I edited my post, but I don't think that this is the worst thing I have ever heard of. Think as to how much money gets wasted on promotion budgets all the time, with companies getting their employees horribly ugly shirts with their logos plastered over them, which actually get donated to the homeless...
Someobody had to manufacture those horribly ugly t-shirts, someone to ship them, someone to hand them out, etc. That money may be ill-spent, but it remains in the economy, and pays for work for other people.
Burning money does none of these things. Also, it won't cause people to listen to that station. While the idea that any publicity is good publicity may be generally valid, this is still a crappy radio station that is redundant within the market. Offending people likely won't lead to new listeners any more than the last idiotic stunt they pulled did.
Actually, publicity of any kind can do a lot of good, believe it or not. That is marketing 101.
At my previous firm, we had what you would call 'bad publicity', where our actions were scrutinized by the entire City of Calgary - even though we didn't really do anything wrong. It was people's mis-guided perception of the entire incident that created the controversy.
Nevertheless, our website had 6x the amount of traffic over the course of the next four months and a swath of new potential business leads were generated because of what happened.
I agree that bad publicity can be used against your organization, but in many cases, it's publicity as a whole, and therefore effective.
We'll agree to disagree. Two different schools of thought on marketing.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Amp burned $5000 OMGz! lets tune in and listen to music I don't usually listen to.
To be honest, I haven't listened to Amp before. However after reading this thread, I will likely tune in today to check it out. I suspect I may not be alone.
I don't really care one way or another about the $5000. I just want a choice of music in the car.
The promotion could have been "Give a listener $5000 or give it to charity".
The only thing this stunt has shown is that many of AMP's listeners are slightly more ######ed than the people who work in the promotions department of this station.
But that's not the same promotion and wouldn't have gotten people talking like this. Don't you see that? The reason people were listening was, 'holy crap, they may actually burn the cash!' And the reason they are talking about it now is because they actually did. Giving it to charity would not have had close to the same result.
Don't get me wrong, it turns me off to the radio station and you have to expect with a stunt like this there would be bad publicity too. But it appears the promotion did what it was supposed to, so the promo department is probably happy about that. It's smart, in a slimy sort of way.
Kinda weird people are so upset about it. If you don't like it, don't listen to the station, don't give them the publicity. But puckluck, and the people who want to continue to rail against the 'evil' of the promotion are just playing right into their hands.
The source was someone at the Drop in centre. Perhaps they were just looking at their expenditures for sheltering and support services instead of the total cost of homelessness.
It doesn't change the fact that his estimation is pretty awful if you look at the statistics, the fact is this isn't a huge amount of money and it is pandering to people's sense of quasi-morality to insinuate that this money should have been put towards the homeless, when that wasn't even an option that the radio station had set up. It was between being burned and a listener receiving a moderate windfall of money... nothing about the homeless at all, until this self-righteous guy wrote an article talking about how awful it was.
Someobody had to manufacture those horribly ugly t-shirts, someone to ship them, someone to hand them out, etc. That money may be ill-spent, but it remains in the economy, and pays for work for other people.
Burning money does none of these things. Also, it won't cause people to listen to that station. While the idea that any publicity is good publicity may be generally valid, this is still a crappy radio station that is redundant within the market. Offending people likely won't lead to new listeners any more than the last idiotic stunt they pulled did.
Why should this offend someone though? Because the money wasn't donated to the homeless?
We'll agree to disagree. Two different schools of thought on marketing.
Sounds like Muta has more experience on the subject though, and I would tend to agree with him. That's why the saying goes, 'no such thing as bad publicity'. That is of course a tiny bit of an exaggeration, but it's pretty close to a hard and fast rule. And it definitely worked in this circumstance.
Amp burned $5000 OMGz! lets tune in and listen to music I don't usually listen to.
To be honest, I haven't listened to Amp before. However after reading this thread, I will likely tune in today to check it out. I suspect I may not be alone.
I don't really care one way or another about the $5000. I just want a choice of music in the car.
And there are people like me who after reading the article (and this thread) will never tune in again even though I like the music they play. I was already turned off by their valentines stunt but this is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
Why should this offend someone though? Because the money wasn't donated to the homeless?
Because it is disrespectful. Money is sacred to me especially when you have people dying of starvation and you have poverty right here in Calgary.
I'm old school like that though. I couldn't even drop a penny and not pick it up or I'd feel bad. I was taught from a young age to not take things for granted. you burn $5000? that goes against everything I believe which is why I find it offensive.
Sounds like Muta has more experience on the subject though, and I would tend to agree with him. That's why the saying goes, 'no such thing as bad publicity'. That is of course a tiny bit of an exaggeration, but it's pretty close to a hard and fast rule. And it definitely worked in this circumstance.
I'm not saying his situation didn't happen , but the rule simply isn't applicable on a grand scale. It really depends on the type of bad publicity, where your company/product is on the public consciousness, and the type of end result you're after.
Unfortunately, bad publicity of a moral nature can be extremely negative to established brands, and it often is.
Why should this offend someone though? Because the money wasn't donated to the homeless?
It's more of a symbolic thing. It reeks of arrogance, its an offensive gesture to burn money when lots of people worldwide don't have enough of the stuff to do things like eat, buy clothing, or have proper shelter. Pretty obvious that its not really a nice thing to do as an act of shameless publicity.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
Because it is disrespectful. Money is sacred to me especially when you have people dying of starvation and you have poverty right here in Calgary.
I'm old school like that though. I couldn't even drop a penny and not pick it up or I'd feel bad. I was taught from a young age to not take things for granted. you burn $5000? that goes against everything I believe which is why I find it offensive.
But as I said, $5000 isn't a huge amount of money, it would make about as much sense as getting upset because someone drives a fancy car. I think it is a waste of money, I agree but then again, how many things in our society are a waste of money that we never really care much about?
But as I said, $5000 isn't a huge amount of money, it would make about as much sense as getting upset because someone drives a fancy car. I think it is a waste of money, I agree but then again, how many things in our society are a waste of money that we never really care much about?
Driving a fancy car isn't a waste of money. That's quite the leap in logic. Hey, if you're not offended then that's fine but there are people who are offended.
But as I said, $5000 isn't a huge amount of money, it would make about as much sense as getting upset because someone drives a fancy car. I think it is a waste of money, I agree but then again, how many things in our society are a waste of money that we never really care much about?
Driving a fancy car? You mean a car that people put time, money and effort into creating, so that other people who value that item can purchase it? That's called an economy.
What of value is being done by burning money for stupid people's amusement?
I don't understand how anyone can see the stunt as anything but tasteless.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
Nearly everything you hear on radio is fake. The Laughs, the personalities, the requests, the phone calls etc... There is no reason to think that this stunt would be any different.
__________________
The only thing better then a glass of beer is tea with Ms McGill
The Currency Act states that "no person shall melt down, break up or use otherwise than as currency any coin that is legal tender in Canada." Similarly, Section 456 of The Criminal Code of Canada says: "Every one who (a) defaces a current coin, or (b) utters a current coin that has been defaced, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
However neither the Currency Act nor Criminal Code mention paper currency. It therefore remains legal to completely destroy paper currency.
Not saying I agree with it, but they didn't break the law. The outcry is pretty funny IMHO.
