Oh, they are pretty and probably bring out the child within but, oh, what a waste of money. I understand that when in Sydney someone lights the blue touchpaper for the NYE bash it is the culmination of efforts expended at the expense of many sponsors. This is all well and good but, to be honest, I can't remember the name of any sponsor of any previous display. I don't think that the people involved were being philanthropic so plebeian level deduction tells me that they wasted their investment.
I suspect that I'll come across as some sort of curmudgeon but I'm not like that really. While the money spent on these exercises of excess is probably small, imagine the difference a few million quid or dollars could make if that were invested in something like rescue services, paramedic equipment or, God forbid, even some sort of research into the whys and wherefores of everyday life. *folds up soapbox and leaves*

Postscript: The leaves became caught up in the soapbox due to the amount of hot air generated by your correspondent.

[Dujon] "research into the whys and wherefores of everyday life"? Until that point, I was agreeing with you, but that sounds like a bigger waste of money than fireworks to my untrained ear.

I did say "God forbid", Phil. ;(

No. That makes me seem flippant. Surely, though, those who spend money on advancing their public profile (you like that? It's PR speak.) would be better off putting such funds into something that matters. We have a couple of helicopter rescue services in my neck of the woods; everyone knows the NRMA and Westpac choppers and appreciates them.

[Dujon] Yep, so many things do seem to be largely justified by accountants, rather than common sense, or a sense of "what's right If the sponsors of said pyrotechnics provided transport and viewing platforms for those with learning difficulties, say, rather than just paying some money to be associated with a fun event, I think their names and products/services would be better remembered.
When I try to advance my public profile (honest, I do), I spend my money on an event, and organise it myself, and then try to get the advertising for free through media coverage. Even if the event only breaks even, the knock-on effects of repeat trade and wider awareness are worth the effort and expense.

OK, Phil, you can put away the sarcasm. I admit that I did get a bit carried away and for that I apologise, though I do not resile from my original premiss.
It's been 2008 for a few hours now so I shall wish you all the best for the new year. Peace?

Eeek, I wasn't being sarcastic.

I think those sort of events with forgotten sponsors are part of a much bigger picture - pride in a place, a sense of community, and a general drawing-together of efforts. And no matter how desperate the need for support for a helicopter ambulance service or a hospice, a proper sense of community precedes all. London, or Sydney, or Budapest, or Oban all need to be nice places for people to live in order for businesses and services to prosper there. I think a few fireworks on New Year's Eve are part of that process.

I've just done a couple of minutes of googling, so I don't know how accurate these numbers are, but it seems as if the order of magnitudes are that there were around one million spectators in Sydney, and that the fireworks cost about AUD600,000. I think it is a reasonable bet that those spectators would almost all have been willing to give up at least 60 cents for the pleasure of watching the display, and that the average willingness to pay would have been much much higher.* So it sounds to me as if it was actually a very good use of resources, and not a "waste of money" at all. (This is separate from the question of whether the corporate sponsors get a return on investment; I'm simply asking whether the firework display was a worthwhile use of resources, and if the numbers I saw are right -- or even off by a factor of 10 -- I think the answer is clearly yes.)

* I'm using "willingness to pay" in a technical sense here: think of it as meaning that an individual is equally happy having $x and not seeing the fireworks, on not having $x and seeing the fireworks. Other boring economic discussion available on request.

also, what pen said.

also, s/order of magnitudes/orders of magnitude :-)

also (and even though I am multiposting, can I point out that this is apparently only because everyone else is too hungover to speak) I want to make it clear that my comments are not intended as criticism of Dujon or Phil. Dujon's comment, and I think Phil's as well, were only addressing the question of corporate sponsorship of public events. I did pick up a more general sense that they were questioning whether firework displays themselves were worthwhile, but that may be my misreading, because it is certainly not explicit in their comments.

I am *not* hungover, merely hard at work writing the first of three features this week. And sneaking a look at this year's holiday diary - I get a long weekend off in two weeks' time!

[CdM] Rest assured, I love public firework displays. My take on the matter was simply from a "what am I getting for my money" point of view for the sponsors. For example, I sponsor a football team, and the benefit for me is that they drink in my pub every Sunday afternoon (as well as when they present trophies, celebrate promotion etc). I more than get my money back from that. I presume an awful lot of corporate sponsorship results in so-called freebies, like a hotel room with champagne reception etc and a fantastic view of the fireworks.

[CdM] Close, old chap. Like Phil, I enjoy the displays when I bother to watch them.
I've been pondering on my original comment and am thinking that maybe I've got things wrong. Before I comment further though a little research is required.

From: smh

"Peter Hawkins and Linton Besser
December 31, 2007

The city's $4 million New Year's Eve party on the harbour will not be hampered by bad weather this year, with mostly clear conditions forecast for the celebrations."

The same source (possibly CdM's) quotes AUD 600,000 as the cost of the fireworks. I do wonder though if that costing includes the expense involved in siting the beasts, programming and installing the computerised control system and the eventual dismantling of same.

If the quoted figure is correct (i.e. ignoring my comments) it means that the State (or city) expended 3.4 Million AUD in supporting the function. Media comments claim anywhere between 1 and 1.5 million people turned up in the city to watch the spectacle. In effect that's 1 in 3 of the whole population of Sydney. Yeah, right.

I popped onto the official NYE celebration site ( sydney ) to check out who was who. Slide down to the bottom of the page. I wonder if any of those organisations are recompensed or are simply expected to turn up and factor the event into their annual budget?

Right, I'm putting all this rubbish behind me and flying from Cootamundra to Bendigo. Tally-ho!

Well, even if you went with AUD4 million as the cost and 400,000 spectators, you would have a cost of AUD10 per person, which is less than the cost of a movie ticket. We have a lot of evidence that people were willing to spend a great deal of time getting somewhere to see the display, waiting for it to begin, and traveling home afterwards. Was it worth an additional AUD10 on top to those people? I'd still put my money on yes.

Hello and happy new year to all. Wandering around John Lewis's end-of-year "Clearance" (they're far to posh to have a sale) we notice they're offering a temporaray "special purchase" 300 quid reduction on a sofa we've been lusting after. The bastards.