Here’s an article that caught my attention; expensive talking loos. The article writes about how the local council’s vanity has forced communities to spend their council money on public cans that cost over $250,000 a pop. All in all, an estimated $18 million has been spent so far in WA alone, and according to this particular Bunbury Council PR officer, who quotes these new loos as a “godsend”; it is worth taxpayer’s every cent.
His spin in the article is effective as he firstly assumes the role as reader’s (and spender’s) mindset. He identifies that most will be unwilling to pay for a “Talking Loo” by addressing that yes, these facilities are costly BUT he flawlessly integrates the quotes of many note worthy councillors that are already utilising this eccentric facility.
“While the four loos did not play music, Mr Edwards said they were "easier to maintain, accessible 24/7, self-cleaning and less vulnerable to vandalism". "They can also be relocated more easily to areas of need," he said.
Regional Development Minister Brendon Grylls, whose Royalties for Regions treasure chest paid for the Bunbury toilet, said the lavish loos were a "godsend" for councils.
"They're maintenance-free and they don't get damaged," Mr Grylls said.
"Councils everywhere are putting them in because they work very, very well for high traffic areas where there are worries about maintenance and, after dark, about them being damaged and sprayed with graffiti and getting wrecked."
"Nowadays it's become the realm of architects and urban planners ... accessibility, safety, health, security, convenience, economy and aesthetics have become critical aspects of good public convenience design and location." “
In doing this, the PR officer has successfully “spun” this story in a way that readers will develop a positive reaction to these talking loos. The article is played out much like a story in that it had a beginning middle and end; there was initially a problem and it was rectified. He addresses the viewers concern and in the process, successfully changes the viewers mind.
For example:
It is too expensive = it saves on cleaning and council costs over time
Portable dunnies are only for construction workers = it’s aesthetics have become an aspect of good public convenience design and location.
It’s a waste of space= it can be relocated to anywhere that’s needed.
Unfortunately, he hasn’t sold me.It might be a throne fit for royalty and sings Sinatra, but I’ll be damned if I spend my share of $250000 on a “technological evolution” that can’t even wipe my behind.
His spin in the article is effective as he firstly assumes the role as reader’s (and spender’s) mindset. He identifies that most will be unwilling to pay for a “Talking Loo” by addressing that yes, these facilities are costly BUT he flawlessly integrates the quotes of many note worthy councillors that are already utilising this eccentric facility.
“While the four loos did not play music, Mr Edwards said they were "easier to maintain, accessible 24/7, self-cleaning and less vulnerable to vandalism". "They can also be relocated more easily to areas of need," he said.
Regional Development Minister Brendon Grylls, whose Royalties for Regions treasure chest paid for the Bunbury toilet, said the lavish loos were a "godsend" for councils.
"They're maintenance-free and they don't get damaged," Mr Grylls said.
"Councils everywhere are putting them in because they work very, very well for high traffic areas where there are worries about maintenance and, after dark, about them being damaged and sprayed with graffiti and getting wrecked."
"Nowadays it's become the realm of architects and urban planners ... accessibility, safety, health, security, convenience, economy and aesthetics have become critical aspects of good public convenience design and location." “
In doing this, the PR officer has successfully “spun” this story in a way that readers will develop a positive reaction to these talking loos. The article is played out much like a story in that it had a beginning middle and end; there was initially a problem and it was rectified. He addresses the viewers concern and in the process, successfully changes the viewers mind.
For example:
It is too expensive = it saves on cleaning and council costs over time
Portable dunnies are only for construction workers = it’s aesthetics have become an aspect of good public convenience design and location.
It’s a waste of space= it can be relocated to anywhere that’s needed.
Unfortunately, he hasn’t sold me.It might be a throne fit for royalty and sings Sinatra, but I’ll be damned if I spend my share of $250000 on a “technological evolution” that can’t even wipe my behind.
Haha well perhaps the next generation will have a built in bidet.
ReplyDelete