The Piping Shrike campaign - The great pretender

My post of September 1 points out the confusion about the identity of South Australia’s bird emblem, the Piping Shrike, and highlights important historical information that leaves no doubt that the bird in question is the White-backed Australian Magpie.

Because the history is clear, it is difficult to understand why there is so much confusion about the identity of the bird. Unfortunately, BankSA's Piping Shrike campaign muddies the water because the bird they use is not a White-backed Magpie. Instead, it is a Magpie Lark - colloquially called the Murray Magpie. It is a shame that the Piping Shrike caricature used in the advertising campaign explicitly claims to be the state emblem, when it is not.

I wonder why BankSA and the South Australian Government continue to spread false information about our state emblem.

In September, I emailed elected South Australian representatives of both houses of parliament including Jay Weatherill, the South Australian Premier and Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. The response sent to me by the Executive Director of Government Relations provided confusing and contradictory information.

The government claims that the State emblem is a stylised image of the White-backed Magpie and is not an exact depiction of the White-backed Magpie - or indeed any Magpie. To add to the confusion, the government says that the ‘Piping Shrike’ name is used to represent the family of Shrikes.

However, this information seems incorrect. The State bird emblem is not ‘stylised’ as the government claims but is rather – and this is very important - ‘drawn proper’. The only reference to a stylised bird emblem in South Australia’s history is the special logo created for the State’s 150^th anniversary. Here’s a copy of the image.

South Australia's Jubilee Logo

Why would we want our bird emblem, the White-backed Australian Magpie, to be used to represent the family of Shrikes? It would seem more appropriate for our emblem to be representing the family of Australian Magpies rather than Shrikes. Recall that there are no Shrikes in Australia. Of course this would not include the Magpie Lark, which features in the BankSA advertising because it is not a Magpie, despite what the BankSA advertising tells us.

I raise the prospect that there is perhaps a connection between the government’s recent position about the state bird emblem and BankSA’s advertising campaign.

Here’s a recent BankSA advertisement featuring the Piping Shrike.

The Piping Shrike campaign seems to be carefully orchestrated. The gorilla marketing campaign ambushed Adelaide's Lord Mayor earlier this year and was reported by InDaily: Giant bird swoops Lord Mayor in Town Hall ambush

I wholeheartedly support the promotion of South Australia but revising our history in the interests of a corporate marketing campaign is indefensible.

The 'Piping Shrike' Changes his Story

The Piping Shrike, at first, carefully distinguished himself from the White-backed Magpie. In the earlier BankSA advertising Piping Shrike said ‘we might have recognised him from the state flag’. At the same time he said he is NOT a magpie and claimed he was more civilised than that.

By late September, the Piping Shrike had changed his tune by identifying with the Magpie.

Tweet by Piping Shrike

Rather than ‘him’ being the state emblem, it’s now ‘us’. In other words, the Piping Shrike is trying to hitch a ride with the White-backed Magpie by claiming ‘we’re on your flag’. This significant change in position by ‘Piping Shrike’ is supported by the government’s recent story in their response to me when they said, as I mentioned before, ‘the ‘Piping Shrike’ name is used to represent the family of Shrikes’. However, as I have explained, the so-called Piping Shrike featured by BankSA is not the State emblem.

The most recent round of advertising asks South Australians for innovative ideas to improve our state. I repeat that I support the general thrust of this part of the advertising campaign. However, it looks like the Piping Shrike campaign now has ‘official’ endorsement by the State, because the State flag features in the advertising. It is an offense to use the emblem without approval of the minister.

The State Flag now appears on Piping Shrike's jacket

Further, Piping Shrike explicitly asserts his position as state emblem.

I acknowledge the confusion and reiterate my preference to rename the State emblem to reflect the actual bird. At the same time I accept the name Piping Shrike is appealing to many. However, I suggest that BankSA and the State Government come clean about the identity of South Australia’s bird emblem. This is a great opportunity to do so. Why perpetuate misunderstanding? Perhaps there is a financial arrangement between the Bank and the State concerning the use of the State emblem. I have no issue with that whatsoever but please don’t rewrite history in the interests of corporate advertising.

I suppose BankSA has invested significant funds into this flawed campaign, but that doesn't give them the right to use the wrong bird as our State emblem. It seems this mistake was made from the outset of the campaign. Although the mistake may be embarrassing for BankSA, Piping Shrike and the State Government, it is better to admit the mistake and clarify the bird emblem's identity. It is certainly better that revising our history.

JKJ McLoughlin, Happy Valley SA.