Comment posted Emergence of Kintyre and Gigha Marketing Group completes Argyll and the Isles jigsaw by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll.
I accept you are annoyed with newsroom’s approach to this however it is worth remembering that your response to a post by Mike Story (which was nothing more than a pleasant comment about Kintyre )was to accuse him of prejudice, his antics as ‘disgusting’, and described him as ‘misled.’ You go on to tell him he has ‘no idea’, said his methods and job are a ‘waste of time.’
You also classify his, and AISTP’s approach to business as lazy, unresponsive and selective and also say it is ignorance and that his understanding of technology has killed Argyll’s future. You further this by calling his/their brands and funding mechanism as ‘laughable.’
This is followed by a paragraph that suggests he, and AISTP are responsible for people turning to drink and drugs as they take too long to help with local employment, tourism and social problems.
It then degenerates further when you say ‘perhaps Mr Story fancies himself as the new First Minister, or perhaps hes all going to get us cheap wives from abroad from his Thai business, who knows….’
Having thrown all that at Mike Story (who I admit I don’t know from Adam) I find it a little hard to have much sympathy when you claim to have been insulted and had your contribution belittled.
You clearly have a lot to say on the matter and maybe if it had been expressed with a little less vitriol then it would have been more engaging. However the level of personal insults you dished out (as detailed above) makes it very difficult to engage in a rational debate.
Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll also commented
First off I can assure you it is genuine. I have no connection with AISTP not have I ever met anyone who is connected with the (not that I know of anyway). This is why my interest is not in the personalities but in the nature of the business approach.
I was specifically interested in hearing why you think they have a selective membership and anti-competitive principles. Based on your response to this question (I am trying to avoid reading between the lines in other posts as I don’t wish to get the wrong end of the stick) it would appear this stems from a dissatisfaction in AISTP employing firms who are not Argyll based to offer advice on marketing within Argyll. Is this the case? If so then the complaint boils down to AISTP’s policy on appointing consultants and the policy they follow. If AISTP are deliberately excluding local firms then you clearly have grounds for complaint. Equally though they would not be allowed to exclude non local firms purely on the grounds of encouraging local firms. They could apply a weighting to a procurement scoring exercise which would assist local firms but this couldn’t be so high as to skew the process excessively and they would need to have clear justification for it should it be challenged. Ultimately the work will be awarded to the organisation that provides best overall value for money with that not necessarily meaning the cheapest.
Whether they attract funding for ‘flawed marketing’ is obviously a matter of opinion. I am in no position to challenge their, or your approach to marketing.
I personally don’t believe that third sector organisations are making a society reliant on grant money. I would accept that it would be easy to find examples of where this does seem to be the case but it would also be easy to find examples where the services and experience available from the third sector organisations are being tapped into with a genuine desire to deliver something with long term sustainability at the heart of its objective.
This, of course, doesn’t guarantee success, much the same way employing private sector expertise doesn’t guarantee success and there is a degree of duty on the third sector organisation to carry out appropriate due diligence before committing public resource to projects. If AISTP are a body who fund Argyll based projects I would expect them to have proper governance in place to manage that award process and I also appreciate they will be restricted by the size of the ‘pot’ available.
I can also understand why private firms might feel that the provision of public grants might be anti competitive as they feel that this money is then being spent on firms which are maybe not local or on an ‘approved list.’ This is why there needs to be clear segregation between the funding body and the award of contracts. I mean all this in a general sense rather than specifically to the issue under discussion here.
- For me there is a genuinely interesting topic here which is being buried by unfortunate ill feeling.
I would like to get beyond that and get back to the more important topic.
I know very little about AISTP so would be interested in hearing why Nick feels they, as a group, have a selective membership and also anti-competitive principles. It is clearly a matter which he feels strongly about and whether or not people agree he has a right to express that view (and also be challenged on it).
I am not interested in individual people being named but more why Nick, as a whole, feels the body, its aims/objectives and way it does business is as abhorrent as he is presenting them as being.
- Fair enough Nick. We shall agree to disagree. I feel your comments aimed at Mr Story were excessive and drifted comfortably into the arena of being personal.
I have to say that after reading a fair number of posts you have made I am still struggling to actually get a clear picture of the message you are trying to present. Maybe I am just being simple and failing to see your point however what does seem to shine through is a consistent attack at groups who don’t do things they way you think they should be done, or who employ people who you don’t feel have the same marketing credentials as you award yourself.
It doesn’t strike me as a particularly effective way to market yourself which surely places doubt in people’s minds about employing you to market them.
Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll
- So who’s in the SNP Council Group today – and should they be?
I am not a fan of the multi member ward system. However whilst I would welcome it being abandoned I tend to think that is simply papering over the cracks. Local Government in Scotland needs a far more dramatic overhaul than that.
32 local authorities is a ridiculous number to have for a country with a population only just exceeding 5 million. There are over 1,200 councillors in Scotland with the geographical area for local authorities ranging from about 25 square miles to about 12,500 square miles! Similarly the population ranges from about 20,000 to well over half a million.
Cutting the number of councillors is going to make an insignificant impact to costs in the grand scheme of things. For example the total cost of councillors to A&B in 2013/14 made up about 0.7% of total employee costs. So yes there are some savings that could be made but they are not going to deliver radical savings or a material reinvestment in service delivery.
I would kick start a major overhaul of local government by reducing the number of councils in Scotland from 32 to maybe between 15 or 20. Once we have a more manageable number of local authorities then proper consideration can be given to devolving power to them, and reintroducing more fiscal control at a local level (which should begin with abandoning the council tax freeze and reversing the centralisation of policy making that is associated with the freeze). Councils should be given the appropriate levers to determine what is strategically best for their area, reflecting local needs, in terms of increasing or decreasing taxation (and not just council tax).
Having less councils wouldn’t totally rid us of the issue of some councils having relatively small populations compared to others (due to the geography of Scotland) but it would mean there is less power hoarded by the two big city councils. Hopefully this would result in more meaningful efforts at partnership working and shared services without the ‘little guys’ being muscled out by overpowering large councils.
It always seemed strange to me that Scotland was moving toward being an independent country at the same time as there being ongoing centralisation of power within Scotland itself. It is a contradiction in democratic will.
- When is Argyll and Bute going to publish its mini-count breakdown of the indy referendum vote here?
I can understand why some people would be interested in seeing a breakdown however I personally fail to see any great value in it. We don’t need to encourage further division, quite the opposite. It was a national vote where every vote carried equal weight, I think it’s better leaving it as a national result.
- Lifeline for wildlife – 5p per carrier bag in Scotland from today
I have no problem with this law. If anything I don’t think it is steep enough. I was amazed at the 80% statistic and find myself questioning it’s credibility as I wouldn’t expect 5p to be much of a deterrent. I would have preferred total removal of plastic bags and the adoption of something more in.line with French supermarkets.
- For Argyll challenge to candidates for Thursday’s Oban North & Lorn by-election
That’s right, never mind promoting the credentials of the candidate – as long as they have the same gender!
I don’t know Stephanie Irvine and am not for a second suggesting she is or isn’t a credible candidate. However I would wager if she is credible she would prefer for people to vote for her on the basis of what she can bring to the post rather than simply because of ‘women supporting women’
- General election television debates
Great more debates, just what we need, more mindless chest thumping my quips better than your quip, or fans of both camps claiming irrelevant victories.
I couldn’t care less about arguments over who should and shouldn’t be involved. I’d rather they were scrapped so money wasn’t wasted on a gruesome spectacle which serves no positive value and only paints UK politics in an ugly light.
powered by SEO Super Comments