And who can blame Rowan Dean? Is the ad aimed at people with the IQ of an average eight year old on purpose?
Forget about who’s starring in the carbon tax ad. Is it any good as an effective piece of advertising?
Thus far, all the attention has focused on the appropriateness of having a multimillionairess and Hollywood superstar appearing on behalf of the average Aussie.
Both actor Michael Caton and Cate Blanchett have hurried into the fray to inform us that they, too, have a right to speak on behalf of the issue. Of course, they do. But it’s irrelevant. And doesn’t answer the question. Is the ad any good?
In terms of generating awareness, the ad has been a blockbuster. There can hardly be a person in Australia who has not seen or heard of the ad by now. Job well done.
But awareness is a double-edged sword, and in this instance the impact of having our most famous actress appearing, and then being criticised for appearing, has managed to “vampire” the message itself. The discussion is about Cate, not carbon. From an advertising point of view, this becomes a problem.
Having gained massive awareness, does the ad persuade? From my point of view, this is where it fails dramatically. It is, quite simply, a dud ad.
Seriously, how stupid must they think we are; that by simply paying a massive omnibus of a tax – and that’s what it will eventually have to be – that that will somehow affect global climate, even whilst India and China thumb their noses and say thanks at the same time for all the new jobs and industry ($$$) we’ll send them.
Meanwhile, still having trouble convincing your kid’s idiot teacher to stop brainwashing your sprog? Well, Ira Glickstein is here to help.
What should a responsible Skeptic say to an astute audience? When recently invited by the “Technology, Engineering, and Science Plus” group in my community to give a talk and answer questions, I knew I would have an attentive room of tech-savvy professionals. However, they might not be fully tuned in to the details of the Global Warming controversy. Furthermore, they were likely to have opinions closer to the supposed “mainsteam science” [sic] orientation than mine.
In this posting, I’ve summarized the main points I think are most likely to align people who are both intelligent and reasonable to the Skeptic side. My Powerpoint (with talking points for each chart in the Notes section under each slide) is available [click here] for you to use and adapt as you wish.
If $36/tonne is set to rip our farmers to the tune of $36,000 each, then can one assume Garnaut’s proposal of $26/tonne of the harmless, colourless, odorless, and essential trace gas CO2 – of which 97% is natural anyway – will cost each farmer $26,000/year… and rising year after year after year?
A must listen here.