well known club or pub decided to provide some “not for profit” pokies . . would they get more punters in . . because it was ‘ethical’?
I don’t think people JUST play the pokies because they might win something back.
It is very nicely sedentary, satisfying tinkles and crashes soothe the furrowed brow, it is a solitary occupation, and it means you can opt out of small talk while at the pub or whatever. Not to mention a sort of retro nostalgia vibe thing going there.

Meg’s on the money – that appears to be a theme of these big-business campaign ads… lies, lies and more lies.

The anti-mining tax jingle “You’re gunna get whacked” – really, how? A group of billionaires giving up a few of those billions so they can keep digging up rocks they don’t own – how is that bad thing for me and the country? Some people might be slightly inconvenienced, but whacked? Geze – who the hell are you? The Sapranos?

The anti-plain packaging smokes advertising was just laughable – “It won’t work so why do it”. Easily counteracted by “it might, so why not”.

And now this. It’s un-Australian I tells ‘ya… whatever that means.

The only reason commercial interests are trying these ads is because they saw them as being effective against the Rudd Government.

If Gillard caves in to the advertisers, expect to see many more of the same type whenever there is profit at risk.

In fact you’ll be able to judge effective policy by the level of advertising against it.

Tobacco makers wouldn’t oppose plain packaging if they didn’t think it would be effective.

Notably, the HQs of tobacco makers in Australia don’t have large signage to tell people proudly who they are and what they do. I wonder why…..

Funny isn’t it:

Gerry Harvey – Billionaire, saying how buying online is un – Australian. (However him and his mates at Myer have already bought a warehouse in Honkers, ready to start churning out cheap goods…)

John Singleton – Billionaire, his supported agency Banjo saying it is un Australian to campaign against the pokies. Singleton, along with Gerry Harvey own pubs, which house pokies…

These selfish Billionaires could do with taking a good look at their greedy selves(.)

Harvey is well known for his lack of online knowledge. Could a social campaign be set up to prove to him how effective the online medium is? Like boycottgerry.com.au … Could be an intersting experiment… or fromrichestorags.com.au

– Bring these greedy un Australian’s down 😉

I am not sure a lot of people are getting this campaign which might be an issue with the message but my read is that they are saying it is unaustralian to need a licence to gamble…and frankly I agree with that.

Not only is there a $3billion cost on pubs and clubs to implement the technolgy the cards or licences or whatever you want to call them will have information that is very personal on them to allow you to play.

The growing issue of problem gambling is real, but eerything needds to be addressed including having my 9 and 7 year old exposed to gambling on sport during prime time matches. My kids can;t watch a footy or cricket game anymore without having odds on the screen at least four times during a game. They are being conditioned to believe gambling is ok. the next generation is where the real problems will start and it goes far further with online and sports gambling.

But needing a licence…….????? Alcoholism is a far greater issue and cost to society. So is the government going to introduce a new way of proving you are not an alcoholic and can buy grog…..and then if they did would that stop the alcoholics getting it…..I don’t think so.

I think the clubs and pubs have a point…….putting many out of business, removing the freedom of choice for Australians and putting many people out of work needs to be thought through very carefully and this approach is bloody extreme at best whilst only tackling one part of what is a much bigger problem.

Brian:

I’d take issue with your logic;

1. You agree “problem gambling is real” are concerned your kids are exposed to it too early, you mention online and sports gambling, propose “everything needs to be addressed”.

But then suggest to you are against the pokies legislation because it only “tackles one part of the problem”.

It’s the pseudo-logic of the AHA – “ahh, we agree with you and would like wide ranging gambling reform across every facet of gambling” An impossibly high ambition guaranteeing nothing will happen.

2. You repeat the claim the cost will be $3 billion.
I find that hard to believe. But is that a big number compared to the size of the pokie industry and harm caused?

Again, this is the line the AHA take ” its too expensive for us: ie the beneficiaries of the current system (clubs) shouldn’t have to pay to reduce it’s harm. Speeding fines are paid by… speeding drivers for good reason. What cost is the AHA willing to pay?

3. The “it will cost jobs and put some places out of business”.
And it will also help problem gamblers minimise horrendous harm. You don’t see heroine dealers arguing for legalisation because it would create jobs – and by the same logic it doesn’t make a lot of sense to argue to put up with the current social destruction because it keeps jobs.

Let’s organise our society so that jobs don’t rely on significant social harm.

4. “It’s removing freedom of choice”.
How exactly? It allows you to choose how much you will lose ahead of time. It time shifts the decision point – that’s all. You are free to play as much as you want. No change, no reduction in freedom. It adds a new choice – to make the decision ahead of time, outside an addictive environment. More freedom, not less.

5. It’s “extreme”
The surveys reported recently say 60%+ of the population support the measures. It’s not extreme to most Australians. To my mind, its a very restrained a carefully thought out measure. The only thing extreme is the reaction by the AHA.

Brian:

I didn’t address your alcohol analogy…

No Brian, the government isnt going to going to “introduce a new way of proving you are not an alcoholic and can buy grog”.

But if you have a way that could work – please propose it! Be careful trying to use alcohol as an analogy to propose these pokies measures are extreme… it might back-fire…

Australians are already pretty accepting of the idea that government employees can create road blocks and haul motorists in to measure how much they have been drinking. Sounds extreme” doesnt it? But RBT’s are fine with most. Would you like the same for gambling, “Sir/madam – how much of your family’s money have you poured down the pokies this evening?” I’m afraid you will have to accompany me to the station.”

Australians (thankfully) are pretty tolerant of measures that reduce significant social harm.

I need a drink. A smoke. And a toot. I might even put a Tenner in the Queen of Denial.

UnAustralian ads which put guilt on you for not buying Australian made. Consumers these day are savvy, compare and want quality.

eg. American owned GM Holden which always puts the Aussie label while Toyota also have locally made cars here.

Can we have another video uploaded??

The Licence to Punt (sic) peeps have removed the AdNews Youtube vid – citing copyright infringement…. I thought it’ll never happen because it’s unAustralian.

I hope some bloke in Tasmania re-uploads.