Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Excuse Me, Isn't This Littering?
Apparently, OCBC has embarked on a marketing campaign to re-image themselves as new and trendy. The cost of this re-branding is a cool S$5 million. And what are some of the 'smart-money' things they have done? As the picture accompanying the report shows - they have been busy littering. Some other stunts include taking up a whole 2-page spread in the ST and only having text covering a mere fraction to say 'Stay Curious'.
All I feel is irritation at such irresponsible use of funds. Luckily, I am not a shareholder, so it doesn't directly affect me. I really don't understand why so much money needs to be invested for a branding exercise when it is not suffering from any major setback. I seriously doubt any major improvements in performance that would justify such an obscene expenditure.
I believe they could have simply used the money to fund 10 start-ups ($500K each) and that would have created much more positive vibe as compared to this silly exercise. And coming back to the issue of littering, I don't think our poor aged cleaners would have been none too impressed the next day - more like 'Stay Furious' for them - who would have been tasked to clean up the balls left behind.
I wonder what would have happened if a local opposition politician (who is fond of doing stupid stunts himself) had embarked on something similar? I bet the authorities would have swooped in and swept away all indications of this stunt before anyone can say 'New Paper'. Not to mention, the architect of the hare-brained scheme would have been slapped and hammered with anything resembling an offence in the Penal Code et. al.
I suppose it is all a matter of perspective - the government's being the correct one, of course...
¶ 10/02/2007 02:19:00 PM
Straits Times 1st October 2007
(Home Section - Pg H20)
(Home Section - Pg H20)
Apparently, OCBC has embarked on a marketing campaign to re-image themselves as new and trendy. The cost of this re-branding is a cool S$5 million. And what are some of the 'smart-money' things they have done? As the picture accompanying the report shows - they have been busy littering. Some other stunts include taking up a whole 2-page spread in the ST and only having text covering a mere fraction to say 'Stay Curious'.
All I feel is irritation at such irresponsible use of funds. Luckily, I am not a shareholder, so it doesn't directly affect me. I really don't understand why so much money needs to be invested for a branding exercise when it is not suffering from any major setback. I seriously doubt any major improvements in performance that would justify such an obscene expenditure.
I believe they could have simply used the money to fund 10 start-ups ($500K each) and that would have created much more positive vibe as compared to this silly exercise. And coming back to the issue of littering, I don't think our poor aged cleaners would have been none too impressed the next day - more like 'Stay Furious' for them - who would have been tasked to clean up the balls left behind.
I wonder what would have happened if a local opposition politician (who is fond of doing stupid stunts himself) had embarked on something similar? I bet the authorities would have swooped in and swept away all indications of this stunt before anyone can say 'New Paper'. Not to mention, the architect of the hare-brained scheme would have been slapped and hammered with anything resembling an offence in the Penal Code et. al.
I suppose it is all a matter of perspective - the government's being the correct one, of course...
¶ 10/02/2007 02:19:00 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Its always been a case of "who is doing it" and not "can this be done?"
Sad but true.
Post a Comment
Sad but true.
# posted by 
: October 05, 2007 10:52 AM
: October 05, 2007 10:52 AM<< Home