# Newfoundland gets free advertising



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Kimmel's jokes about Dildo, NL, worth some $11M, province says; Tourism minister lauds 'absolutely tremendous' value of free advertising

I'm glad to hear that this little town enjoyed a tourism boom.

Could this location in Ontario be next? It's already getting tremendous reviews in Google Maps.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Kimmel's jokes about Dildo, NL, worth some $11M, province says; Tourism minister lauds 'absolutely tremendous' value of free advertising
> 
> I'm glad to hear that this little town enjoyed a tourism boom.
> 
> Could this location in Ontario be next? It's already getting tremendous reviews in Google Maps.


uh, the reviews are interesting. 

I am familiar with this area. Pretty much a fly in experience unless you really know the forestry roads and even then I think you would have to hike some.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Dildo's Ok.....Spread Eagle, just up the road, or Come By Chance are nice too...


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

To be correct, it's free publicity. Advertisements are paid for.

I mention it not to correct you james4beach, but to correct the CBC. What's the world coming to when Canada's national TV network doesn't know the difference between advertising and publicity. In the link, the CBC article specifically mentions 'free advertising' and then actually corrects it to 'equal to an estimated advertising value', but still without using the term publicity.

I suspect the writer of the CBC article is some young person who probably doesn't even know the difference. Maybe if the CBC employees were more dependent on advertising and less used to government funding of their pay cheques, they would be more aware of the difference between advertising and publicity.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The arrogant worms made the place famous years ago...

https://youtu.be/5Ssrm-aLGNw


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> To be correct, it's free publicity. Advertisements are paid for.


I won't argue the point LTA, but please teach me. Let's say I have a business, and a friend is in the advertising business. I ask him to come up with and publish an advertisement for my business and he does so. He suggests, and I agree, that the ad appear on one of the billboards he owns. When I ask for the bill, he says he does not plan to send one, he is happy to do it out of friendship. So, when my wife and I are driving down the highway, we see the billboard touting my business. My wife remarks, "Wow, what a great advertisement!" Must I correct her and say, "No, my dear, that's publicity."?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists. 

It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid._


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> I won't argue the point LTA, but please teach me. Let's say I have a business, and a friend is in the advertising business. I ask him to come up with and publish an advertisement for my business and he does so. He suggests, and I agree, that the ad appear on one of the billboards he owns. When I ask for the bill, he says he does not plan to send one, he is happy to do it out of friendship. So, when my wife and I are driving down the highway, we see the billboard touting my business. My wife remarks, "Wow, what a great advertisement!" Must I correct her and say, "No, my dear, that's publicity."?


Being in the industry, your example would be considered free advertising. The Newfoundland example, however, was publicity because it was not designed as an advertisement, it was information, released publically, by media people.

There are many different types of advertising which can also cross the line, like paid advertisement which is an add designed to look like publicity by hiring a celebrity to endorse a product...which could, also be a free endorsement...etc.

Then there are companies like Apple, who mastered the art of free publicity for it’s advertisements as explified by the 1984 commercial which was only ever aired twice that they paid for, but was broadcast hundreds of times.

in the end though, does it really matter what it’s called?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> in the end though, does it really matter what it’s called?


To me, not so much, at least heretofore. But LTA seems adamant on the point and my profession relies on some precision in the use of language. From LTA's post, it would appear that I have been too casual in my use of the terminology under examination. I could well have uttered the impugned words "Newfoundland gets free advertising", unaware that a _sine qua non_ of "advertising" is payment.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I always find it sad when people can’t “turn off” their professions. Like psychologists who continually analyze their friends, doctors who see disease everywhere, lawyers who argue minutia, etc. I find it tends to drive away potential friends they may have had, but instead annoyed.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

jargey3000 said:


> Dildo's Ok.....Spread Eagle, just up the road, or Come By Chance are nice too...


Wow, you're right. Spread Eagle is right by there!



> I am familiar with this area. Pretty much a fly in experience unless you really know the forestry roads and even then I think you would have to hike some.


Yes, ***** Lake looks very remote. Not accessible at all.

An alternative option is Buttocks Lake, in Duck Mountain Provincial Park (MB) ... only a couple hours away from Dauphin.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> I always find it sad when people can’t “turn off” their professions. Like psychologists who continually analyze their friends, doctors who see disease everywhere, lawyers who argue minutia, etc. I find it tends to drive away potential friends they may have had, but instead annoyed.


And me, I do not find it at all sad that I am always alive to ways to improve my performance in my profession and my knowledge in general. If I can gain knowledge here, or anywhere else, I'll take it. I'll not pass up the chance to improve simply because I am not wearing my lawyer's hat at the moment, it's not between 9 and 5, I am not in my office, or whatever. 

In another thread, started by LTA, about "handshake" agreements, some raised the issue that there is always a risk that the parties to the handshake deal might come away with differing views about just what has been agreed. Even the most finely-crafted written agreements can be subject to varying interpretations. What is under discussion here only illustrates the point. 

Let's suppose I make a handshake oral agreement with my pal who owns the advertising agency. Each side incurs multiple obligations thereunder. One of my pal's obligations is to do some "advertising" for me. I leave the room thinking that part of our deal is that I will not have to pay for the advertising. My pal will be otherwise compensated in the transaction. So, it am a bit taken aback when I receive his bill for advertising services. I call him up and protest that such was not part of our deal. He replies that I am in error, because we plainly agreed on "advertising" and not "publicity" and the former implies payment, so I should have known and I should expect to pay.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

As I said, it would probably cost you a friendship.

When it’s happened to me, I completed the perceived “obligation” and then stopped doing business with the people involved. Sure it may have cost me a little but, in the long run, it’s probably peanuts, so I don’t worry about it.

BTW, I’ve rarely found advertising agencies who’ll argue such a point, they aren’t lawyers who live to twist the English language to “win” an argument or case.

Most humans don’t work that way, probably why they tend to get in “trouble” with lawyers who don’t seem to care about “intent”. The “oh, you used the wrong word because you’re not highly educated, therefor you’re guilty” procedure. Sure, everyone knew what you actually meant, have fun in jail.

You’ll notice no one else cared (okay 2 out of over 100 viewers, since I’m talking to a lawyer) in the least and they all understood the original posting, even though it used the wrong word.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> As I said, it would probably cost you a friendship.


You seem to be lacking a certain amount of life experience. Many a friendship has foundered over financial disagreements, no lawyers involved.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

And many more have ended over it. You’ll note I used the word “probably”.

It’s usually in the top ten reasons relationships fail...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/...cess/201507/top-10-reasons-relationships-fail


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

My apologies everyone for using the wrong word. Next time I start a thread on Dildo & ***** Lake, I'll be sure to be more anal with my wording.

Proper sentence structure helps lubricate good dialogue, after all.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

come again?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

After the Muscrat Falls debacle Newfoundland needs all the financial help they can get.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

There’s a come by chance


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

In high school I had a teacher who, when someone was being a clown, would say "they're laughing at you, not with you". That's what I think of this situation. Some immature talk show host gets all school-boy giddy over the word dildo, then convinces a town to play along with his joke. They may get tourists allright - the kind that will come only to get a selfie in front of the town sign, and not give a flying fig about the people, their history, or anything else but that Instagram/Facebook pic. They'll disrespect anything along the way. We have a Tulip festival in Ottawa. There have been so many instances of people diving into the flowers to get a selfie, and leaving a crushed spot behind. Basically, I'm saying people can be assholes, why encourage them to come to your town to be?

There's a CBC show called "Still Standing". The host, a comedian named Johnny Harris, travels the country to feature small towns in a stand-up routine he does at a local venue where he pokes good-natured fun at the inhabitants. He really finds out about the history of the town and talks to a lot of people. There have been several places from that show that I would like to see, but I'm not going to travel all the way to NL only so I can take a snapshot of a sign.

Edit... I didn't want to perpetuate the off-topic tangent, but.... If you explicitly qualify "advertising" with "free" ( as done in the OP linked article ) does that not then become synonymous with "publicity"?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> I won't argue the point LTA, but please teach me. Let's say I have a business, and a friend is in the advertising business. I ask him to come up with and publish an advertisement for my business and he does so. He suggests, and I agree, that the ad appear on one of the billboards he owns. When I ask for the bill, he says he does not plan to send one, he is happy to do it out of friendship. So, when my wife and I are driving down the highway, we see the billboard touting my business. My wife remarks, "Wow, what a great advertisement!" Must I correct her and say, "No, my dear, that's publicity."?


A very weak argument if it can even be called an argument Mukhang pera. It is an advertisement, that it was provided free of charge as a personal favour doesn't change anything. An advertisement is something that would NORMALLY be paid for which your example is. Publicity and advertisments have different definitions, they are not synonyms. 

So in your example, your wife would be right, as usual, Mukhang pera. 

My point was that the CBC should be better than the average person in their use of correct terminology. I feel the same about those ticker tape type headlines that scroll across the bottom of every news program on TV these days. Barely a day goes by that I do not see grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes of the most obvious kind being made. I sometimes wonder if they hire a kid who dropped out of high school to write them. They certainly do not have anyone with a 'good grasp of the English language' who is proof reading them before they are put on our TV screens.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You know that they no longer teach spelling in schools right? They also don’t fail people. In fact, they try not to tell you your marks at you could compare them to others and that may damage your self esteem...

Basically they’re producing illiterate kids with an ego that makes them think they’re great and entitled...pretty sad.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> _A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists.
> 
> It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid._


What's your point sags? Or do you even know what point you were trying to make? If you want to say something, then say it, not post a quote of something without attribution and without connecting it to an issue.

If you were trying to say there is no difference between an advertising and publicity, then you are wrong. The phrase you are quoting refers to two terms which are basically synonymous in that no PRACTICAL difference exists between the two. That is not the case here. Advertising in paid for, publicity is not. That's a practical difference.

It can be said that all advertising is publicity in that it is intended to bring something to the public's attention. But you cannot say the opposite, that all publicity is advertising. There is a practical difference in that advertising is paid for and that is not 'a distinction without a difference.'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/publicity


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Don’t quote the dictionary, Sags has an aversion to that thing...probably gives them hives. They much prefer to make up their own definitions...it fits their world view better that way.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Userkare said:


> Edit... I didn't want to perpetuate the off-topic tangent, but.... If you explicitly qualify "advertising" with "free" ( as done in the OP linked article ) does that not then become synonymous with "publicity"?


As I have just written to sags Userkare, all advertising is publicity in that it is intended to bring something to the public's attention. But the reverse is not the case in that publicity is not ALWAYS paid for or in a form that you would expect it to be paid for (as in Mukhang pera's example). So you cannot really call them synonymous. Or to put it in perhaps an even more confusing way, you could say advertising as a word is synonymous with publicity but publicity as a word is not synonymous with advertising. 

Qualifying something with 'free' automatically implies it would normally be paid for whatever it is you are referring to. A 'free ticket' or a 'free drink' are pretty clear for example. Something you would normally pay for is not going to have to be paid for. You could say, 'the air we breath is free' and obviously air is something we never pay for but still in that phrase the point being made is that it is NOT paid for.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Just a Guy said:


> You know that they no longer teach spelling in schools right? They also don’t fail people. In fact, they try not to tell you your marks at you could compare them to others and that may damage your self esteem...
> 
> Basically they’re producing illiterate kids with an ego that makes them think they’re great and entitled...pretty sad.


Yes, I couldn't believe it when I heard that they are now not teaching children to write in cursive. The thinking seems to be that since you only use 'printed letters' when you text, you don't need to know how to write in cursive. I keep imagining someone's Grandmother writing them a few lines in a birthday card and the Grandchild can't read what was written.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Yes, I couldn't believe it when I heard that they are now not teaching children to write in cursive. The thinking seems to be that since you only use 'printed letters' when you text, you don't need to know how to write in cursive. I keep imagining someone's Grandmother writing them a few lines in a birthday card and the Grandchild can't read what was written.


Not really required anymore so why continue to teach it?


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Yes, I couldn't believe it when I heard that they are now not teaching children to write in cursive. The thinking seems to be that since you only use 'printed letters' when you text, you don't need to know how to write in cursive. I keep imagining someone's Grandmother writing them a few lines in a birthday card and the Grandchild can't read what was written.


I don't think it has anything to do with texting. This trend goes back to at least the early 1990's. I learned cursive in elementary school like everyone else, but upon entering high school in 1992 we were told to revert back to printing. The reason? Teachers complained that reading each student's writing was too difficult, and took too much time when trying to mark 20-30 student's homework.

It was also around the same time that the internet and personal computers started to become mainstream. The use of computers for writing and printing out assignments such as essays became commonplace.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> Not really required anymore so why continue to teach it?


"Not really required". What does that mean? When was being able to write in cursive EVER really required? When someone wrote a letter by hand in the past, could they not have simply used printed letters rather than cursive? Why did they bother to learn to write in cursive? It was NEVER 'really required'.

So instead of writing, 'why continue to teach it', why not try answering the question, 'why did we ever teach it'? Well cainvest, why did we ever teach it, can you answer that question?

There are plenty of things that are 'not really required' cainvest but we do them for varying reasons. Why do we bother wearing clothes in warm weather? They are not really required for our physical comfort. But we wear them because social conventions say we should. Why bother to learn how to hold a knife and fork properly (one of my pet peeves). But we do so because of something called etiquette. It's something that separates the civilized from the uncivilized. Why bother with an education at all, we can dig ditches without one but aren't likely to end up working at anything much better than that.

Society as a whole is all about measuring ourselves against others in one way or another. One person can read and write while another person is illiterate, we measure them as a result. So if we are now going to allow children to be illiterate in terms of cursive, why then would it not be possible down the road to allow them to also become totally illiterate in terms of being able to write at all? Why do they even need to learn a printed alphabet? It isn't 'really required', they can just leave a voice message can they not?

Why not just behave as our early ancestors did and just hit a woman over the head with a club and drag her off to your cave.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Cursive was invented with the goal of enabling people to write more quickly. The advent of the typewriter and the computer keyboard has gradually eroded this advantage; a good typist can write more quickly using a keyboard than even the most skilled cursive writer.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You know, it’s amazing how many times one needs to sign one’s name still. Cursive writing is still required.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> "Not really required". What does that mean?


People used to communcate a fair bit using letters but those days are long past now.

Why is it not longer required ... the digital age. 



Longtimeago said:


> So instead of writing, 'why continue to teach it', why not try answering the question, 'why did we ever teach it'? Well cainvest, why did we ever teach it, can you answer that question?


Why did they teach it .... likely because cursive is faster than printing and "apparently" it improved fine motor skills. On the flip side, writing is much more prone to reading mistakes so I am glad it's going away.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> You know, it’s amazing how many times one needs to sign one’s name still. Cursive writing is still required.


lol, I sign my name differently all the time, many times I just a scribble garbage for the fun of it. 
Cursive is not required anymore ...


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

nathan79 said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with texting. This trend goes back to at least the early 1990's. I learned cursive in elementary school like everyone else, but upon entering high school in 1992 we were told to revert back to printing. The reason? Teachers complained that reading each student's writing was too difficult, and took too much time when trying to mark 20-30 student's homework.
> 
> It was also around the same time that the internet and personal computers started to become mainstream. The use of computers for writing and printing out assignments such as essays became commonplace.


I suppose in a way it is all about what we call progress. I think of progress in terms of knowing more. If someone in a younger generation knows more than me, then I consider that progress. If they know less than me however I consider that the reverse of progress. ie. regressive, nonconstructive, backsliding.

Someone else might think in terms of 'replacing'. So using 'smart' devices like computers and smartphones can replace writing a letter by hand for example. That I can except quite easily. I don't see anyone as being 'required to' write a letter by hand. But it doesn't change needing to know how to write a letter properly in terms of knowing how to write in paragraph form or use proper punctuation and grammar. When someone writes something with incorrect spelling, no paragraphs, no punctuation, no capital letters, etc. etc. as we see today, that is not progress and that is not 'replacing' something that is 'not really required' anymore. 

When you tell me that your teachers in High School told you to print because they couldn't read the cursive of everyone, what it says to me is that your earlier teachers FAILED to teach you how to write legibly. Then instead of placing the blame on those earlier teachers and holding them to account, your High School teachers left YOU with a deficiency in your education and doomed those coming after you to that same deficiency.

Writing in cursive LEGIBLY is FASTER than printing, that is one of the reasons why cursive was invented. Believe me when I say that you cannot text even using predictive text faster than I can write in cursive. There is no really practical reason to do away with cursive and to me it is simply the start of yet another slippery slope to the dumbing down of education. Dumbing down is all about moving towards the lowest common denominator, not moving forward to bringing UP the lowest common denominator.

https://ocvt.info/blog/benefits-of-cursive/


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> People used to communcate a fair bit using letters but those days are long past now.
> 
> Why is it not longer required ... the digital age.
> 
> ...


Well Cainvest, you are certainly entitle to your opinion however wrong you might be.

I think of it like knowing how to hold a knife and fork properly, another area where 'it isn't necessary' seems to be the norm these days. Recently I watched a young couple in a restaurant eating a meal. Both of them used their knife and fork as if they were just tools to be used in any way at all to shovel food into their mouths. When I see someone holding a knife or fork with their entire fist wrapped around it, I know what I think of them as a result and let's just say it isn't flattering.

When I hear someone say they don't need to know how to write in cursive, my thoughts are much the same.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

cainvest said:


> lol, I sign my name differently all the time, many times I just a scribble garbage for the fun of it.
> Cursive is not required anymore ...


I suppose you don’t sign as many contracts, mortgages, legal documents, driver’s license, that I do. Even my kids has to learn cursive on their own because they still use it. Of course, they are starting to buy properties, get driver licenses, mortgages, etc. 

Lawyers, bankers and so on tend not to like garbage written on their contracts. They even compare signatures when you sign.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Well Cainvest, you are certainly entitle to your opinion however wrong you might be.
> 
> I think of it like knowing how to hold a knife and fork properly, another area where 'it isn't necessary' seems to be the norm these days. Recently I watched a young couple in a restaurant eating a meal. Both of them used their knife and fork as if they were just tools to be used in any way at all to shovel food into their mouths. When I see someone holding a knife or fork with their entire fist wrapped around it, I know what I think of them as a result and let's just say it isn't flattering.
> 
> When I hear someone say they don't need to know how to write in cursive, my thoughts are much the same.


lol, I'm glad you think it appears wrong from your point of view.
BTW, knives and forks are just tools but if you prefer to judge people by how they use, all the power to you.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> I suppose you don’t sign as many contracts, mortgages, legal documents, driver’s license, that I do. Even my kids has to learn cursive on their own because they still use it. Of course, they are starting to buy properties, get driver licenses, mortgages, etc.
> 
> Lawyers, bankers and so on tend not to like garbage written on their contracts. They even compare signatures when you sign.


I sign a bit, not too often though. Yes, I do sign correctly on critical things but rarely on others. BTW, you just need to duplicate your signature, it doesn't even have to be your name. My father had a unique signature, most were not even letters.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Still can’t be printed, has to be somewhat unique.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Signatures can be printed, or they can be a mark of some kind. They can also be a single printed letter.

I have signed contracts by typing in my name online.

It appears that some people are a little behind the times.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Advertising...either paid or free is publicity. Publicity is advertising. 

It might be good advertising or it might be bad advertising, but it is advertising.

Both advertising and publicity are conveying information to an intended audience.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> Advertising...either paid or free is publicity. Publicity is advertising.
> 
> It might be good advertising or it might be bad advertising, but it is advertising.
> 
> Both advertising and publicity are conveying information to an intended audience.


Sags, you really do talk a lot of nonsense sometimes. Advertising is a form of publicity yes, a sub category if you will. But publicity is not all advertising. When a news presenter tells you GM has had to recall X number of vehicles because of a brake problem or whatever, that is publicity but it certainly isn't advertising. Advertising is ALWAYS about a positive, never a negative. I'm trying to imagine GM paying for an Ad that points out their vehicles all rust within 3 years. LOL


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You can have negative ads, politicians do it all the time.

Sags also advertises their lack of knowledge and understanding with each post.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Meanwhile in Newfoundland............... 
I spent 2 months there just got back a few days ago and seen my friend whale and their friends whale a few times .
The weather was very good except for early July.
Shannon Tweed is still the most famous from Dildo ,since his show comes on very late most locals were saying Jimmy who?


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

haha... thats true marina... 1am here ....in the early days of this media blitz he was referred to as "Jimmy Kimble" by more than one of the locals......


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Yes I seen that on NTV news lol .


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Well, even a long way from Nfld some of us don't know who the heck 'Jimmy' is, but I sure do remember Shannon Tweed - and that particular issue was on the newsstand a long time ago


----------

