Did Actew have the election in mind when they began their intense bombardment of TV ads (ie: ‘we are fixing up the water shortage, so no need to worry about the dithering over the past seven years’). It is no secret that Michael Costello of Actew Corporation is a Labor old boy and used to be Kim Beazley’s Chief of Staff.
My suspicions have heightened a bit when I saw a NSW Teachers’ Federation ad featuring the same talking head who stars in the Actew ad! I was naive enough to think that Mr Actew was a genuine local, working at Actew and speaking from the heart. It turns out he must be a Sydney actor who is just a phoney playing a part. I wonder whether the production company for the Actew ad is the same as for the NSW Teachers Federation ad, ie: a company that specialises in political campaigns?
Actew may be quasi-independent of government, but some things really make you wonder!
Loading ...
TAGLINE: Riotact – the only website that could possibly mix conspiracy theories, Playschool and hairy beavers in one post – comment by Reprobate, August 2008
Infotainment.
Reprobate said :
Beaver = Dam.
Dam = ACTEWAGL.
and……
Playschool = ACT Govt.
See – it’s all linked!
it’s all about informing while entertaining.
Ahh RiotACT. The only website that could possibly mix conspiracy theories, Playschool and hairy beavers in one post. Well, as far as I know…
Thumper said :
You really do watch too much pay-TV!
http://www.ubykotex.com.au/play-with-u/
peterh said :
Well that would explain the acting quality. I guess method takes a bit of practice.
There is a beaver in a tampon ad?
Gungahlin Al said :
Yes, I do know what you mean.
: )
I just wish the utilities were for the people and not the people for the utilities.
Mr Evil said :
ahaha – oh say it isn’t so
No two minds about privatising for me – I don’t think any essential health and hygiene services such as water and sewerage should go out of public hands. Personal philosophy.
Jeez, next thing we’ll find out the Beaver in the Kotex tampon ad isn’t really a Beaver after all!
Gungahlin Al said :
Try and apply that standard to gee, I dunno, just about every single television commercial out there?
With the exception of a few local businesses, advertisers employ actors to represent their company. I’d like to think we’re all intelligent enough to realise and accept that.
Ralph said :
I am in two minds about privatisation.
On the one hand, there are certainly good reasons for government ownership of utilities.
On the other hand, the day that Optus first started trading we ran from the arms of Telecom with joy, celebration and a kind of light-headed giddiness.
Monopolies tend to treat customers with all the respect of, well, a monopoly. It was so liberating to have some choice, and to be finally treated as a valued customer by somebody. The arrogance of the Telecom ‘corporate’ culture was positively Stanhopian.
I think ACTEW need to take a good hard look at themselves, and rethink their whole image in the community.
jakez said :
whoa, there. the union ads were the actual people who lost their jobs, if they agreed to appear in the ads.
The bloke needs a haircut, not a good look.
A couple of points, first is that Michael Costello is no longer affiliated with ACTEW. McKay took over as chairman recently.
A more broader question is the extent to which ACTEW water (the ACT Government bit) should be lumped-in with the other arm of ACTEW, owned by AGL and Singapore. Not quite clear how many ‘synergies’ may be involved with this arrangement, but there is an obvious possibility of taxpayer funds cross subsidising the privately owned components.
Until ACTEW water is privatised it will always be used as an agenda barrow and political mouthpiece for the government of the day.
Gungahlin Al said :
Wait a minute? Actors?
So you are saying all those people from the unions anti workchoices ads didn’t really lose their jobs?
Can’t recall seeing these ads yet, but I absolutely cringe when the Canberra Milk ads come on.
“I have ZERO problem with actors being used in ads such as these.”
Agreed – if the script does not imply that they are part of the organisation. Saying “At ACTEW, we are…” implies he’s part of it.
So question is how much deception is acceptable? Is it a part-pregnant kind of thing?
Like as a parent trying to explain to your kid why a certain lie you’ve told is OK – you just know they’re thinking “BS”. Which is kind of what was going through my mind when I first saw the ACTEW ad…
I really have to branch out a bit and experience life. I can’t remember when i last watched commercial free to air tv…