City image

Press, 19 December 1989, Page 12

City image

Sir,—Christchurch has a great deal to be proud of — and quite some way to go before the subjective statement of “the most beautiful city" can be taken seriously. In the meantime, ratepayers will pick up the burden of the cost of this campaign. Every time there is a new regime it wants to change the images of the past, i.e., the fiasco of the phone boxes. Surely we know who and what we are and do not heed public relations’ and advertising' people’ to ;,tell us. The Garden City seems ~ to fit comfortably, nationally and internationally. Christchurch already has. too many organisations working with the purpose of promoting some aspect of ourselves; therefore, there is far too much duplication of staff and overheads. Ratepayers have cause to be concerned at the council committing them to unnecessary cost when both businesses and individuals cope with their shrinking dollars.—Yours, etc.,

BARBARA STEWART. December 16, 1989.

Sir,—The market survey released at the December 15 jobs and promotion meeting does not show that 50 per cent of resideftts support such an obviously contestable claim. Sixty-six “individuals whose opinions matter"

(such as Bob Jones) were surveyed, with no indication of where they live. Twenty-five per cent rated the slogan very suitable. The others said it was reasonably suitable (32.4 per cent), reasonably or very unsuitable (30.9 per cent) or were undecided (11.8 per cent), with slight variation in the column headed “CHC” (presumably Christchurch). Only 6.4 per cent (four) had a totally positive initial reaction to the campaign. It is misleading to draw conclusions about support from Christchurch residents from this survey. Clearly, the adoption of a controversial slogan and an expensive ongoing advertising campaign is not justified. The opinion of the real residents of Christchurch should be sought before any further public money is bulldozed through for a promotion which is likely to be abhorrent to all sensible ratepayers.—Yours, etc., (Mrs) ANN LEWIS. December 16, 1989.

Sir,—Christchurch,:' the city with the most beautiful girls in the world. Christchurch, the friendliest city in the world. Christchurch, the world’s No. 1 garden city. If we expect the rest of the world to accept our claim of being the best in the world, the claim must have some credibility. The above slogans are sustainable; to assert that Christchurch is the most beautiful city in the world is not defensible. Such an extravagant, pretentious claim is likely to provoke negative, contrary reactions. I believe that we should settle for a modest “Beautiful Christchurch City” image. By linking these words together in all our speech and writing, eventually the letters B.C.C. (Beautiful Chritchurch City) will become as well known and as respected internationally as the letters 8.8. C. Henceforth, the address for everyone in Christchuruch should be not Christchurch, but Beautiful Christchurch. And the cost? Much closer to $1.5 than to sl.sM.—Yours, etc.,

J. K. MOIR. December 15, 1989.

..... Sir,—The Mayor and councillors are to be complimented for their efforts to improve our image, but I question the socalled market test of 66 persons purporting to represent all “business, tourism and community leaders.” If the slogan had been “City of Opportunity,” perhaps the appropriate people were approached; however, because the theme concerns beauty, one

would expect organisations such as the Canterbury Horticultural Society or Christchurch Beautifying Association to have been consulted, having been actively involved with councils and citizens for generations to make Christchurch the “Garden City.” This objective has been recognised by many groups, i.e., newspapers, including many overseas publications, tour operators, television weather presenters, even sports commentators. Why scrap an image already established, a slogan we can reasonably justify, for “the most beautiful city in the world,” surely a ponderous, brash statement?—Yours, etc., RON PROCTOR. December 16, 1989.