To attract economic development, the city will spend $75,000 in Urban Enterprise Zone funds in 2016 on Comcast ads.
The City Council approved the expenditure unanimously on Jan. 19, though not without some commentary about council inclusion in the ads Councilwoman Bridget Rivers led off by asking who would be making decisions about the ads and whether the council would be included.
"The City Council will be consulted," City Administrator Rick Smiley said, "but the content decisions will be by the mayor's office."
Rivers pressed for the council to be included in the decision making and Smiley said the ads would be about transportation and construction. (The resolution, R 047-16, cites the "one-seat ride" and the city's transit village designation as items of interest to investors, developers and new homeowners.)
Smiley said he could not speak to the actual content, but said he knew some would be done by Comcast.
"So it's safe to say no administrators and no City Council will be involved?" Rivers said.
"I wouldn't say that," Smiley replied.
"So you can include the council?" Rivers said.
"I think the ordinance as it stands is a sound ordinance," Smiley said/
"I can't support it as it stands," Rivers said. "We are a strong part of re-branding."
Rivers said the measure required the advice and consent of the council as well as the administration.
Council President Cory Storch pointed out the ads would be very short and the city would have to get the message across very fast. He said he believed the best salespeople would be business people, with one public spokesperson. Noting the ad spots were only 30 seconds or so, he said it would be hard to fit in more than one elected official.
"It's appropriate that it be the mayor," Storch said.
Councilwoman Gloria Taylor said, "It's a shame that we have to make sure that the council is included in some aspect, because you would assume that the council would be included. I think you would want that. Why are we being so guarded?"
Taylor said she thought the executive of the city should be the lead, but she said she didn't think the citizens wanted it to be.
Taylor told Smiley, "Your response is kind of negative," and repeated her opinion that the council should be included.
After she chided Smiley further, he said the council was not being excluded from the process, but he was not privy to the scripts.
"Please forgive me if you think you are being excluded," he said in apologizing.
Storch, who earlier named some of the council committees for 2016, then said he, Rivers and Taylor would be liaisons for Economic Development.
"I hope we will get behind this," he said.
The roll call vote was then unanimously in favor of the resolution. The term of the agreement is from Feb. 29 through Dec. 25.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No info as to time slots and and area exposure?
ReplyDeleteTaylor said she thought the executive of the city should be the lead, but she said she didn't think the citizens wanted it to be.
ReplyDeleteSays Taylor who neither did a poll nor has her fingers on the pulse of the city. She loves to make up facts and figures - she would make a great Fox News contributor.
These council people really need to read the charter and understand their part. They are an important part but it doesn't involve Marketing or micro-managing. They should master their primary tasks first then they can expand their portfolio.
It seems some City Council members want some free publicity for their next try and election. I don't think anyone on the Council is an expert on advertising and should leave that up to the paid experts. The City Council should be consulted on many issues, but this is just too controlling to be efficient.
ReplyDelete“Taylor said she thought the executive of the city should be the lead, but she said she didn't think the citizens wanted it to be.” I would have to disagree on that. According to the last election it looks like the citizens of Plainfield is very much in favor of the Mayor and his plans for Plainfield.
ReplyDeleteMarketing Plainfield is certainly a step in the right direction, however, spending $75K on “bulk” 30 second television commercial spot may not be the optimal approach to getting the word out.
ReplyDeleteThere may be a greater chance of gain by spending the allocated funds on hiring a marketing/publicity firm that will use their resources in attracting a variety of media outlets to properly expose Plainfield, locally and regionally. This approach has potential for greater ROI by achieving: 1. Increased Exposure: a reputable marketing firm has the necessary contacts and reach to get the message across to a much wider audience, not just local Comcast subscribers; 2. Experience: We need a knowledgeable marketing team to help target the desired audience and attract the positive attention needed to generate interest among prospective investors and home buyers, whether through local media or not-so-local trade publications; 3. Perception: The advantage of having a third party engage news outlets on behalf of the City to generate a recurring stream of positive news items, detailing initiatives and incentives, is bound to have much more impact vs. having an elected official be the City’s salesperson. (i.e. Having the coach sell your son/daughter’s awesomeness to a prospective university talent scout is much more credible than having mom or dad make the pitch).
I hope there is further consideration on this matter before our tax dollars are spent on an initiative that will, most likely, only create a local celebrity out of the on-camera spokesperson.
The AD firm that got Asbury Park ( The City by the Sea) off the ground is located here in Plainfield. Has anyone considered approaching them for input?
DeleteInstead of spending money to buy Comcast. The city need to spend money on better plowing these streets. It horrible. DPW did only a once thru. Making streets narrow and impossible to drive thru. Why don't city invest in snow removal for all streets not county roads and Sleepy Hollow area. Our streets is a disgraced.
ReplyDeleteOh Lord! Even snow removal can turn into a biased issue in these parts.
DeleteApparently, if you managed to get a look-see at what was going on in Sleepy Hollow, the roads must not have been as bad as you claim them to be in your area. Although, if you did, in fact, go through Sleepy Hollow and adjoining neighborhoods, you would know that many streets were well covered in snow, still, on Monday evening -- especially Woodland Avenue and parts of Leland.
Get a grip!
These are UEZ funds. Perhaps an explanation on what these funds are used for would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteWell said Oscar. Your suggested approach would provide a much broader reach to target audiences rather than using a single channel. And how about this? Focus the branding campaign entirely on the positives of Plainfield and keep ALL the politicians including the Mayor, who have little or no name recognition with the target audiences outside Plainfield,out of it. Promote the City not the Politicians.
ReplyDeleteTom Kaercher
That's the idea. It should be about the City and the people, not the individuals looking for tax payer funded air time.
ReplyDeleteOnce the Ad is finalized, the City should be able to place the video on the web site which would provide a greater exposure at no additional cost. This way, it would not be just a 30 second spot at 3am where no one would see it but would be available at any time and could even be an autoplay on the City's main page
ReplyDeleteBranding and marketing is a great idea and key to Plainfield’s success. However, I totally agree with Oscar. Any marketing should be about the city and what it has to offer to perspective business owners and residential residents. $75K on a series of commercials on a cable channel doesn’t seem like the best use of funds. I would imagine that $75K wouldn’t go far in making a PROFESSIONAL commercial; producers, directors, camera people, set layout, etc.. could easily eat up that money. What would be left to air it so it’s seen by the masses? Unfortunately, to the outside world Plainfield is perceived as unsafe and undesirable. In my opinion, we need more than a few commercials to alter that perception. I certainly hope that in the new budget there’s a line item for marketing, it most likely will take ongoing marketing to re-brand Plainfield. If we really want to turn Plainfield around we need to invest in its image. Short story, I was in the Verizon store the other day and a husband and wife was purchasing a phone for their 11 year old son. The boy had on a uniform from one of Plainfield’s charter schools, I started a conversation with the parents and this is what they said, they just purchased a home here in Plainfield and because of what they heard and researched of the public schools they opt to send their son to a charter school. I told them if it didn’t work out I would hope they tried the public schools. Any marketing should include our school system, public and charter. I would hope any real marketing could and would be a collaborative effort highlighting the city of Plainfield AND it’s school system. No one wants to buy or rent in a town where the school system is below average and no “main stream” business will come if we don’t have the right demographics to make it profitable to them.
ReplyDeleteRB
I agree with most of what 4:07p said, except for the schools. Like it or not, we are in the bottom 10th for schools in NJ. Sad but true.
ReplyDeleteWhy are not some of the big thinkers going for all or nothing. 30 seconds during the Super Bowl could bring millions to our Dollar Stores !
ReplyDeleteA 30-second TV spot during this year's Super Bowl costs a record $5 million, so it's obviously out of reach for Plainfield's rebranding strategy. For the millions in tax dollars we throw at our municipal government, the administration should be transparent about what $75K gets. Once you factor in production costs, what will be left for actually broadcasting the ads? The more viewers, the higher the costs will be. What program audiences will be targeted? Will anyone be watching? According to industry publication Ad Age, $112K is the average cost of a 30-second spot on a prime-time broadcast in 2015. Once you get past production costs, there may be very little left to buy commercial time during broadcasts that our target audience will be watching. But then that could be less important than budgeting $75K to siphon off to some politically connected ad firm.
DeleteObviously, since New York City is the engine that drives the regional economy, Plainfield's target audience is New York, which was always an expensive place to live and work, but is now becoming unaffordable. However, in my own experience, most New Yorkers (and many within New Jersey) have either never even heard of Plainfield, or if they have, have no idea where it is. Imagine that--a city of 50,000, well-served by roads and rails, a derelict downtown with architectural gems that could be as vibrant as Hoboken's or Red Bank's, and some of New Jersey's most solid housing stock, hidden in plain sight! I think, for starters, we need our elected representatives to get us on the map--literally. Obviously and long-term, money would need to be spent to finance a p/r campaign that may or may not bear fruit. But there is one thing that can be done, and it would be free: right now, there is no signage on the Turnpike or the GSP that point to Plainfield--our reps should be lobbying the appropriate Authorities to change the signage to point drivers in our direction, just as East Brunswick did many years ago when it became a residential and commercial destination. Zero cost to us, big payoff in publicity.
ReplyDeleteYour comment gives me a topic for the weekend. There have been efforts in the past to publicize Plainfield, some very successful and not in the public sector or taxpayer-funded. More later.
ReplyDelete