TAC launches Christmas campaign to warn drink and drug drivers ‘The party’s over’
The Transport Accident Commission has launched its Christmas enforcement campaign, which warns Victorians of the consequences of irresponsible driving during the festive season.
The campaign includes a TV ad, which launched this morning, and a series of outdoor executions that will go up around Victoria from Sunday 25 November.
Think this is so off. Really do not see how this come across an other way than antagonistic. Not sure what they are trying to say. But to me this says we aren’t trying to make our roads safer. We are going to make a shitload of money, and ruin your holidays whilst doing it.
On a slight tangent, I have a quick question. I remembered from a while back Tim, quite an impassioned diatribe about Fairfax and their video policies. In other words, this editorial: https://mumbrella.com.au/fairfax-and-content-theft-28938 criticizing how Fairfax would skim content readily available on YouTube and upload the content through their proprietary video platform. Therefore, misappropriating and not allocating attribution, views and potential revenue to the actual owner/creator of the content.
The fact that I see you do exactly the same thing has been mildly bothersome to me for a while. So why is that? I found the TAC ad on their YouTube channel and many of the other 800 + videos on your channel on the sites of the actual owners of the content. Why not just embed their videos? https://www.youtube.com/user/MumbrellaAus
Hi Long Winded,
Thanks for your question.
Where we run ads from a brand on our own YouTube channel, it is because they have supplied it to us and given us permission to do so. We haven’t lifted it.
Generally, I prefer to embed the ads from the brand’s own channel when it is available at the time they release a campaign to us – it’s quicker and easier for us.
Also, we do not monetize the content supplied to us by brands that we put on YouTube which means that we do not run overlay or preroll ads against it, so we don’t have any commercial benefit to running it on our YouTube channel compared to the brand’s own one.
As it happens, I’m overseas this evening, so not sure of the story in this particular case as I wasn’t involved, but my best bet is that we were invited to post the video either directly by the brand or by the agency.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Now presumably Grey Melbourne knows that it has been proven, time and again, that co-operation works better than threats. Remember “Don’t mess with Texas”? In that case, this ad is not aimed at getting the potential non-compliers to self-police and behave themselves, but at the rest of the community who want to see something being done. Which makes it a political ad and, in my view, a waste of money.
Re long winded, I am somewhat shocked with your comment “make a shit load of money and ruin your holidays whilst doing it”
From a comment like this you imply that it is fine for people to participate on the roads while trashed, possibly kill or seriously injure someone and even better if you get away with it.
This is a brilliant new direction for TAC and Grey to take. The message is clear and Andrew, it is perfect for reaching the non compliers as the language used is the language understood by the non compliers, leaving them with something buried in their mind, that hopefully will make them jump a cab or walk instead.
Only a complier could think that.
Anyway, the title is a give-away of the “thinking” behind this “campaign”: “Enforcement”. That’ll work. Let’s show how tough we are. And there I was thinking advertising was the business of persuasion. Silly moo.
Induce behavioural change by pointing out the negative ramifications of bad decisions in no uncertain terms? Sounds fine to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_marketing
Long Winded,
Mumbrella just embed vids… which is totally different. Fairfax, Ninemsn et al download/rip the video (usually only 30sec because of copyright laws), then re-upload it in their own video players with their own ads on top of it.
they’ve pushed it too far
antagonistic in the extreme, this approach is not clever, but mocking in tone and more suited to a fascist state than a democracy
Usual TAC dross, putting everyone offside and enforcing the “You live in a Police State, Mexicans” mantra they have been singing since the beginning. It had shock value then, but people are now sick of being treated like criminals when they aren’t doing anything wrong.
Feel good about paying your TAC levy Victorians, you are buying those stormtroopers plenty of power.
Encyclic! Of course it sounds reasonable. Facile thinking always does. Inducing behavioural change is hard. And this campaign has failed on that score. So it’s settled for acting tough. Pathetic, really. One of the worst examples, too.
This is just ridiculous. They really have stepped over the mark this time. I know its not the police’s fault, this is some idiot advertising agency hired by an idiot government. But still, this message is totally unacceptable. Its like some first year film students attempt at the opening scene of something in the spirit of ‘1984’.
We live in a free society, not an orwellian hegemony. The more that that principle, slips, the more we will simply fight back.
And the party’s not over, the party is just beginning.
Seriously, they think technology is going to END things?
Sorry boys and girls in blue, but your job is actually going to get a lot harder thanks to technology in the next few years, not easier. I dont envy you, especially as you try to solve REAL crimes and not waste everybody’s time and money on the roads.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/s.....vince.html