The BoMshell
Peter Skinner writes: The Bureau of Meteorology is a business name made up of a French and a Greek word with 20 letters — including an excess of vowels organised in sequences that would test 50% of Australian spellers, were it not for spellcheck. Most other institutions in this situation would spend $220,000 to rebrand with a distinctive three-letter acronym, especially one with a distinctive mix of upper and lower case letters, and easily vocalised.
WJ Forgan-Smith writes: Clearly, Charlie Lewis, you have never worked in a big organisation. Branding is just sooo important. Spending just short of $70,000 for “communication and implementation planning support” seems a bargain. Then again, I gather the chap who did not think to register the appropriate Twitter handle now has a job at “the Bureau”.
I appreciate the restyled Bureau has an increasing number of competitors, but when all is said and done some brand names transcend time, whereas the CEO who agreed the change will not. One also assumes there is a group within the corporate office’s “enterprise services group” that is overstaffed and looking for some role to justify even more.
Michael Thorpe writes: I would have thought a major focus would be brand recognition and trust, and the BoM has that in spades. Why did the decision-makers at the BoM choose this particular advertising company? Were other pitches even considered?
Ron Aanensen writes: I am disappointed that “the Bureau” didn’t accept my tender. For a mere $50,000 and a maximum 12-week timeframe I could have offered “of Meteorology” as its new title. “The Bureau” sounds too much like a French TV show or the nickname of the FBI for it to work in Australia. But like the Great Sandy Desert, Pebble Beach and the Snowy Mountains, “of Meteorology” fits right in.
Martin Butterfield writes: Pretty sure that either this was a prank or some of the high-priced help (previously known as the suits in carpet city) in the Bureau felt that “the BoM site” sounded too like “the bombsite”. The latter is more of a worry than the former.
Collen O’Brien writes: My weather-watching friends handily refer to the BoM as “the BoM site”. This brand change reminds me of an article I read about the top brass at McDonald’s in the US being angered and horrified to discover that in Australia not only was their beloved brand referred to as “Macca’s”, but local executives thought nothing of it. Of course, the term “Macca’s” now signifies cultural acceptance, as does “BoM site”, and all without spending a single dollar.
Ghillian Sullivan writes: It’s the BoM. It always was the BoM, and it always will be the BoM. Australians are inordinately fond of the term. When Aussies say “check it on the BoM” (and we do this quite often), everyone smiles. “The Bureau” could be any bureau for anything anywhere. The BoM should be asking for its money back. I’m still calling it the BoM.
Craig Hayes writes: This seems to have taken place under the previous government. It must have been hard for the LNP government to continue to downplay the effects of climate change when people kept hitting them over the head with the Bureau of Meteorology’s own research, so what better way to
diminish its standing than have it relinquish the nomenclature so well associated with credibility and objectivity?
I can’t see any other reason for the name change other than a ham-fisted attempt to demote “the Bureau” and, by proxy, give agency to conspiracy theorists who would also like to hear less about our increasing average temperatures over the past 30 years. I suppose it could have turned out worse for “the Bureau”. C Word Communications could have come back with the Department Undertaking Meteorological Business.
The status of West Jerusalem
Martin Munz writes: Australia’s recent announcement that it is reversing the Morrison government’s decision to recognise West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is to be welcomed. Morrison’s cynical and political act presumed the nationalism of some Jewish voters in Wentworth might put the misplaced interests of Israel before all others. That calculation was wrong.
The status of West Jerusalem is an issue in the ongoing tragedy of Palestinian dispossession that shows no sign of resolution, save by Israeli force of arms. Australia should not be in the small group of nations that diplomatically support Israeli unilateralism by giving credence to its illegal claim to West Jerusalem as its capital, notwithstanding the characteristic vehemence of the Israel-Australian lobby that has captured the Jewish establishment. Australia’s announcement rectifies a shameful piece of political opportunism and reverts our position to one of balance shared by the international community. It’s a principled decision that should be welcomed by all.
Qantas flies high with JobKeeper
Gary Gibbon writes: Undoubtedly one of the great corporate mysteries in Australian history is how Alan Joyce has managed to keep his extremely well-paid job when his 14-year watch has presided over the international trashing of the brand, the deplorable treatment and wholesale sacking of staff and the tanking of customer services. I’m simply astounded and can only sadly conclude his shareholders are concerned only with inflated bottom lines.
David Simpson writes: Qantas should not have to repay its JobKeeper support. The Morrison government, instead of handing out unconditional sums, should have demanded equity in Qantas (for the taxpayers) at the share price equivalent at the time. The taxpayers (i.e. us) could now be selling our shares back into the market and recouping our funds — with a profit. Or maybe taxpayers could gain a seat on the board and try to stop Alan Joyce behaving like a prick. A government not suffering from corporate capture would be an improvement — but I suspect we won’t see one in the near future, a national anti-corruption commission notwithstanding.
Ken Thomson writes: I believe all Qantas’ JobKeeper money should be repaid and all the bonuses/shares paid/given should be reclaimed and used to compensate travellers and train new staff or compensate illegally sacked workers.
PETA says yes, ‘stunts’ do work
Mimi Bekhechi (campaigns strategist) writes: Your issues management expert seems uncertain whether protests work, and quotes PETA’s recent demonstration in Sydney in which a chef appeared to barbecue a (fake) dog.
Why do we do these things? We do them because they work. Unlike the giant corporations that make billions confining, mutilating and slaughtering animals for profit, organisations like ours do not have enormous marketing budgets that can be used to persuade people that these obscene business practices are somehow unremarkable and morally acceptable. We get our message across, and very successfully, by using eye-catching performances that grab headlines, shock, initiate debate and wake people up to the cruelty they are supporting, usually unwittingly.
These protests may upset, shock or even anger some, but they may start to realise they have been lied to. And from awareness comes action, as we have seen in the huge growth in support for veganism and animal rights.
The psychopathic tendencies of CEOs
Dr Terry Sullivan writes: A study some years ago in England found that about 25% of CEOs were psychopaths. Interesting. I wonder what the percentage is in Australia? Do CEOs, boards, etc get lessons in culture, conflict of interest or ethics, or is the sharemarket the only thing that counts? These are questions that should be investigated in depth. It seems to me we learnt nothing from the royal commission into the banks. Money seems to override all considerations of culture, conflict of interest and ethics.
If you’re feeling pleased, annoyed or inspired, write to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
