Toyota launches phase two of Let's Go Places
The Let's Go Places concept shifts its focus from vision to action. It outlines Toyota's active role in creating tangible mobility solutions tailored to meet the diverse needs of Kiwis. The creative brand campaign plays with the concept of the 'intersection' between our lives and everyday mobility.
TNZ Assistant Vice President of Marketing, Susanne Hardy says the new campaign highlights Toyota's evolution from a car maker to a mobility solutions provider with a focus on community.
'This is about Toyota's place as a brand for all New Zealanders. Mobility is rapidly changing, and so too is the way that we access it,' says Hardy.
'We recognise that individuals, families, and businesses have unique transportation needs. And we are committed to meeting these with sustainable, efficient, and accessible solutions.
'Toyota is ubiquitous in New Zealand. Our new brand campaign concept highlights how Toyota is intertwined with communities right across our country.
'We recognise that comes with a responsibility: Toyota is not just envisioning the future of how we get around but actively creating it, ensuring that the freedom of movement is a reality for all, because mobility is a universal need.'
Toyota's new brand campaign places strong emphasis on the brand's established products and value chain, which integrates all aspects of car ownership. These services mean customers can lease by the month or year, rent by the day or week, or share by the hour or day.
'Our value chain offers a holistic mobility experience. This means we can provide practical solutions to Kiwis, solutions that make their everyday lives better and easier, while supporting our sustainability goals and enriching communities across New Zealand,' adds Hardy.
'With Toyota vehicles making up a quarter of cars on our roads, Let's Go Places spotlights the diversity and interconnectedness of New Zealand communities,' says Hardy.
'Everywhere you look, Toyota is enabling mobility, supporting sustainability, and fostering community connections.
'Toyota is everywhere. Not just in the sense of the number of Toyota vehicles driving on Kiwi roads. We're there powering sports teams great and small.
'Our Toyota Stores across the country support over 130 local sports clubs.
'We're excited to share real stories of how our mobility solutions impact lives positively every day.
'Together, we're driving New Zealand forward towards a brighter, more sustainable future,' says Hardy.
'It's an exciting evolution that brings our vision firmly into reality.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
The cost of being: A retail assistant who's ‘broke with expensive taste'
As part of our series exploring how New Zealanders live and our relationship with money, a retail assistant in their early-20s explains why they're all about spending over saving at the moment. Want to be part of The Cost of Being? Fill out the questionnaire here. Gender: Woman. Age: 23. Ethnicity: NZ European. Role: Retail assistant. Salary/income/assets: $28 an hour on a part-time schedule. My living location is: Urban. Rent/mortgage per week: $0 (I live at home). Student loan or other debt payments per week: Not paying my student loan back yet, eek. $17 p/w for Afterpay. Typical weekly food costs Groceries: $30 per week. Eating out: $25 per week. Takeaways: UberEats once every couple of weeks, usually $30 worth of kai. Workday lunches: $20 per week on the odd sushi or wrap. Cafe coffees/snacks: $15, I don't drink coffee but will splurge on a matcha here or there. Savings: I'm not saving for anything. The world is so fucking bleak, I really don't think it's worth suffering in the meantime for an uncertain future. Given that the planet seems like it's a couple years away from plunging into a full grim dystopia, I'll be using every dollar I have to assert my vivacity and joie de vivre while I still can. Legendary diva Karl Marx said it best: 'The less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theatre or to balls, or to the pub, and the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you will be able to save and the greater will become your treasure which neither moth nor rust will corrupt – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life and the greater is the saving of your alienated being.' I worry about money: Never. Three words to describe my financial situation: Impulsive, irresponsible, generous. My biggest edible indulgence would be: I absolutely froth oysters – recently spent $80 on 12 at Gochu in Commercial Bay. They were totally gorgeous, so no regrets there! In a typical week my alcohol expenditure would be: $30, I usually pick up a bottle of wine for pre-drinks. Lots of my drinks are comped or bought by friends and beguiled strangers while out, which I really appreciate. In a typical week my transport expenditure would be: $15, I'm a full time bus diva. Will occasionally swing for an Uber home, but I live centrally so I usually walk. I estimate in the past year the ballpark amount I spent on my personal clothing (including sleepwear and underwear) was: $800. I'm a Depop fieeeeend. I'm happy to spend a little extra for beautiful pieces that are either handmade or pre-loved. I have some friends that spend triple that amount of new designer pieces, so I'm very proud of having a wardrobe full of locally sourced and incredible clothing. My most expensive clothing in the past year was: I bought an insane pair of vintage Dsquared² pumps for $400. I'm on such a shoe kick at the moment, and Dsquared² make the nasssstiest heels. I even managed to haggle the vendor down from $600, so I'm very proud of my acquisition (said like Kath Day-Knight). My last pair of shoes cost: A pair of super sweet spat boots for $30 from Trade Me. My grooming/beauty expenditure in a year is about: $400. I do my own hair and grooming, and don't bother with things like tanning, injectables or shaving. My skincare is decently expensive though, and I buy a pair of falsies pretty regularly since I'm always crying mine off. My exercise expenditure in a year is about: I don't exercise outside of trotting about all day. My last Friday night cost: $150. I bought a bottle of wine, went to a drag show and tipped, and paid some friends for a bump. I'm usually much more conservative with my spending, but a friend was visiting from Australia so splurged a little. Most regrettable purchase in the last 12 months was: A pair of jeans that didn't fit. I resold them, but losing that $20 for a couple weeks really stung. Most indulgent purchase (that I don't regret) in the last 12 months was: I bought my younger sibling their first ever handbag. We researched for months before they settled on a classic Moschino heart tote, and I was happy to cover the $800 cost. It's a piece they'll have in their collection forever, and it felt really important and meaningful to get them something so personal. I'm really excited to borrow it from them, ha! One area where I'm a bit of a tightwad is: Door charge. If I deign to spend anything, it's got to be below $10. Seriously? Door charge? In Auckland? Have we lost our fucking minds? I've told my friends that if I'm happy to pay $15 to stand in a sticky club and watch an unemployed white guy spin crap DnB they have to shoot me in the head immediately because that's an imposter. Five words to describe my financial personality would be: She's broke with expensive taste. I grew up in a house where money was: Of intense importance. I come from a single mother who lived in deep poverty up North, and we managed to make it to the middle class after a lot of struggle and strife. Mum tried to impart her skills at budgeting and saving on me, but I obviously find it a bit difficult. Still, I'd rather be surrounded by life and laughter and have nothing than grind for years for fleeting stability. The last time my Eftpos card was declined was: Yesterday. Two words: cigarettes, mama. Transferring yourself the $3 you're short as quickly as you can because there's a line behind you is a sacred ritual. In five years, in financial terms, I see myself: Really having to knuckle down and change my spending habits. I know being a ridiculously fabulous aesthete isn't going to last forever, so I'm making the most of it while I can. The job I work at has a really good pathway towards a more serious role (the mythical 'big girl job') so that's something I'm working towards. I would love to have more money for: Art and artists. I'd love to be able to decorate my space full of beautiful handmade pieces. There are so many incredible visual artists in Tamaki, if I had a million dollars I think I could drop it all on paintings and sculptures. Describe your financial low: Two years ago I was in Dunedin, on the brink of homelessness and too proud to let anyone know. I lived with an abusive partner who constantly controlled my finances, and regularly starved and struggled to make rent payments. The money I made from my shitty casual job was going directly to my partner's drug fund, and I had to resort to selling my Kmart furniture on Facebook for income. Luckily my friends swooped in and saved me from what was the darkest chapter in my life – it could've gone so horribly for me, and I'm deeply angry and embarrassed that money was such a large contributing factory. I give money away to: Lots of mutual aid requests. Recently, I've given to a handful of friends' transition and moving costs, as well as a pretty large donation towards World Central Kitchen. There's an old joke about queer people passing back and forth the same $20, and that's absolutely true – when I was at my worst, my community swooped in to hold me up. I don't really think of it as expenditure when it's going towards my people. Also, tip the dolls!
Newsroom
5 hours ago
- Newsroom
Scrapping petrol tax could be transformative. But will it?
Comment: The way we currently get around is unfair, and unhealthy. Some people travel a lot, creating disproportionate harms on people and the planet, such as pollution, injury risk and physical inactivity. Others cannot afford to travel enough, missing out on things that are important, such as catching up with loved ones or healthcare appointments, or end up having to forego expenditure on other important things, such as food. Replacing fuel excise duty (or petrol tax) with electronic road user charges for all vehicles – as announced by Transport Minister Chris Bishop last week, offers an opportunity to transform the way we fund and pay for our transport system in a way that works for people and the planet – by reflecting the true costs imposed when we use the roads. Bishop said 'it isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often'. And on the whole, we agree. We know that those households with the lowest income drive far less (about 100km a week less) but also have to spend a much greater proportion of their income on getting around (16 percent of income compared with 9 percent or higher-income households). Those on lower incomes are also far less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle with cheaper running costs, instead paying the relatively more expensive petrol tax. However, Bishop's proposal represents a narrow view of the harms, or wider costs, of driving to society. It is largely based on the assumption all vehicles should contribute 'fairly' (based on weight and distance travelled) towards road maintenance, operations and improvements. But a pricing structure that also accounts for the costs to our health system of injuries, pollution and physical inactivity caused by the transport system, might also include differential charging for different types of vehicles. For example, we know that SUVs cause more severe injuries to those outside of the vehicle, and while EVs reduce tailpipe emissions, they still contribute to congestion and injury risk. The proposal does suggest that weight, as well as distance travelled, will be factored into pricing; however, it should also consider the damage that heavier and larger vehicles do to people and the environment. A change in the way we are charged for using the roads offers a real opportunity to design a progressive charge that alleviates costs pressures for those already struggling to pay for the driving they need to do, while reducing levels of driving overall. One way to achieve this would be through increasing the rate per km, above a certain amount of kilometres driven. Given the costs involved in running and operating the scheme, and that this needs to be revenue generating for Government, it seems unlikely there will be a reduction in the cost of travel in real terms for everyone. However, if the Government is committed to fairness, it needs to ensure costs don't escalate for those who can least afford it and who have few alternatives. The proposed changes to road user charges are most likely to be successful and acceptable if they are accompanied by investment in public transport, walking and cycling and alongside strategic urban planning that supports local access to the things we all need such as shops, schools and sports grounds. The most straightforward way to ensure that charging for using the roads doesn't force people into situations where they have to forego other essentials, is to ensure that it's easy and safe to get around in other ways, or that we don't need to travel as much. For both fairness and health and wellbeing we need to continue to improve travel options other than driving. Bishop presented this as a new way to fund our roads, but we should be taking a more holistic view – this is an opportunity to think about how we fund our transport system. Using revenue raised to reduce the need to drive can make charging for driving more acceptable. Bishop said, 'This is a once-in-a-generation change. It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will future proof how we fund our roads for decades to come'. This policy has the potential to be truly transformative and be part of creating a transport system (not just roads) that is fairer, and healthier for everyone. It can be done. The question is, will it?
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
House building and inspections: Target property cowboys not the system
Anyone who is so minded can set themselves up as a pre-purchase inspector and produce reports – and often it's uncertified builders who make the mistakes in the first place. It is truly buyer beware. That's why the Building Officials Institute of New Zealand established a robust Accredited Building Surveyor (ABS) programme for pre-purchase property inspections – to stop the cowboys. We need to see better standards, minimum qualifications and mandatory indemnity insurance for the sector to better protect Kiwis purchasing their biggest asset. A week ago, Herald NOW interviewed Master Builders chief executive Ankit Sharma, who commented that 'it takes 19 months to build a house from the time consent is given to the code of compliance given ... even for simple homes sometimes 14 to 15 inspections'. But there are also multiple influences on the length of time involved in building a house, whether it is 12 months or 24 months. This includes land purchase and transfer of title, design time and adjustments, design application – anywhere from a week to 20 days depending on the quality of designs – material supply problems, capacity of building companies and skilled labour availability, failed inspections and final sign-off. Additionally, if a house needed 14 to 15 inspections, something is terribly wrong and those inspections are well and truly deserved to protect building compliance, building safety and the owner's investment. Some councils run between six to eight inspections and Auckland runs 10 as standard. They cover foundations, wrapped cavity, cladding, pre-line, plumbing, post-line, waterproofing, drainage and final. Auckland has a 25% inspection failure rate and Tauranga up to a 50% failure rate. So, 14 to 15 inspections is comparatively good if the Master Builders are that bad. We are awaiting the Government's announcement on major reforms to the building consent system. This may include restructuring our Building Consent Authorities, who are there to safeguard homeowners from defective work. The self-certification of builders would remove existing protections for homeowners. That's a worry given the extremely high rates of non-compliant building design applications and inspection failures – 80% and 50% respectively, according to 2023 Model-Docs. Let's hope Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk makes the right decision – to target the cowboys, not the system.
