Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn’s Post

If you want to make a complaint about the Hobson's Pledge ad in the NZ Herald with the Advertising Standards Authority, here are the details - ngā mihi nui to Amber Craig • Kahungunu, Rangitāne, Muaūpoko, Ngai Tara for sharing this information. 🙏 Link to make a complaint with the ASA is here: https://lnkd.in/gE2_gzYg On the first page you need to click "Yes, Proceed" four times before you get the "Next" button and can actually start your complaint. Advertiser is Hobson's Pledge, publication is NZ Herald. You will need a copy of the page (attached in original post). You will need to put in details of why this fails to meet the standards. Some suggestions of standards and principles it goes against: - Rule 1(c) Decency and Offensiveness - Rule 1(f) Violence and anti-social behaviour - Rule 1(g) Fear and Distress - Against Principle 2: Truthful Presentation You will need to put your details in then you can submit the complaint.

A practical way you can show your concern about this.

It is alarming that so many seem confused between what is advertising and what is journalism. Whether or not the Herald should've accepted money to run this advertisement as a wrap is up for debate. However, the Herald's editor would've had no say in it. As wraps often look like actual front pages, it is (somewhat) reasonable (I think) that people may mistake them as such. In a way, it could be argued that that's why papers produce them... charging top dollar. Whether the ad contravenes Advertising Standards Authority rules will be decided by the authority, but we should also note that the Herald is not supposed to discriminate when it accepting or not accepting ads based on political views. The ASA will weigh this up. In the meantime, please don't condemn the Herald's editorial team for a decision beyond its control - there is a good reason why journalists don't make advertising decisions. Similarly, the makers of Shortland Street shouldn't be damned because an ad for the ACT Party runs during one of its commercial breaks, for example. If we're mad at the messenger, best be sure we know which one approved the message. 

Want to make a complaint about the Hobson's Pledge ad in the NZ Herald with the Advertising Standards Authority? Here are the details: https://lnkd.in/gE2_gzYg First page you need to click "Yes, Proceed" four times before you get the "Next" button and can actually start your complaint. Advertiser is Hobson's Pledge, publication is NZ Hearld. You will need a copy of the page (attached). You will need to put in details of why this fails to meet the standards? Having gone through the standards here are a few of my suggestions of principles it goes against: - Rule 1(c) Decency and Offensiveness - Rule 1(f) Violence and anti-social behaviour - Rule 1(g) Fear and Distress - Against Principle 2: Truthful Presentation You will need to put your details in then you can submit the details. Also InternetNZ | Ipurangi Aotearoa and DNCL talk about disinformation and misinformation but seem to have no ethics when it comes to holding to account people on our domain names that spew hate about us? Why is this .nz domain still even running? How do we complain? Or is this just showing us how that Systemic racism report is coming along?

The quote suggests that any kind of attention, positive or negative, can boost public awareness or notoriety. Controversy or criticism may stir up attention, yet it still enhances visibility, potentially leading to positive outcomes like increased sales or brand recognition. This notion is frequently employed in marketing and public relations to validate attention-grabbing strategies.#MondayQuotes#Quote_of_the_Day#PR4URetrieved  from :https://lnkd.in/dyug2rS9

The quote suggests that any kind of attention, positive or negative, can boost public awareness or notoriety. Controversy or criticism may stir up attention, yet it still enhances visibility, potentially leading to positive outcomes like increased sales or brand recognition. This notion is frequently employed in marketing and public relations to validate attention-grabbing strategies. #MondayQuotes #Quote_of_the_Day #PR4U Retrieved from : https://lnkd.in/d93Y9WUE

The quote suggests that any kind of attention, positive or negative, can boost public awareness or notoriety. Controversy or criticism may stir up attention, yet it still enhances visibility, potentially leading to positive outcomes like increased sales or brand recognition. This notion is frequently employed in marketing and public relations to validate attention-grabbing strategies. #MondayQuotes #Quote_of_the_Day #PR4U Retrieved from : https://lnkd.in/gxkHkYZy

The quote suggests that any kind of attention, positive or negative, can boost public awareness or notoriety. Controversy or criticism may stir up attention, yet it still enhances visibility, potentially leading to positive outcomes like increased sales or brand recognition. This notion is frequently employed in marketing and public relations to validate attention-grabbing strategies. #MondayQuotes #Quote_of_the_Day #PR4U Retrieved from : https://lnkd.in/g7UVPK_m

The quote suggests that any kind of attention, positive or negative, can boost public awareness or notoriety. Controversy or criticism may stir up attention, yet it still enhances visibility, potentially leading to positive outcomes like increased sales or brand recognition. This notion is frequently employed in marketing and public relations to validate attention-grabbing strategies. #MondayQuotes #Quote_of_the_Day #PR4U Retrieved from : https://lnkd.in/gcyUmuGZ

Laddu Politics and Consumer Trust 🧈 In today's highly competitive marketplace, political interference can do irreparable harm to reputable brands. When politicians target brands to advance their own agendas, it not only damages the brand’s reputation but also indirectly benefits companies aligned with their family interests. Such actions create uncertainty in the market and erode consumer confidence, hurting businesses that operate with integrity. In the end, it's not just the companies that suffer – consumers lose trust in the very products they’ve grown to love and rely on. Can reputable brands like Nandini, supplying organizations as prestigious as TTD, really afford to cut corners on quality? The science and economics just don’t add up. Targeting Nandini, a public enterprise, seems more like a ploy to protect family-owned interests. Politicians may think public entities won’t backlash and take against the competition —but consumers and businesses deserve better than being pawns in these political games. Let’s question the motives, not the science. Shame on those politicians who damages consumer trust for their own political gains!! #BrandTrust #PoliticalAgendas #FairCompetition #ConsumerRights