★★★★★ 0/5

Guerrilla publicity

UPDATED: When a show is struggling to build its audience, maybe it can get some free publicity from councils taking matters into their own hands?

8
Leave a comment

ggardWhile Guerrilla Gardeners is trying to build on its modest audience numbers, TEN is spinning as much as it can on the show flouting municipal law.

Yesterday it claimed Canterbury Council in Sydney was in the process of “destroying a site that the Guerrilla Gardeners transformed.”

The site was featured in the first episode of the show, located outside the Canterbury train station in Sydney. TEN claims prior to being made over by the Guerrillas it was “a desolate, ugly, dead stretch of land.”

And it probably was.

But to claim a council is ‘destroying’ the property it  -not a television network- rightfully administers*, seems a bit of a stretch.

“The Guerrilla’s transformed the eyesore into a beautiful space for commuters and the local community to enjoy,” says TEN. It supplied pics to prove its point.

ggard2The network also chose to bring this to the attention of media on the same day the show goes to air. Last week it managed 702,000 viewers and TEN has plenty of eps in the can.

Now that day has come and gone, TV Tonight is happy to bring the matter to your attention with before and after photos.

‘Illegalities’ aside, it’s not such a bad show. But let’s not lose our heads over it all…

* UPDATE: A spokesperson from Canterbury Council has advised TV Tonight the land belongs to RailCorp, and is not administered by the council.

8 Responses

  1. @Goonies: the cactus garden was in an area fenced off from public access, at the end of a train station platform… but don’t worry, Railcorp has already ripped it out, regardless. Maybe they’ll replace it with advertising hordings?

  2. Not sure how accurate this is but I read somewhere that one of their installations included a cactus garden. If correct, this proves to me that these people have no idea what they are doing when it comes to things like public liability and I can fully understand them getting ripped out by other authorities!

    Society’s negative elements also no doubt play a big part in the reason why these sites are left the way they are in the first place. There’s nothing a bogan likes more than trashing something nice that benefits the whole community!

  3. My favorite quote from the show came from last night’s episode…
    Guerrilla no. 1: The council just said they want us to stop
    Guerrilla no. 2: Oh my gosh, why?

    Umm… Perhaps because you are doing something illegal?!?

    It’s a good idea for a show and the results are great (I noticed one in my area a month or so ago before it aired and was really impressed, not realising it was part of the show until the episode aired). But really, you have to wonder if they just asked the councils for permission, then they wouldn’t have to pay fines. I guess, though, they wouldn’t get free publicity…

  4. I think it is more realistic if they fail a lot of the time.

    They would come across as arrogant if they think they can build wherever they want and then charm their way out of every situation.

  5. I like this show alot too. It deserves better figures that what it gets, this show on Nine or Seven would easily hit the 1 mil. I guess these gardening shows are normally held up by the 55+ demographic, something Ten is lacking in.

  6. As one who used to travel there daily as part of an over 2 hour commute from the Central Coast I can say it was very ugly like most parts of Canterbury and its neightbouring suburb Campsie in desperate need of an overhaul.

    I know there’s legal stuff like having permits, the right paper work, etc to do this sort of work, but why can’t the councils be thankful for the work this show is doing rather than ripping it up? No council that I know of has alot of money these days, and many are so inefficient it takes them years to debate over the name of a bridge at an expense of $100,000+ let alone actually do something (yes. this is true – according to my local paper, the debate over the name of a bridge at Woy Woy has cost over $100,000 with no decision still – talk about beaurocracy gone mad…).

  7. I guess this is one way to get the publics attention, no one like their local councils.

    They need a before, after GG then after the council comes back in spending 1000s in rates to destroy the site again!

Leave a Reply