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
- Has Councillor Iain Angus Macdonald’s rush to transfer to the SNP fouled the Ward 5 by-election pitch for Iain S MacLean?
Part of the answer to the issue of resigning from party X and joining party Y is for the public to stop voting like blind sheep and start to question the person behind the job.
There are too many people who would vote for a chimp if it had the right rosette pinned to it.
- SNP lose another Argyll & Bute councillor
This whole PR exercise about the number of people joining the SNP is a nice sound bite but doesn’t really add up to more than propaganda. So there are about 35,000-40,000 members now? At the 2011 elections about 900,000 people voted SNP. All this increase in member is showing is that more people who would vote SNP are signing up as members – it doesn’t actually signal a ground swell of new support, just an affirmation of support by a small percentage of people who voted SNP anyway.
- Bitter alone, Salmond now a declared guerrilla leader in charge of government
Richard, Tim is correct regarding the timetable for the Scotland Act coming into affect. You might be confusing those powers with the fact the SG can already flex income tax by 3p but have never done so. The Scotland Act extends it to 10.
The SNP, and more specifically Alex Salmond, is right to keep the pressure on the main UK parties to deliver on their promises of additional powers. However I think some of his approach is damaging to efforts to heal a rift between yes and no campaigners. Making claims about the parties already going back on the deal after 24 hours is ridiculous as is the talk of independence without referendum both by him and a now utterly irrelevant Sillars.
The SG represents all the people of Scotland, not just the 45%. Time for them to return to that job
- Salmond departure only hope for healing in Scotland – successor cannot be Sturgeon
The scenes in Glasgow last night are shameful, hugely regrettable, and a reminder that there is an ugly vein of bigotry amongst a relatively small number of people predominantly in Glasgow.
However it is not the face of the No vote as has been said on many Facebook posts (or words to that effect). Over two million people voted no, a few hundred have behaved like idiotic morons. Christ more people in my small village voted No (and Yes) than that.
Painting it as the face of the no vote is an insult to half the population of the country and can only inflame resentment amongst people who simply exercised their democratic right.
As for Graham’s remark that all no voters are selfish and don’t care about the poor. Well all that does is highlight what a petty person you are Graham. What a relief that Jackie Baillie beat you back in 2007. She isn’t perfect but she is head and zhoulders above you in terms of trying to represent people equally.
Hopefully last night was an isolated incident with those responsible properly dealt with by the authorities. Hopefully we see a rapid decrease in crowing over the result by the no voters and hopefully we see an equally rapid decrease in divisive sweeping insults by Yes voters. Time to grow up and move on.
- The Union, the young, reform and the pound are the gold in the embers of indy
Didn’t expect that I must admit. Bad news for the SNP.
powered by SEO Super Comments