April 16, 2007

• There was/is a similar sort of push in Toronto a while back, but on a smaller scale -- to get rid of advertising in public spaces like the subway. It got a lot of press, sold some cool buttons and started a magazine for the Überhip, but otherwise, it was a total bust.
• I don't like it. A city without billboards and flashing signs? What's next, chili without beans? If people wanted to see trees and bushes, they'd live in the country. It's what it's there for.
• Three cheers for SP! Hope this is the start of a trend. We've got dreadful billboarditis here.
• oh, and there is that small question of placing onerous restrictions on otherwise legal commerce, and enacting legislation on the basis of what is, essentially, personal aesthetics. Cities have crime, poverty, homelessness, etc - but ADVERTISING! We need to eliminate that! Poop.
• I suspect this is far from the most pressing issue in Sao Paulo, or any other major city. Is it that much more desirable to see the crumbling buildings and the brown sky of the horizon than a giant photo of a car?
• Did the legislation make any mention of the removal of support structures for said outdoor advertising? That's just hideous. The now-bare canvases targeted by taggers seem to have left graffiti even more prominent. I'm not fan of visual advertising pollution, but this seems a bit oppressive. If you live in a large city, it's part of the package. Living in NYC, I enjoy strolling through my scenic tree-lined neighborhood, and I also enjoy popping out in the middle of Times Square and being bombarded with it all. I suspect advertisers will eventually conger up even more intrusive tactics to reach consumers if denied outdoor advertising.
• Fes: What's next, chili without beans? Of course! Your spiced beef and bean stew may be tasty, but Chili is made without fillers, such as beans, macaroni, or Blue Bell Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream. CASI Rules( A.2.) explicitly prohibits them. For more information, consult Kent Finlay's "If you know beans about chili, you know that chili has no beans." I've seen data that suggested that 75% of Texans preferred chili without beans and that about 66% of non-Texans preferred chili with beans. To each his own, I guess, and there's no accounting for taste, but try not to be surprised when we like our regional dish the way we make it. :)
• If you live in a large city, it's part of the package. Yet in São Paolo they passed a law against it! How dare they needlessly regulate their own economic activity via their stupid democracy? This is as moronic as people who think that areas of natural wilderness should be protected because they "look nice". What fucking idiots these foreigners are. I say invade.
• Isn't Vermont billboard-free? I seem to recall driving from NY State into Vermont and the sudden contrast was stark. I'm in two minds about this, I agree there's some kind of free speech angle but then again being able to rest one's eyes is also a Good Thing. i believe technology has an eventual solution. If you like billboards then you would get paid to wear a special pair of glasses that would broadcast them to you as you drove past various locations.
• Vermont is also commerce-free. Except for their burgeoning syrup and pine-needle exports. I'm not EVEN touching that blasphemy, MCroft.
• I can see putting limits on where ad space can be sold, but eliminating it? I mean, has there ever, in the history of civilization, been a city with no outdoor advertising? I mean, c'mon.
• I believe advertising should be limited to the dimensions of the US one dollar bill. Or a space the size of your forehead.
• Ja-Ja Hovah destroyed Sodom when the city council voted to restrict the god-given right of people to engage in telemarketing - yet he saved the Israelites in Egypt who, on the night of the tenth plague, painted their doors with Google ads. Therefore I say unto thee: go forth and speak the good news unto all highway services consumers.
• Contact me for information on how to enlarg teh staf you part teh ded see wif LIMP STAF LOL
• A few more pics... Interestingly enough, some companies are able to get a court ruling to allow them to keep their advertising up Cool! So the big agencies can throw down some cash and get a favorable ruling. Sweet. Some intersting points here.
• some kind of free speech angle ARGH
• Heh. Only in Texas. I really like rule G: b. COOKS MAY HAVE TO TASTE THEIR CHILI - At the discretion of the head judge or CASI Referee, chili cooks may be required to remove the lids from their chili cups and taste their chili before turning in for judging. (If a contestant refuses, his or her chili will be disqualified.) G. PYROTECHNICS - No chili contestant may discharge firearms or use any pyrotechnics or explosives at a chili cookoff. Contestants is charging firearms and/or using explosives or other pyrotechnics will be disqualified from the chili cookoff.
• How the fuck is anybody going to know what soda options they have anymore? Watch the hospitals get filled with people suffering from dehydration.
• “A remarkable number of ads feature giant images of men and women dressed only in their underwear, while the Brazilian edition of Playboy is publicised with huge posters and cut-outs of the latest centrefold models.” says a report from BBC. And they want to get rid of them - has the world gone mad??
• "They also argue that streets will be less safe at night with the loss of lighting from outdoor advertising." I know I owe my personal safety and well being at night to advertising. *sigh*
• A roadside ad Will block your view And that is bad For me and you BURMA-SHAVE
• Why don't they have billboards in Washington DC? I'd think they'd be real interested in commerce and free speech.
• Nicely done, r88.
• There's no billboards in DC? I'm sure they have strict regulations for the placement of billboards around government buildings and such, but I'm fairly certain I recall seeing the usual suspects while going through DC. Not to mention the mobile billboards...
• There's no billboards here in Hawaii.
• Well, there should be.
• I certainly think that the idea of doing away with advertising in public space has considerable merit.
• I like billboards! Am I the only one that appreciates this deft melding of advertising and art? Some of them are exquisitely well done. There's a real art to making a good billboard. Most ad agencies want to put too much text on them, but the best ones? A word. Maybe two. Kapow.
• Rocketman, I fondly remember a dilapidated set of Burma Shave signs still standing along th road to my Grandma's lake cottage when I was a wee nipper in the late 1970's. You prompted me to take and go and look for Burma Shave online. I found some cool links. The '50's Web: Texts from lots of signs. This feller has pix of ones he saw on a road trip The Lincoln Highway Association has them categorized by year. Some Freepers are nostalgic for 'em, too, looks like.
• What are you some kinda advertising guy or something? Put down the kool-aid bong and dig a horizon, or some architecture, or watch the road - y'know, something unmolested by Coca Cola and AT&T. At the very least, definitely do not click on This NSFW link featuring an infamous ad on a tunnel entrance.
• Bah! I swear I previewed that a mere milliseconds before posting and yet TUM snuck in. Darned UMs!
• Some think billboards Are mere pollution Banning them Is their solution BURMA-SHAVE
• Auckland's council are talking about banning billboards, but since I've never really been there I don't know how big a problem it is. Christchurch is getting a bit billboard-crazy because someone worked out how to hang giant five-floor-tall canvas photos of rugby players in their undies from the tall buildings.
• Twinkle, twinkle One-eyed car We all wonder WHERE you are Burma-Shave ????????!??????????
• a one-headlight game perhaps?
• Jeez, we never played Strip Padiddle. We just kept track of points.
• Pfft, I've seen the horizon, whoopty doo. also: haha!
• On the billboad Sat some giant juggs Twas then torn down By moral thugs BURMA-SHAVE
• If God didn't want us to have outdoor advertising He wouldn't have given us outdoors. Duh.
• Jeez, we never played Strip Padiddle Yeah, but it is urbandictionary, after all. New Zealand to decide billboard ban Observation as an ex-Aucklander. During extensive travels throughout the world I have never encountered as much billboard pollution, in a small area, as that of central Auckland. It is overrated advertising medium that as far as I recall has never persuaded me to buy something. Thank goodness this problem isn't as severe in Dunedin, where we still get to enjoy the odd historical building or two. Cuomo Veto Spares Trees at Expense of Billboard ViewsGov. Mario M. Cuomo vetoed legislation today that would have allowed owners of roadside billboards to ask the state to chop down trees that obscured their signs. In rejecting the legislation, dubbed the "killer tree bill" by its opponents, Mr. Cuomo said it ran counter to the state's efforts to beautify its roadways, which include spending $2 million each year on planting trees along highways. (1993) The following from Scenic Missouri’s newsletter, "Scenic Views", notes: The Oregon Motorist Information Act of 1971 forbids the issuance of any permit for a new billboard after June 12, 1975. The Washington Scenic Vistas Act of 1971 bans billboards from any state highway within a national monument, a federal forest area, public park, beach or recreation area, any state designated scenic highway, as well as from interstates and primary roads. Three other areas ranking in the top ten, Northern California, Colorado and Arizona, have hardly any billboards. Missouri was not ranked. "Most other states have figured out that protecting scenic resources is in the best interest of a healthy tourist economy," said Scenic Missouri executive director Karl Kruse. "Missouri is running about thirty years behind in the area of scenic resource protection." Why would there even be a "Washington Scenic Vistas Act of 1971"? Aren't billboards scenic enough? Can't the average motorist be titillated by the comely star of a delightful dramadey on the WB while they drive? Must they be forced to be unentertained as they shuttle between air-conditioned WiFi locations?
• "Missouri is running about thirty years behind in the area of scenic resource protection." You should see the 35-mile stretch between Springfield and Branson. Used to be the most beautiful drive you'd see east of the Rockies. Now it's all Yakov Smirnoff, all the time. Depressing as hell.
• Surely you're not suggesting that Missouri should injure society in some fashion?
• Yakov Smirnoff is the exact opposite of depressing.
• Bait and switch! You guys are talking about highways in the sticks, where there is some natural beauty and whatnot, if you're into that. Sao Paulo is the FOURTH BIGGEST CITY IN THE WORLD! 17M people in and around. There's no natural beauty there! There's buildings and people. Lots and lots of buildings and people.
• We like ads, And also trees, 'Cause Missouri Loves companies. -Rangoon Razors, Inc.
• Oh, I didn't mean to conflate the two. Just a personal gripe, really. We tried years ago to pass a law limiting billboards on highways, but it got smacked down. Mostly because of the Branson bigwigs and concern for farmers, who make money renting out part of their land to billboard companies. Sigh.
• And the walnut bowl people. I've been down that road. See Meramec Caverns!
• Yakov Smirnoff billboards On my daily drive Would make me want To not be alive BURMA-SHAVE
• I'm not EVEN touching that blasphemy, MCroft. Awww, And there I was all ready with my anecdote about how it had been more than fifty years since anyone was shot in Texas for ordering Chili with Beans, and that even then the waitress had been really, really sorry afterwards.
• I can't tell if Fes is taking the piss or for real.
• Fes: I'll take "Taking the piss for real for $800, Alex." Alex: It's the city that's banning outdoor advertising. Fes: What is "No placards here. No ads to follow, Just view the sights Of ole Sau Paulo! BURMA SHAVE"
• Well, since Fes is a corporate marketeer, he has to be at least somewhat serious. But, you know what, I have to agree with him to a point. I've lived most of my life in California, where billboards are everywhere, at least on the freeways. When I moved to New Jersey, where the freeways are billboard-less, I began to miss them Tree, after tree, after tree, with nothing to make fun of. But, I remember my early visits to San Francisco, where the flashing neon and bright colors added to the excitement. (I was a country girl, so gimme a break.) But, I have to agree that advertising within major cities brings a level of energy to the environment. Cities are about commerce, aren't they? On the other hand, when I was in Times Square, the colors and action were great, but I never noticed what the ads were about. Maybe this is a type of advertising which has lost it's value? If you're driving down the New Jersey Turnpike, or the LA freeways, do you really have time to focus on the billboards? And, on the California freeways outside of cities, the only ones I remember are those which said, "This spot is available," with a big red circle as the spot. Fes. are billboards really effective? Or, have other venues replaced them? I know that I will occasionally buy something from a catalog, and sometimes check out internet ads if I'm in the market for a specific product, but I can't think of a time when a billboard influenced me.
• Advertising theory time... Billboards are not what you'd call traditionally effective, in that they prompt you to purchase something a 'la, say, a television ad. The time your eyes are on them is too short; the space is too limited; there are few options. What billboards do, in the parlance, is "reinforce brand awareness." Which is bullshitian for "remind you that my product exists." It's the graphic equivalent of repeating the name of my product in your ear. I do it a couple dozen times, along with all my regular TV and print ads, my goonygoogoo MySpace page ("Fes's Widget Company has 22,762 Friends!") and those two hippies we hired to make pretend blog posts (we don't really do that) and the next time you're doing your walmartin', picking out your widgets? You see my brand of widgets on the shelf, and your remember: hmm, I've heard a lot about that Fes brand of widget! And you buy it. Which is sorta simple and yet VERY VERY difficult to pull off really well. Which is why I like billboards. They're like Haiku, in a way. Very limited, very structured, very zen. To do one very well, you ahve to get the combination of image and word just perfect, distill it down to something someone can ingest in six seconds, and do it in such a way that it's both memorable AND works seamlessly with the rest of your advertising message structures.
• I dunno. A city without billboards is just not a city, somehow.
• I never noticed what the ads were about. Maybe this is a type of advertising which has lost it's value? If you're driving...do you really have time to focus on the billboards? I agree with Path on this. I've heard a lot about that Fes brand of widget! And you I buy it Fes Brand Green Beans .95$; Store Brand Green Beans .65$ = I buy SB Green Beans first (and continue to do so as long as the quality is as high/the price remains lower) Fes Brand Garage Doors $950$; Ace Brand Garage Doors 600.$ = I look around and do a bit of consumer research prior to buying. My big question is always what am I paying for "brand recognition." Usually nothing. I actually like the off brand tissues with aloe vs the brand name, as the tissue is softer when I have a sore nose. If I notice an advertisement too often, it starts to piss me off. Someone who doesn't have to worry about the .30$ price difference adding up, a lazy shopper, or those people needing to plaster a designer's name on their butt for the sake of their ego probably reacts differently to advertising. Commercials and ads that are creative (usually low-key) and that make me laugh are the ones I remember brand names from in a postive light.
• Which is why I like billboards. They're like Haiku, in a way. Very limited, very structured, very zen. In urban context, and provided the billboards are well done, I agree with this, basically. I suppose my strong anti-billboard venom stems from the areas I grew up in. In the cities where I lived, I never really even noticed the billboards that much (except for the mechanical ones that rotate, but that's just because I always look between the boards for the fake owl that they hang there to scare off birds). But out in the country, particularly that stretch of highway I described upthread, the goddamn things are a cancer. They're a blight. They're concentrated...not evil. Concentrated numbfucked mediocrity, which is even worse. A pox on Yakov and Glen Motherfucking Campbell and the moronic Baldknobbers and Darren Cocksucking NASCAR Romeo and StealYerDollar City and Shoji Tabuchi and the rest. You've ass-raped the hills, and despite your illusions to the contrary, Jesus does not like you very much. But Fes-brand widgets? I wouldn't shave my nethers with anything else.
• Fes Brand Green Beans .95$; Store Brand Green Beans .65$ = I buy SB Green Beans first If it were only that simple! The reality is usually that Fes Green Beans are $.65 and SB are also $.65, because they are essentially the same product and both Fes and SB are aware of exactly how much the other guy charges. NOW how do you pick? The answer, X times out of ten, is that you'll pick the name that you've heard the most, because you have equated the idea that you've heard about it a lot with the idea that a lot of people use it and thus is must be ok. My big question is always what am I paying for "brand recognition." Generally, nothing. I pay for brand recognition, you pay a premium for the self-generated reassurance that you are receiving, rightly or wrongly, a high quality product or service. And often, you are. If I notice an advertisement too often, it starts to piss me off. Poor advertising can swiftly become self defeating. But there is a serious amount of brain power and creative mojo that goes into really good advertising (think: Spike Jones GAP ads). There's a quality vs. quantity argument aht can be made, but on the other hand, sometimes it is enough to lodge my name in your brain, and electrochemically attach it to a strong emotion. Concentrated numbfucked mediocrity, which is even worse. I agree. The thing is, you're not their audience. Those billboards are not to entice anyone to come to Branson. Those billboards are to whet the appetites of the people that are *already* driving to Branson. Do you imagine that there is a person in Missouri who is not intimately aware of the delights awaiting them in Branson? Of course not. Those billboards are not for you - they are for maw and Paw McGoober, who are driving in from Tiddlypoop Kentucky for long weekend in Redneck Mecca. They are there to entice Maw and Paw to not forget to take in the Yakov show. They are there to help them set their entertainment agenda in a fashion that is spacially and temporally proximic to the actual events.
• OH MY GOD I just went on holiday to this like foreign place and it they didn't even have BILLBOARDS there you know? Like they were too stupid to even have billboards! And I was all like hey have you guys got a Starbucks OMG you haven't even got a Starbucks? Are you people backward or are you like RETARDS or something? I'm like OMG can we please get back to civilization already because you foreign people are all kinda creepy and weird.
• Yeah, I know. "Australia," right? What a fake name. It's like right next door to Germany.
• My dusty-but-humble ballcap off to Fes for the love of a good theory. I disagree with almost the entirety of advertising, of course, but seeing the love of a subject expressed well brings a tear to the ol' peepers. *snif* And in the spirit of friendly rebuttal, may I rejoin: A city without billboards is just not a city, somehow.
• Dude, there was Starbucks? But there was only like three of them? It's like they're not even trying. They also have this place? I mean wtf is that??
• Well Pete, those are indeed beautiful, advertising-free places BUT in each, I will wager that if you were to hie down to the commercial district, you'd see advertising aplenty. The first Sumerian cuneiform writings were bills of lading and inventories of merchandise; ancient billboards festooned Rome, Pompeii, Carthage and Athens; London's bill-stickers formed guilds and warred with each other for prime locations in the 18th century. Throughout the history of mankind - and indeed, the history of mankind is truly a history of commerce and trade - in those places you find humanity collect, in those places where one man meets with another to barter this for that and both leave the deal feeling they got the best of the other, you will ever find the humble advert.
• Humble advert, maybe. Building-sized gapery - I say, "nein!" /faux_fistwavery
• No love for these, even?
• Now, now, to be fair pete... I could post links to images of some lovely buildings in Manhattan [perhaps a scenic Central Park image even?] wherein you will not espy a single advert, flyer, or billboard.
• Nnnnope. I'd just rather see the side of a barn. My life is not made any better or my experience more rich to learn that there is a tobacco product available for purchase. Or there was. And the beauty of a rustic scene is corrupted. (Well? It is: corrupt: made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text. made inferior by alterations - corrupt.)
• I'll grant you Times Square has built itself into a billboard frenzy. And that, in itself, is interesting and a kind of beauty. But it is also the very rare exception. The cityscape has been bent to that purpose in extreme ways and it is electric, and a kind of excitement. It's unusual, but I'd agree that it's a good experience to see. (Isn't it a shame though that Time Square's architecture can't stand on it's own?)
• Beauty thus remains, as always, in the eye of the beholder. Wild places hold no charm for me. But the fruits of human industry? That, to my mind, is truly art, even to the humble barn ad.
• And the barn itself as a fruit of human industry? No love? (or, less?) As a scene to be taken in - does it improve with the placement of ads?
• Hey what about those new techwizzery billboards, you know the ones made of a multitude of vertical strips that rotate so that every minute or so you get a NEW TOTALLY DIFFERENT billboard?
• Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Bad Billboard Project
• Putting a tobacco ad on the side does not, to my mind, lessen the artistry of the barn itself, but adds to it. it highlights the ingenuity of man, to repurpose his constructions to new ends. I look at that picture, I don't think "shame that tobacco ad is there, otherwise this would have been a pretty pic." It IS a pretty pic, tobacco ad and all. Love the vertical strips! Instead of having to sell a static billboard, you can sell a quarter of it four times at a slightly increased price - brilliant, as the Guinness guys would say.
• new techwizzery billboards And with the new "portable" Televisions, you can wheel 'em right into the dining room and watch Jackie Gleason while ya eat!
• I heard of that. It'll never catch on.
• it highlights the ingenuity of man, to repurpose his constructions to new ends. I dunno. I just feel like they'll say anything to get me to buy stuff. It annoys me, but then so does math and people say that's useful. Then I look at SMT's bad billboard link and think - yeah that's not a highlighting of anything good. Take 'em down. Leave the vistas unbesplotched, says I. It's not Shakespeare or Confucius - it's an ad for a gym. It's semiotic pollution.
• I can agree with you there - billboards, by and large, are not well done. But can't we say the same about any art form? How many novels are printed every year, and how many of them are really worth reading? Or more to the point, how many paintings are hung in offices, homes, etc that are really very good? Are all these semiotic pollution? Should we ban them? Sure, the purpose of a billboard, of any ad, is simple: sell you stuff. Is that so wrong? Ads are not the malevolent machinery of some group of sub rosa cryptons trying to brainwash you into mindless automatonia, it's just selling. Some novels are good. Most are shit. I think in any artistic endeavor, those ratios will hold true. But you have to eat some oysters to find a pearl.
• I mean, I see your point, and I take it to mean that there are some places where the addition of a billboard is inapprpriate, for lack of a better term. I would agree. My contention, though, is that eliminating advertising from a city of 17M people is like using a backpack nuke to get rid of a wasp nest. There are better ways.
• Also: oysters, bleh.
• It's even beyond those vertical strip billboards. Billboards have begun utilizing LCD screens. Here in NYC, I'm bombarded with video adverts as I descend into the subway station, or hop into a taxi, or walk down the street...
• You kidding? Fried oyster po' boy? With french fries? And fried okra? And a fried pie for dessert? You funny or somethin', boy?
• I like a good fry up as much as the next Lipitor-prescribed fella, but oysters are a little too snot-like for my taste.
• First blueberries, now this. It's like I don't even know you.
• Hey, I think we all agreed that blueberries are small, weird and probably food for bugs.
• Bears. You mean bears.
• *slurps a Fanny Bay, then a Hama Hama* Life doesn't get any better!
• Agreed on the oysters. Although I still disagree that billboards or other printed advertisement are a good thing, even in concept. But the thing about the Sao Paulo ban is that the pictures and the reaction are sharp because it *just* happened. What seems stark now is because it's just been uncovered. A ratty building wall, empty billboard frames, seemingly uneven cityscapes are only just revealed - in time they will be filled in by "real" things like architecture, building colors, plants - things that belong there for some other purpose than to sell. If the "hit rate" or relative success of billboards is weak anyway - isn't that a good thing? Besides, everyone should be watching more TV anyway. *leans back in laughter, freeze frame, cue audience applause*
• Curses, you infernal logician!
• And with the new "portable" Televisions, you can wheel 'em right into the dining room and watch Jackie Gleason while ya eat! posted by petebest I heard of that. It'll never catch on. posted by Fes Sure it will! You can show 4 minute advertisments every 8 minutes in a half-hour of programing, and the idiots audience will eat it up! MonkeyFilter: some group of sub rosa cryptons trying to brainwash you into mindless automatonia MonkeyFilter: a little too snot-like for my taste Mmmmmmm, taglines. With blueberries.
• *opens up can of "3/8 Allen Wrench Brand Garbonzo Beans"*
• I can agree with you there - billboards, by and large, are not well done. But can't we say the same about any art form? How many novels are printed every year, and how many of them are really worth reading? Or more to the point, how many paintings are hung in offices, homes, etc that are really very good? But one can avoid reading the novels, and for the most part, looking at the paintings.
• It's capitalism/consumerism they have a problem with, Fes old boy...the billboards are just a highly visible symptom.
• I'm guessing many of the empty spaces left behind will be filled with murals, and I don't really know which is uglier, a billboard or a bad mural.
• A bad mural isn't necessarily trying to control your thoughts. *adjusts foil beanie*
• That's a reduction to my mind, rocket. From another angle, seems you're saying that money allows you to dictate the urban landscape in a way that mere citizenship or even community may not. I've never accepted the idea that the "free market" is some force of nature that exists outside of politics (in the basic sense of human governance of lived lives). This is a shift in a balance of power. Not familiar enough with the dynamic there to say how fair an abstract of the popular will this represents, but why not? Absence being what it is, less an imposition than the presence of the billboards surely. /likes old pub signs and fading painted cornershop murals
• A bad mural isn't necessarily trying to control your thoughts Au contraire, ma soeur! The ugly mural is forcing its ugliness into my brain, wrapping ugly tendrils uglily around my cerebral cortex and vibrating at an ugly pitch reminiscent of a Kenny G song, causing flashes of light at the edges of my vision and possible seizures, instead of warm thoughts about racial diversity or regional cultural interest. Thought control extraordinaire, ma cherie!!
• I still can't believe Fes isn't taking the piss. I just can't believe someone could be sincere with that stance.
• Sometimes people disagree with us. It happens.
• I'm with Koko on this one. Inevitably, the murals are done by local artists who never made it to the big time, or high school kids. They're terrible. At least billboards are made by pros, and will only last a month or two. There's one mural in my hometown -- sweet Mothra, is it ever bad. Some high school kid did this Abbey Road ripoff, where a culturally diverse group walks in front of this imaginary tunnel going under the Lake to Toronto, replete with inversed-rainbows and shit. It's mesmerizing in its awfulness. Same kid (I think) did one in the hospital waiting room, where all these forest animals are cavorting in this scene that stretches from fall at the one end to summer on the other, all the animals peacefully being friends under the same stupid inversed rainbow. If you weren't sick before you went to the hospital, you would be now.
• Fes! For god's sake, man, take the piss!
• I don't know if even murals would be allowed in the spaces previously occupied by billboards. One article I read (can't seem to find it again) mentioned that the frames for the now-banned advertisements are not prohibited, and most owners of these structures have opted to leave them intact in hopes that one day the ban will be reversed. So the big ugly skeletons will stay for now. Doubtful that owners of the once-precious ad space would allow murals to go up in place. But who knows? Time will tell I suppose. A few amusing images of Auckland's "Say No to No Billboards" campaign.
• I can agree with you there - billboards, by and large, are not well done. But can't we say the same about any art form? How many novels are printed every year, and how many of them are really worth reading? Or more to the point, how many paintings are hung in offices, homes, etc that are really very good? Are all these semiotic pollution? Should we ban them? Sure, the purpose of a billboard, of any ad, is simple: sell you stuff. Is that so wrong? Ads are not the malevolent machinery of some group of sub rosa cryptons trying to brainwash you into mindless automatonia, it's just selling. Last I checked, even bad novelists weren't plastering their work on the sides of buildings or alongside highways, and I wasn't forced as I drove down the street to look at the banal art hanging on the walls of my neighbor's living room. If a society decides that outdoor advertising is a blight, and restricts it, good on that society, for paying attention to non-corporate-bottom-line interpretations of what constitutes the public good.
• And rocket, you can have capitalism without rampant consumerism. Might even be something to strive for.
• São Paulo's Concrete Jungle [São Paulo] has transformed itself from a dull and featureless capital of finance into the epicenter of Brazilian culture, where art, architecture, design and fashion are flourishing. ... São Paulo feels a bit like an urban artists' colony, a city that fosters pure creative expression without too much commercialism sullying the dream. How else do you explain the city's recent ban on outdoor advertising? Sounds quite attractive. My only gripe with the ban was the planning and implementation.
• It's capitalism/consumerism they have a problem with For the sake of the discussion, in my case it's less so on the former, more so on the latter. But then neither is my objection purely an aesthetic concern. Insofar as images and words affect society, I believe billboards are a negative influence. I wasn't forced as I drove down the street to look That's usually the initial counter-argument to any anti-billboard discussion. And one of the reasons I respect Fes' position (although I disagree) - it's not the old "you don't have to look" argument. It's a genuine pro-billboard-as-valid-commercial-product argument, assuming I understand it. (Did I mention I disagree? I did? Okay. Just checking. . . ) Anyway, reading the previous portion of this particular comment means you agree with everything I say ever forever in perpetuity across all known and unknown lands, dimensions, and cityscapes. Viva Comrade McLuhomsky! Viva! Viva! Heh. Okay, back to your regularly scheduled MoFiltering
• Paulistanos keep their circles tight for security reasons too; kidnappings and carjackings are a fact of life. But there's no billboards, so it all evens out.
• I'm going to Auckland in a couple of days; I'll try to remember to take photos of a) billboards and b) the buildings they're attached to. We'll see which is nicer.
• From another angle, seems you're saying that money allows you to dictate the urban landscape in a way that mere citizenship or even community may not. I've never accepted the idea that the "free market" is some force of nature that exists outside of politics (in the basic sense of human governance of lived lives). This is a shift in a balance of power. Excellent thought, Abiezer! So, if we individuals vote as citizens to take advertising down, and corporations and ad agencies vote to keep them up, whose vote will prevail? Should equal weight be given to the corporate vote?
• Um, Fes has been making the argument that billboards are "art", and that a city with billboards is more beautiful than if they weren't there. That's what I find to be ridiculous. I've been to alot of ugly places, and every single one of them would've been less ugly without billboards. Likewise, I've never seen a single billboard that could've improved the look of any place I've been to. I can believe a pro-billboard stance, but I can't believe a "billboards are beautiful" stance. That's just nuts.
• From another angle, seems you're saying that money allows you to dictate the urban landscape in a way that mere citizenship or even community may not. I've never accepted the idea that the "free market" is some force of nature that exists outside of politics (in the basic sense of human governance of lived lives). This is a shift in a balance of power. That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I believe the opposite - that the power is with the people and that corpoartions/money already have too much influence. The problem lies with legislation that may seem like a good idea ("Yay, no more ugly billboards"), but has far-reaching effects that aren't so good (Billboard workers & designers out of work, up-and-coming businesses unable to establish themselves through advertising, loss of income for building owners). This is government meddling with the livelihood of it's people...and for what? Aesthetics?
• If a society decides that outdoor advertising is a blight, and restricts it, good on that society, for paying attention to non-corporate-bottom-line interpretations of what constitutes the public good. Ok, fine. Most of us don't like billboards! So it's ok to ban them - forget those of us who do like them, forget that they are perfectly legal advertising vehicles for perfectly legal products created (at often significant expense) by perfectly legal companies in service of a perfectly legal commercial enterprise and posted on privately owned property with the owners consent and remuneration. We don't find them aesthetically pleasing, so they are out. Do I have to actually type out the Niemoeller quote? Even if we completely discount the potential for artistic merit, this is simply the tyranny of the majority. A private enterprise, breaking no previous law, paying fair value for services rendered, is being robbed, both of previous investment and future return, purely on the basis of aesthetics. I think that's unjust, and what's more, it enshrines intolerance as law. There are many things in this world that I don't like. That does not mean that they should all be banned. Just because the purpose of something is to sell something else does not make it inherently evil. I'm not saying that crappy billboards are not an eyesore, or that they cannot be restricted, both in content and location. What I'm saying is just banning them out of hand, in places where they have previously proliferated, smacks of arbitrary exercise of power.
• I can believe a pro-billboard stance, but I can't believe a "billboards are beautiful" stance. That's just nuts. Well, not all of them are beautiful, of course. A lot of them suck. But I do appreciate the artistic appeal of some of them. It really is an art form - often done badly, granted. But occasionally done exquisitely. Believe what you want, but I have seen lots of billboards that I thought were beautiful. Perhaps it is, like Path suggests, in part because I am a marketing guy, and can appreciate perhaps a bit more keenly the creative process and forethought that goes into them, like a grammarian can appreciate a well-lathed turn of phrase. It is, I realize, a minority position :)
• *applauds* I'm smack in the middle of a petebest and Fes sandwich. I think I like it. Thank you for your admirable stance, Fes & petebest.
• Monkeyfilter: the middle of a petebest and Fes sandwich.
• Do I have to actually type out the Niemoeller quote? You mean the "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up . . ." - that quote? Cause I think that's technically a Godwin - can we get a ruling on that? Judges? I'd bet if it was put to a vote, most places would ban billboards. Nothing wrong with people voting for what they want, and hopefully the billboard putter-uppers could somehow be retrained to become electricians or history teachers or something. In some parts of the world, loudspeakers throughout the town start blaring music and exercise instructions at 6 a.m. I'd bet people would vote to ban that too.
• I think, like most thins in life, extremes are, well, extreme. Are some billboards eyesores that the countryside would be better off without? Surely. Are there others that are entertaining, informative, and bring a smile to the face? Just as surely. Nobody wants to see an ad on every single surface on which he comes in contact, but I think a town without any outward advertising at all would be pretty damn dull. Lots of advertising is inappropriate and just plain bad, but a hell of a lot of creativity and artistry goes into plenty of it. That West Virginia mountaintop would look better without the tacky Mickey D's sign. But that old warehouse by the railroad tracks would just be a big hunk of mud without the fading partrait of Robin Hood hawking his enriched white flour.
• A private enterprise, breaking no previous law, paying fair value for services rendered, is being robbed, both of previous investment and future return, purely on the basis of aesthetics. This argument might hold water if there weren't 24 zillion other media in which those poor, poor private enterprises can advertise their goods and services -- and if it didn't assume that aesthetics are not a legitimate factor in the calculus of the public good.
• What I'm saying is just banning them out of hand, in places where they have previously proliferated, smacks of arbitrary exercise of power. Logically, isn't the flipside just as true? Isn't allowing advertisers to put up billboards just as much an arbitrary exercise of power -- the power of money, trumping the people's will? I'm sorry, but when it comes down to a struggle between what the majority of people in a community want, and what the corporations in that community want, I'm gonna pick the people every time.
• And I'm a marketing writer by profession, Fes, so I'm not de facto opposed to advertising. And I work for a big corporation which I believe is, as corporations go, a good one, so I don't believe that corporations are evil (just amoral). And I believe that capitalism may be the most efficient organization of a society to produce what it needs, so you can't paint me with the "wacky liberal" brush (though I believe capitalism must necessarily be leavened by socialism where it's not actually efficient, or where its efficiencies are detrimental to society).
• forget that they are perfectly legal advertising vehicle Um, they're only perfectly legal when they're not banned. You keep using the term "perfectly legal" to validate your position, but that's circular when you are arguing to keep something legal. posted on privately owned property Now you're bringing up a bigger topic. Do you think the government should have the authority to tell someone to clean up the rotted out chevy frame in their front yard? There's already all kinds of eyesore laws. A private enterprise, breaking no previous law This is an argument against making any laws at all, since everything is legal until a law is made paying fair value for services rendered, is being robbed, both of previous investment and future return No they aren't. They got their investment. If they had just rented a year worth billboard space last week, and this law was passed in secrecy with no one being aware of it, then yeah, you could say they were ripped off, and should be compensated for that year's worth of rent. But barring that kind of unlikely scenario, no one has been ripped off of their investment. Believe what you want, but I have seen lots of billboards that I thought were beautiful. Could you photograph one next time you see one? I've never seen one, and can't imagine what a beautiful billboard would look like.
• But that old warehouse by the railroad tracks would just be a big hunk of mud without the fading partrait of Robin Hood hawking his enriched white flour. I think the warehouse represents more as a big hunk of mud than it does hawking flour. An eyesore, yes, but without the aesthetic and cognitive dissonance of Robin Hood and his white flour. Who owns the warehouse, what was it for, why is it abandoned, what's up with the town it's in, etc. That's what it says. Or what it should be saying, rather. "Buy Nottingham Flour" is apropos of nothing except the $250 the warehouse got for putting it up there. Wait - is it the Nottingham Flour Warehouse? Cause if so then strike that - reverse it. I'm gonna pick the people every time. There was definitely a time before November 2004 when I would have agreed. But perhaps that's a different discussion entirely . . .
• So it's ok to legislate someone's investment out of existence if they have other ways to invest? It's ok to hurt someone so long as the wound is not deep and they can run away? And is not the determination of aesthetic good a personal, subjective one? That the favoring of one particular aspect injures those that do not find that aspect agreeable? I find pink houses unsightly - does that mean I should be able to force you to paint your home some other "acceptable" color? Isn't allowing advertisers to put up billboards just as much an arbitrary exercise of power -- the power of money, trumping the people's will? Not really, because advertisers pay the property owner/billboard company for the privilege of doing so. If a billboard isn't effective - or a property owner decides not to rent - that privilege has ended. The people have no such restriction. Look, I believe in democracy, too. I just don't think it should be used vituperatively, and without thought to the very real injuries that accrue. We rail against eminent domain, and rightly so - is this not similar at it core? so you can't paint me with the "wacky liberal" brush I have not. Nor have I ever.
• It's true, he hasn't.
• they're only perfectly legal when they're not banned. Perhaps previously legal, then. But the same can be said for banned books - well, they're illegal now! It doesn't make it right. Do you think the government should have the authority to tell someone to clean up the rotted out chevy frame in their front yard? Good point. I am of two minds on that. I'd like to say that I would remain staunch in my defense of private property. As that guy's neighbor, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it. If they had just rented a year worth billboard space last week, and this law was passed in secrecy with no one being aware of it, then yeah, you could say they were ripped off, and should be compensated for that year's worth of rent. But barring that kind of unlikely scenario, no one has been ripped off of their investment. I was under the impression that this was exactly what was happening - I could be wrong about that. But keep also in mind that you are removing the ability of the property owner from renting that space in perpetuity. Could you photograph one next time you see one? Well, here's several pretty good ones. And here's a book of them. That'd be a start.
• *admires the Ford Mustang billboard* *continues to ride bike*
• I've been to alot of ugly places, and every single one of them would've been less ugly without billboards. So true. The US cliche is that of the strip mall streets with all of their advertising and McFoods and big box stores. Is this what we want for all of our cities? Boise's North End allows low key signs on businesses, and it's a relaxing and unique place to shop and eat. Sun Valley is mostly the same--seems like the ugliest signage is reserved for the middle/low classes. re: private property--Car hulks, high weeds, extreme amounts of trash--all this is regulated by city/county governments. Not only is this kind of thing an eyesore that reduces property values for everyone around, but it can also be a health hazard, an invitation to rats and a cause of fires. As a society, there are times when the good of the many outweigh the rights of the few. So it's ok to legislate someone's investment out of existence if they have other ways to invest? OK? I don't know about that, but it's happened. Laws have been passed, and we all agreed to abide by them, whether we like it or not. Fair? Maybe not. Real life? Fershure. Again, moderation is everything. There's nothing wrong with SOME advertisement in SOME places, but this ugly glut is too much. Freddy Freak car saleman's wide open mouth on a 50 foot billboard? I don't think so. Idaho Power Co. advertising? Crap, they're the only power company here. QWest telephone? Same. United Airlines needs a huge billboard of a jet? Why? Most of this is unnecessary. Let the consumer seek what they are interested in.
• Okay, the Bic ad is gold.
• Those are some awesome billboards, Fes. I think I need a "Clowns hate tangelos" T-shirt.
• But the same can be said for banned books The point was that you used the term "perfectly legal" 4 or 5 times trying to justify why you shouldn't ban billboards. It's like saying "you should ban books because they're perfectly legal!". Well, here's several pretty good ones I'm sorry, which one of those was supposed to be beautiful? A funny joke doesn't make one beautiful, nor does a gimmick. (the book link doesn't work, btw)
• er, "you shouldn't ban books because they're perfectly legal!"
• The arguments they all make sense Rutting season makes one dense Open your ears as well as your eyes Lee brand jeans or new Levis? Leviathan ads don't sit on fence.
• Let me preface this by saying that it's only a vague inkling, and that it may be based on experience on other forums, and I'm too lazy to read everyone's comment history to find evidence that anyone here is of that stripe. But... I have the feeling that at least some people who argue for banning something they personally find unattractive are the same people who swell up to twice their normal size and brandish their broad definitions of "freedom of speech" like the sword of God when someone complains about something the sword brandishers don't find unattractive. If we're for freedom of speech, does it matter if it's in the interest of commerce? At least commercial speech has some boundries in the US that are limited by law. And, at least here, corporations are "persons", as I recall, and have rights similar to those we proles enjoy. You, and I, and the rest of the world know that commercial speech has the intent of selling us something, and we, as grownups, get to judge whether we want to heed their messages. If you watch most tv, you see far more advertising than you do on your way to work as the billboards whisk by, or, while stuck in traffic, you chat on your cel phone (disclaimer: I'm from California where we hardly use public transportation,) and we all spend more time and money than we'd like avoiding spam and embedded advertising on the internet. So, do we ban tv advertising since it clutters up our enjoyment of the programs we want to watch, probably at the cost of variety? I can't think of a good reason not to ban spam, but's a lot like those annoying flyers you find in your mailbox, or stuffed among the pages of printed newspapers, or tacked to utility poles asking if you want to work at home or take part in a miraculous weight loss adventure. I have to admit that I like the old fashioned barn advertising, and miss the messages farmers used to mow into their fields. Both struck me as a kind of folk art. Maybe billboards are too, in the a way, out in the hinterlands. But, I stand by my love of their importance to cityscapes. And, would you really notice the abandoned warehouse without the flour advertisement? I'll point and laugh if you say yes, since you're not going to take the time to find out why it was abandoned. It'd just be another uninteresting building alongside the road. And, by the way, I hate rap music. Can we ban that?
• I have not. Nor have I ever. True. I mistook the identity of a rampaging billboard painter.
• corporations are "persons", as I recall, and have rights similar to those we proles enjoy. Well that's the root of the problem, isn't it? Not a valid justification for billboards, in my book. Should corporations really be invested with free speech protections in the same way as individual citizens? If we can regulate other forms of pollution they emit, why can't we regulate their emission of this form of pollution? That's what it is, IMO. And if the society agrees, and is okay with not receiving the revenue it'd get from billboards, I don't see what the problem with the ban is. If you watch most tv, you see far more advertising than you do on your way to work as the billboards whisk by, or, while stuck in traffic, you chat on your cel phone You can't turn off your commute.
• So it's ok to legislate someone's investment out of existence if they have other ways to invest? If the investment is deemed bad for the society, yes, why not? Say I'm growing poppies to make heroin. Say they're not illegal. Say society decides heroin hurts society too much to keep legal, and legislates my investment in my poppy farm out of existence. Is that a bad thing? I find pink houses unsightly - does that mean I should be able to force you to paint your home some other "acceptable" color? By this logic, zoning laws shouldn't exist. Is that a society you'd want to live in?
• Is a flyer stapled to a utility pole advertising some local band playing the club Friday night considered "outdoor advertising", and covered by the ban? Do you still support the ban if it is? Not all billboards and ads are for evil corporations.
• You've convinced me. Anyone and everyone should be permitted to do whatever they want. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a truly free market, and that would be the worst of all possible fates. What do local band flyers have to do with this discussion? We're talking about billboards.
• 
• I don't think we are just talking about billboards. From the article: "All other forms of publicity in public spaces, like distribution of fliers, will also stop. The law also regulates the dimensions of store signs, and will force many well-known companies to reduce them substantially by a formula based on the size of their facades. Another provision, much criticized by owners of transportation companies, outlaws advertising of any kind on the sides of the city's thousands of buses and taxis."
• btw threads like this are a big part of why I love this place. We can disagree passionately without descending to disrespect. Would that there were more forums that encouraged this kind of interaction. I disagree with TUM on this; I think what's going on here is completely fine. It's not poo-flinging. It's passionate debate.
• Fair point, TUM. My defense is that the vast majority of the discussion here has concerned big, public advertising, like billboards.
• And for the record I totally disagree with the ban on distribution of flyers. (Even though they're usually a waste of trees. 'Cause of some vestigial memory of Revolutionary-era pamphleteers.)
• I wasn't suggesting there was poo flinging on this thread - that tagline used to appear up by the MoFi Logo.
• I love the billboards! I always will Because the billboards give me such-a-thrill. Oh, when I was just a child You know the billboards drove me wi-i-ild!
• "Should corporations really be invested with free speech protections in the same way as individual citizens?" Yes, I think they should, since they're really collectives of thousands of people who have invested in them, and that includes not only a few big-money sorts, but a supporting cast of thousands of little guys who have a few shares, or who have 401K or IRA investments which they hope will allow them to live decent lives when they retire. And they're certainly not going to get that from Social Security. I worked for more than 30 years, paying the maximum each year, and get about $1300 US/month. My 401K, invested in stocks and bonds, and a pension plan which is similarly funded, are welcome additions. So, if my investments weren't allowed to represent me with by advertising, I could be SOL, along with a huge percentage of the population here. Tell me, what's in your wallet for when you retire? And, gimme a break, advertising is not in the category of "pollution" that endangers our lives, and billboards are a really minor problem in comparison to other issues. "You can't turn off your commute." So, you're so sensitive that you can't block this stuff out on the way to work? I'd bet you can't tell us what billboards you pass every day unless they're really eye-catching, maybe even fun to look at, if you're honest about this. And, you still haven't addressed my points about other forms of advertising that are much more intrusive. Billboards are a nit, in my eyes, but I'm not willing to let them be banned. "If the investment is deemed bad for the society, yes, why not?" Are billboards bad for society to the same level that destructive drugs are? Can we cut down the hyperole, since it's use makes us look silly? "By this logic, zoning laws shouldn't exist. Is that a society you'd want to live in?" Zoning laws and banning pink houses are very much seperate issues. There are communities which have rules about decorating issues and the like, but they're not civic rules, only specific to a housing development that you move into after you read their list of rules and decide you can live with them. If you don't like them you can decide not to move in. Zoning laws, on the other hand, are city/county attempts to give home and business owners a clue as to where they can build and how they can use various areas. If you don't like your neighbor's pink house, you need to talk to the neighbor in the absense of housing development standards, and deal with their opinion of what "free speech" encompasses, but if your neighbor put a slaughter house next to you, you can look to zoning laws to not allow that, unless you chose to move into an area with no restrictions. But, what does all that have to do with billboards?
• HW: The flyers are advertising, often for commercial purposes, and many consider them an ugly eyesore. Supporting a ban on billboards but not band flyers is inconsistent. That's why I brought it up. The ban covers "all forms of publicity in public spaces" (a free sppech issue?), as well as forces shopkeepers to redesign their signs. The taxi and bus provisions will no doubt raise fares, hitting those who can least afford it. I'm with Fes. This is arbitrary exercise of power.
• I find it interesting that this thread has garnered so many comments and generated the breadth of discussion that it has. I would suggest that tomorrow morning, everyone take notice of the number of billboards that you pass on the way to work, and what they advertise. Look at each billboard with these questions in mind? It is invasive? Creative? Truly serving a purpose in terms of what it's supposed to do? Would it be better or worse without it? Could you live without it? Does it block something that would make a better backdrop for your travel? Finally, given these parameters, would you increase the amount of advertising on your specific route, or decrease it? I couldn't get excited about Fes' billboards. The God one--You wanted a sign, here's a sign. God--was humorous, but do we really need a huge black board with the lettering taking up 1/16th of the space? And do we really need to be preached at in fifty-foot blocks? Remember folks, Jesus saves. Moses Bank. Whatever.
• All the half-nude Advertising Gets my penis Fully rising! BURMA SHAVE
• Yes, I think they should, since they're really collectives of thousands of people who have invested in them, and that includes not only a few big-money sorts, but a supporting cast of thousands of little guys who have a few shares, or who have 401K or IRA investments which they hope will allow them to live decent lives when they retire. Don't those people already have those rights as, well, individual people? Should investors get more dibs on rights than non-investors? Why can't they just vote as individuals (with their interest in their corporate holdings as part of their overall self-interest) to keep billboards, or for representatives who'll keep billboards? Why should corporate money enter the equation? Should corporations, which don't care either way about the environment other than as it affects their current and future bottom line, have as much of a say in that environment as the real people who do care? So, you're so sensitive that you can't block this stuff out on the way to work? I try. Believe me, I try. But why should I have to? And, gimme a break, advertising is not in the category of "pollution" that endangers our lives, and billboards are a really minor problem in comparison to other issues. That billboards aren't deadly, and that there are bigger problems out there -- that means I shouldn't think they're a problem at all, and that if a majority wants to get rid of them they shouldn't have that ability? Zoning laws and banning pink houses are very much seperate issues. Zoning laws can absolutely deal with what appearance is acceptable, including colors. But that's not really the point. The point is that this is very much a zoning issue. Many localities having zones in which signage and/or advertising are prohibited. We can look at Sao Paolo as a case where a city is extending that zone to cover the entire city, because that's what people want. I still don't get what's wrong with that. Are billboards bad for society to the same level that destructive drugs are? Can we cut down the hyperole, since it's use makes us look silly? I and many others happen to believe that hyperconsumerism is VERY destructive. To wit: that this is happening in Sao Paolo. We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. Listen, I'm not at all humorless about this issue. I laugh at clever billboards. Some are artful. Some make me think. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to resent that they're forced on me, or that I shouldn't be able to wish they weren't. That you like some billboards and think people who say they don't are kidding themselves shouldn't trump a locality's ability to decide what's acceptable and what's not in its environment.
• Supporting a ban on billboards but not band flyers is inconsistent. That's like saying, "Supporting a ban on heroin but not marijuana is inconsistent." (Pardon the hyperbole.)
• The taxi and bus provisions will no doubt raise fares, hitting those who can least afford it. Our local bus company decided to sell more ad space instead of raising fares last year. I couldn't be happier about it.
• I very much agree with Hawthorne's line on the corporate person. The rights and immunities they enjoy are the historical reason for their existence, but they were the creation of people at a certain time and aren't magically exempt from changes in legislative frameworks or whatever. There's a number of critiques of the unusual privileges they've accumulated. Maybe it's the European in me that finds this innocuous: there's historic streets in the UK where they do tell you exactly what colour you can paint your house or what glass you can use for the windows, and no-one dies. Just to torpedo a lot of my own argument, plenty of that is silly, as in lots of ways the mediaeval style was precisely jerry-building add-ons to existing structures in a largely unregulated environment. If you take the train north of Crewe (ugly rail town I grew up around) through Wigan (of the casino and pier fame), there's Uncle Joe's Mint Balls keeping it all a-glow and it always cheers me to see it. Erm, did I have a point? Oh, yeah, keep your balls glowing!
• Has anyone here been to - oh, you know, what's that place? The one in Brazil? You know the one, the one that's a threat to our way of life.
• 
• I'd buy it!
• That's like saying, "Supporting a ban on heroin but not marijuana is inconsistent." Seriously? Tell you what...I'll go compile a list of people killed by heroin, and you go make a list of strawmen people killed by being forced to look at a billboard. Meet you back here in five.
• Has anyone here been to - oh, you know, what's that place? The one in Brazil? You know the one, the one that's a threat to our way of life. Texas? Wait, no, Texas City?
• Does visual pollution exist? Do billboards contribute to visual pollution? Does the government of Sao Paulo have the right to pass laws regulating billboards, based on their right to control visual pollution? Vote "yes" to all three for a chance to Win! Fabulous! Prizes! Also, Albuquerque's Environmental Story has a section about this wherein it states: In 1982, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the sign ordinance in the landmark case of Temple Baptist Church v. City of Albuquerque. The court held that aesthetics alone was a sufficient reason for a zoning regulation such as the sign ordinance and that the ordinance did not violate the sign owners' constitutional rights. And also that the sign owners were given five years to comply with the law. I dunno if Sao Paulo sign owners were given five years, but that seems pretty reasonable. (The Albuquerque article also talks about efforts to eradicate graffiti which is an interesting aside.) If we're for freedom of speech, does it matter if it's in the interest of commerce? Yes. Commercial Speech as a subset of Free Speech law is kind of interesting, with answers.com stating that "Generally, commercial speech that is not false or misleading and does not advertise illegal or harmful activity is protected by the First Amendment." So the free speech question is largely irrelevant to this discussion as it would concern content over the physical billboards themselves. Consider a billboard with some slanderous or obscene content - something definitely outside the permissions of free speech - and the issues that arise from everything else about it - size, placement, pollutionisticality of it, etc. Those, it seems, are the more relevant aspects.
• We can look at Sao Paolo as a case where a city is extending that zone to cover the entire city, because that's what people want. I still don't get what's wrong with that. I think this is the crux of the disagreement - eliminate all the other aspects - the beauty/not of billboards themselves, the invasive/not aspect of their messages, we come down, I think, to the idea: is it ok for the majority to make a law that can cause financial injury to the minority on the sole basis of aesthetics? Underlying that is the idea of whether or not such a thing violates what we generally consider the basic civic rights of those injured? I know nothing of the Brazilian constitution, so it could be that this sort of legislation is well within the scope of their law. But I do know that in the US, this sort of thing is occasionally done, but is usually accompanied by some sort of redress for the economic damage caused. But I also contend that bans on materials for aesthetic reasons is an awfully slippery slope. Most states authorize municipalities to legislate obscenity issues and zoning (although I've never heard of a zoning ordinance that discusses color, I'll conede that point, HW - this can easily be seen as at it's core a zoning issue), there is always the underlying thought that local law, when it violates civil rights, is invalid. Perhaps a compromise measure? restricting billboards where they currently do not exist (to stop the spread) or where local flora/fauna are such that billboards can reasonably be seen as a blighting influence, but retention in urban areas where they have existed in quantity for lengthy periods of time?
• shit, legal precendent. Suddenly my intellectual ass is starting to feel a bit more papery.
• fwiw, that New Mexico law was regarding the size of the sign, not it's entire existence. Sao Paulo will have to come up with some kind of similar compromise eventually, I would think. But for now I'm imagining enjoying it all billboardless and passionate in that steamy Latin way.
• *squeeze* No, feels normal to me.
• Two Caipirinhas, please. It's the only thing that gets me by in this sterile, monotonous urbscape. are you sure, Cap? Try again. *waggle*
• Check out some groovy Sao Paulo architecture (and for those naughty enough to weather it - some images contain pre-billboard-ban billboards!) Saúde! (?)
• Has anyone here been to - oh, you know, what's that place? The one in Brazil? You know the one, the one that's a threat to our way of life. Where the nuts come from? We can look at Sao Paolo as a case where a city is extending that zone to cover the entire city, because that's what people want. I still don't get what's wrong with that. Well, some people want it. Without some kind of referendum, how do we know that the city council (or whatever legal body had that 45-1 vote) is really reflecting a consensus of the citizenry? The way the article reads, the impetus for the total ban was the government's failure to enforce the limits already in place (partly through the corruption of its own inspectors). Kind of like when Mom said, "if you don't put that one toy away I'm taking all of them." Perhaps a compromise measure? *spit take* Surely you jest! Maestro, cue my Ado Annie music! With me it's all er nuthin'. Is it all er nuthin' with you? It cain't be "in between" It cain't be "now and then" No half and half romance will do! Take me like I am, er leave me be! If you cain't give me all, give me nuthin' And nuthin's whut you'll git from me! Not even sump'n? Nuthin's whut you'll git from me! *orders case of purple chimp dye*
• Nothing says fun in Sao Paolo like terrifying the homeless. (but, at least there are no visible billboards)
• > Nothing says fun in Sao Paolo like terrifying the homeless. I found that very funny.
• Seriously? Tell you what...I'll go compile a list of people killed by heroin, and you go make a list of strawmen people killed by being forced to look at a billboard. Meet you back here in five. The (obvious) point, rocket, was that billboards and flyers are apples and oranges. But you can spin it however you care to, rather than addressing that point, if it makes you happy.
• is it ok for the majority to make a law that can cause financial injury to the minority on the sole basis of aesthetics? I'd go beyond this to state that it's quite possible in this case that the injury to the society at large is more than just aesthetic in nature. See all the work sociologists are doing about the negative effects of consumerism. That's the part you're overlooking, methinks. Maybe you don't think there's anything there, but I think you need to address it.
• Fes-touring in Atlanta.
• Also, I have an idea for a horror flick involving a TV show that uses a fake skeleton to "punk" homeless people, which eventually takes on a life of its own and stalks and kills all those involved with the TV show. To be promoted sans billboards, of course. Also, my favorite public-space ad ever, from the #6 subway in NYC: "Anal warts? Try LASERS!"
• HW: I believe I already addressed that point when I said The flyers are advertising, often for commercial purposes, and many consider them an ugly eyesore. Add the fact that the Sao Paulo ban appears to affect them both, and it doesn't look so much like apples and oranges to me. The law in question is a wide-ranging one, covering billboards, flyers, storefront signs, and public transit vehicles. Concentrating the discussion just on the billboards (which have few supporters, other than Fes) is disingenuous.
• I hear you, rocket. I thought you were saying I was being inconsistent by having a different opinion of flyers (for 'em) and (against). I don't think that's inconsistent at all. The heroin/weed hyperbole was meant to make that point. Whether billboards and flyers are apples and oranges in the eyes of Sao Paolo doesn't change the fact that they are in reality apples and oranges. That's what I was trying to say, and that's what I thought you were trying to refute.
• "a different opinion of flyers (for 'em) and BILLBOARDS (against)..."
• okay, back to work writing an ad -- but not a billboard, never a billboard!
• Great William Castle's Ghost, HW, it is a crime against humanity that we don't have the dosh to start up MonkeyPictures, just to produce that film. *off to sell more program ads so we can pay the house rental on the summer operetta*
• And we could double-feature it with a musical version of Richard McBeef!
• Saying corporations are people is as ridiculous as saying websites are people. I'd bet you can't tell us what billboards you pass every day If the billboards are as ineffective as you describe, then you can't justify a need for them. In fact, banning them is a service to the corporations wasting their money on them. The way the article reads, the impetus for the total ban was the government's failure to enforce the limits already in place (partly through the corruption of its own inspectors). Kind of like when Mom said, "if you don't put that one toy away I'm taking all of them." The way the article reads, the impetus for the total ban was that when they just tried to restrict and limit, advertiser kept looking for loopholes, and the government was forced to resort to a total ban. From the article: "All our efforts to negotiate have had no effect because none of the accords and agreements we reached with the advertising sector were ever complied with," Mayor Gilberto Kassab said in an interview. "A billboard that was forced to come down would be back up a week later in a different spot. There was a climate of impunity." The advertisers brought this on themselves.
• Saying corporations are people is as ridiculous as saying websites are people. According individual rights to corporations is mostly absurd, and yet that's exactly the way it stands in the eyes of the law. However, I've agreed to waive any snarking I would do on the topic in exchange for this pony keg of microbrewed beer and some beads. Thank you OmniCorp!
• I for one am glad Fes is back in the hizzouse! To him I give the credit for the vigor displayed in this thread! Also: I've never heard of a zoning ordinance that discusses color I know you concede the point, Fes, but here's one anyway. Just Google "zoning building color".
• According individual rights to corporations is mostly absurd a very complex legal issue that people didn't just pull of their asses for the hell of it. There are very good reasons for corporations to be treated legally as individual entities, even if it sometimes leads to undesirable consequences.
• "All our efforts to negotiate have had no effect because none of the accords and agreements we reached with the advertising sector were ever complied with...There was a climate of impunity." The advertisers brought this on themselves. Well, I don't see how the advertisers, all on their own, could have created this "climate of impunity." It takes two to tango, and it takes a rulebreaker AND a rule enforcer to create impunity.
• There are very good reasons for corporations to be treated legally as individual entities, even if it sometimes leads to undesirable consequences. Gimme more. I find this debate fascinating.
• There are very good reasons for corporations to be treated legally as individual entities Okay - like what? (Seriously, I just dunno) it takes a rulebreaker AND a rule enforcer to create impunity. "Impunity: Exemption from punishment, penalty, or harm." Ohh, okay, so you're saying that it took advertisers breaking the law and inspectors allowing them to break the law for the "climate of impunity" to exist, yes? Just axin' cause I had to read that a few times. Cause it seems like someone could be impudent without the help of anyone/anything else, but in this case the "climate" required both parties
• Darn you HWingo! You stole my Preview button!
• a very complex legal issue that people didn't just pull of their asses for the hell of it Don't know this for sure, but my understanding is that "people" representing government and corporations came up with corporation-as-person, for largely self-serving reasons -- and "the people" didn't know what was happening until it was already a fait accompli.
• great minds, etc., petes
• Well, for one, asset protection. Incorporating your business means that it, not you personally, is legally liable for any wrongdoing or error done on behalf of the business. If I own an auto repair business and a malfunctioning lift crushes your leg, you can go after the business assets if it's incorporated. If it's just my sole proprietorship, you can also go after my house and car and children's college fund. Having the legal rights and responsibilities of a person means that the business, not you, is responsible. In addition, owners of corporate stock can maintain a greater level of privacy, if they wish. Can't do this if you're in a sole proprietorship or partnership. Tangentially related are myriad legal and economic issues related to multiple ownership of something that operates as a single entity that I can't begin to really discuss with any real depth (IANAL, and I'm hoping one chimes in to give actual expert testimony here). Also, and this is a pretty big one, the corporation continues to exist regardless of what may happen to stockholders or corporate officers. Sole proprietorships and LLCs get bound up in all kinds of bureaucratic nonsense and can grind to a halt if an owner or partner dies, but corporations are allowed to keep on truckin' because they are recognized as still existing individuals.
• Wikipedia entry (usual caveats, natch) on the concept of a "juristic person" and its origins. Also included is an advantage I hadn't thought of: extending 1st Amendment rights to corporations -- like newspapers.
• Don't know this for sure, but my understanding is that "people" representing government and corporations came up with corporation-as-person, for largely self-serving reasons If you follow the Santa Clara case link in that article, you'll see that the concept came out of comments in a Supreme Court case over alleged unfair taxation of a corporation. So it was actually created by the Supreme Court and subsequent legal opinions.
• I'm pretty sure the rights corporations enjoy as legal entities come with a few responsibilities and liabilities as well. As an example, if a corporation is sued for dumping toxic waste in a school playground, who is liable for damages? Without corporation-as-entity you can only go after the individual(s) directly responsible, and maybe get a few bucks out of them after they declare personal bankruptcy. Meanwhile the corporation itself would continue unpunished. But I'm far from an expert on this, so I'll just watch it unfold...
• Umm, corporations are persons under the law in order to make the law apply to corporations, basically. It has tricky areas, such as punishment under criminal law, in that you can't throw a corporation in jail, or as in the same-sex marriage debate here in Canada, that is two persons could marry, then technically a person could marry a corporation or two corporations could marry, in order to take advantage of tax provisions and succession problems, but long story short -- corporations are persons in order for the law to apply without duplicating the entire body of law.
• It just develops two sets of precedent under the common law. Obviously.
• I was thinking the reverse of the same situation rocket - was going to say that if a company dumps toxic waste then folds, there's no one to hold responsible. But I should read up a little first, no doubt.
• Seems like from what little reading I've done, corporate rights is a big thing, corporate responsibility, not so much. And then there's corporate ethics. HAW!
• Ah, Jeez, I shouldn't have said "impunity." That always brings on an attack of the Gilbert and Sullivans. We have missed our opportunity To post billboards with impunity, For we played on the felicity Of inspectors' bribed complicity. Not a thing shall now be advertised, Ballyhooed or hawked or glamorized There are no ads (times infinity) Now allowed in this vicinity. No, we must not lose our senses, If they stick up ads on fences They should not be here! Pitchmanship their dreadful trade is-- Nice companions for young ladies! How beautifully blue the sky, This building rises very high, Continue fine I hope it may, But there were signs here yesterday. To-morrow they'll be up again (Unless we have a total ban), Yet people say - well some folk do- That we have gone to far. Do you?
• Incorporating your business means that it, not you personally, is legally liable for any wrongdoing or error done on behalf of the business. Wouldn't it be possible to allow businesses to incorporate without granting them all the rights of individual people? Sole proprietorships and LLCs get bound up in all kinds of bureaucratic nonsense and can grind to a halt if an owner or partner dies, but corporations are allowed to keep on truckin' because they are recognized as still existing individuals. Is it possible that this endows corporations with an unfair advantage vis-a-vis individual people, in that corporations get all the rights of individuals, plus relative immortality? Umm, corporations are persons under the law in order to make the law apply to corporations, basically. Does it have to be this way? Might we make a legal system with laws that apply to corporations without considering them as persons? While I have my bias (basically, that while juristic persons and natural persons both have rights and responsibilities, juristic persons are usually much better positioned to maximize their rights and lessen their responsibilities), these aren't rhetorical questions. I want to understand what we've got, and whether it's reasonable to think there might be something better that we can work towards. I know that the current state of affairs is a recent creation, and question whether we should assume it's the best possible resolution of the (many) issues.
• So it was actually created by the Supreme Court and subsequent legal opinions. And just happens to benefit shareholders (especially big shareholders) and corporate officers, without "the people" having much of a say. It's an old story.
• Wouldn't it be possible to allow businesses to incorporate without granting them all the rights of individual people? They don't have all the rights now, but yeah, sure. But doesn't fairness dictate that if we're going to demand of them pretty much all of the legal responsibilities of people that we should also extend them some rights? If you take away the incentives to incorporate, there's no reason for a company to do it. Why should my company take on legal responsibilities if there's nothing in it for the company? Is it possible that this endows corporations with an unfair advantage vis-a-vis individual people, in that corporations get all the rights of individuals, plus relative immortality? Possible, but unlikely. Corporations don't live forever. They just live longer. Why is it more fair that they choke on red tape just because a CEO dies? Particularly if there are hundreds or thousands of owners to the company? Does it have to be this way? All your questions are "does it have to" or "isn't it possible." The answer to those questions on any legal or political topic are always no and yes, respectively. The question is, what's the better alternative? And I don't mean something vague like "make corporations responsible but don't give them all of these rights" (again, one could argue that there's an unfair double standard here with no trouble at all), I mean a thorough, systematic approach to corporate responsibilities and rights. One that bears in mind the problems of bogging down the legal system with unnecessary cruft even more than it is. And just happens to benefit shareholders (especially big shareholders) and corporate officers, without "the people" having much of a say. It's an old story. I'd remind you that Supreme Court justices are not politicians who are beholden to corporate interests. I'd remind you further that the crux of this court case was not whether corporations should be extended such rights -- the issue simply wasn't under debate. This was an offhand comment made by the Chief Justice in the course of the case that lived on as legal precedent. I doubt any palms were greased here, if that's what you're implying there. I know we all like to think of corporations as big shady exploitative Wal-Marts and Monsantos, but the fact is that the majority of incorporated businesses are small-to-moderate-scale, privately owned businesses, and they accept the responsibilities of legal "personhood" so that they can reap some of the benefits. This isn't just for fat guys in suits. It can help all manner of people just like you. My family, for instance, owns a very small but profitable retail business in a tiny town in the Midwest. Incorporation was a conscious step they took decades ago to preserve the integrity of the company and provide our families with legal protections so that we can continue to hand it down from generation to generation. And it's worked very well, for nearly three-quarters of a century now.
• I'm not against business, or businesspeople, MCT. And I understand the benefits of incorporation to average Joes like me. I'm just against giving corporations too much power, which I believe is the biggest problem we've got these days, structurally. It was "we the people," not "we the people and the corporations," and for a long time state governments had the ability to dissolve corporations that ithey felt weren't serving society's interests. But since then corporations have gained a whole lot of power, and corporate personhood has been a big part of that, and corporations have stopped being beholden to the citizenry (other than to the extent that citizens are consumers). Cultural and political power can now be concentrated in a corporation to an unprecedented degree, and as a result we get a small number of people looking out for their corporate interests wielding an exorbitant influence on culture and public policy, and I question whether that's okay. As far as Supreme Court justices go, I'd remind you that they are usually rich investors, and in that way are beholden to the corporate system. They weren't indentured servants in early America, and they're not hourly retail employee types today. They're bought into the system in a way that less privileged citizens might not be, and may therefore be less willing or able to question its validity and legitimacy. And I don't mean something vague like "make corporations responsible but don't give them all of these rights" (again, one could argue that there's an unfair double standard here with no trouble at all), I mean a thorough, systematic approach to corporate responsibilities and rights. One that bears in mind the problems of bogging down the legal system with unnecessary cruft even more than it is. I don't know. I'm groping; I'm the first to admit it. I just know that there's plenty wrong with what we've got, and there must always be a way to make things better, even while retaining what already works. If you have ideas, I'm really really listening.
• But since then corporations have gained a whole lot of power, and corporate personhood has been a big part of that, and corporations have stopped being beholden to the citizenry (other than to the extent that citizens are consumers). You and I are on the same page. It's the one reason, despite my occasionally somewhat strong libertarian tendencies, that I am not a small-government guy. The idea of small-government democracy made sense in the pre-übercorp world, because the greatest threat to liberty was government and only government. In a world where Wal-Mart makes more green than most countries, that's no longer the case. Government has to defend the weak, not just against itself, but against the Wal-Marts and Monsantos as well, and regulation is how that's done. Big business has proven time and again that it will do whatever it can get away with, dead 12-year-old factory workers and burning rivers be damned. Corporate America is beholden only to the shareholders. Politicians are at least answerable to voters (provided we shake ourselves out of our current apathy). I think throwing corporate rights out the window is ditching the baby with the bath water, though. I'll admit I don't know the answer any more than you do, but I think there are ways to limit the influence of large companies without going so far that we take away the incentives to incorporate. Maybe outlawing political campaign contributions from corporations would be a step in the right direction, I don't know.
• It's interesting that this current discussion grew out of the previous one about Sao Paulo. Both are about legitimate problems with the system and how to solve them. In both cases I think small, measured responses by government are best. Instead of outright bans on all outdoor ads, maybe a moritorium on new ones, and a timely reduction through attrition would work better. Similarly, instead of doing away with corporate rights, making small changes to campaign finance rules, anti-competition legislation, and lobbying influence will steer things back to a better balance. Anyway...it's been one of the better thread debates I've seen here in a long time. Thanks to everyone involved for that.
• Beauty verse TUM! You have a the gift of Gillivan!
• MonkeyFilter: This isn't just for fat guys in suits.
• Speaking of which, I could stand to lose a few pounds, and I just got my first-ever Egyptian cotton dress shirt, plus a stunner of a tie whose price still nearly makes me faint. Despite my stand on billboards, Fes would be proud.
• Umm, corporations are persons under the law in order to make the law apply to corporations, basically. Dude, just the opposite. Establishing a corporation is a way to dodge responsibility. Instead of a person being responsible and accountable, now there's a non-person (called a corporation) responsible. This non-person can't be put in jail. Any punishment (i.e. fine) that you try to enact on this non-person will, at best, be transfered to persons inside the corporation. Even in this best case scenario, the corporation still evades punishment, and the persons punished aren't the persons responsible. Having the law treat corporations as persons only serves to help people dodge responsibility for their actions. They are just intangible decoys to prop up and hide behind whenever the law should be looking for you.
• So the billions that companies have paid out in class action suits to people they've harmed, the convictions of executives at companies like Enron and Tyco, the fact that Capt. Renault is an actual lawyer, none of that carries any weight?
• So the billions that companies have paid out in class action suits to people they've harmed... Class action suits are great examples demonstrating how above the law corporations are. When a person does harm to thousands of people, the law can pursue them immediately. When a corporation does the same thing, the law has to sit on it's hands and wait for those thousands of people to collectively sue. So yeah, that carries weight. It helps demonstrate my point. ...the convictions of executives at companies like Enron and Tyco... The failure to convict, or even prosecute, executives at those companies and many, many more (sorry, watched police academy recently) carries a lot more weight than the piddly few times there has been a conviction. Especially since the ONLY reason the law actually followed through on those few exceptions you brought up was because enough of the public was paying attention. When an actual person does something wrong, it doesn't take years of front page headlines before the law goes after them. When a non-person (corporation) does something wrong, it requires years of front page headlines before the law makes a half-hearted attempt to slap them on the wrist, and it only does so to maintain the illusion that corporations answer to the law. ...the fact that Capt. Renault is an actual lawyer, none of that carries any weight? What kind of weight is that supposed to carry?
• My new lawn ornament.
• MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!111!!!11!!
• I'll have to think on the meaning of that one, TUM. Just what are you hawking?
• Class action suits are great examples demonstrating how above the law corporations are. So who should they have sued? Which individual person? The CEO? Each individual stockholder, including everyone whose 401(k) happens to have invested in a mutual fund that bought stock in the company? Which individual person within the corporation is responsible? You think those involved in the class action suits would have seen one-tenth of the cash if they hadn't been able to sue the corporation as an individual? The failure to convict, or even prosecute, executives at those companies and many, many more (sorry, watched police academy recently) carries a lot more weight than the piddly few times there has been a conviction. I'll grant you that probably quite a few have gotten away with stuff that they shouldn't, but do you have something other than anti-corporate sentiment to back up your assertion that several times as many have gotten away with it than haven't? What kind of weight is that supposed to carry? You are (or at least recently were) a college student who just told a professional attorney that you have a better understanding of the legal ramifications of juristic personhood than he does. This is what Plato referred to as hubris, and I found it amusing, so I made a joke.
• I love to hear that such a radical change like this is happening, and happening in such a huge city, no less. Hooray for a revolutionary step toward a clean mental environment! This post is also another sign of increased Situationist awareness on Monkeyfilter, which pleases me to no end. In my opinion, Honolulu is a much more beautiful place for the state-wide ban on billboard advertisement & strict signage laws. It may be conjecture to say so, but I believe that this practice is a small part of why Hawai'i is the #1 Happiest State.
• > > Umm, corporations are persons under the law in order to make the law apply to corporations, basically. > Dude, just the opposite. Establishing a corporation is a way to dodge responsibility. I think the Capt.'s point, and I agree with him, is that corporations began to be treated as persons under law in order to avoid having a completely separate set of laws for corporations. It was, at the time, a question of efficiency. Whether this allows corporations to duck responsibility is a different issue. As is whether jurisitic personhood encourages our mistaken view of corporations as "intelligent or rational actors" with something I'll call "single-mindedness" for want of a better term.
• Mr. K., have you heard of the Securities and Exchange Commission? They quite regularly investigate and prosecute corporate wrongdoing.
• Didn't know about the Hawai'i ban, thanks vertigo! *adds to happiness, trots off to research corporate personhood articles*
• Mr. K., have you heard of the Securities and Exchange Commission? They quite regularly investigate and prosecute corporate wrongdoing. To be fair, Koko, the SEC does so in a very selective -- some would say arbitrary -- manner, often seemingly having more to do with public outcry than with a systematic focus on ridding corporate America of wrongdoing.
• Consider the current SEC chief, Republican ex-Senator Chris Cox. Harvard MBA. Attorney at Latham & Watkins, which makes the vast bulk of revenue from corporate work. Author of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which made it more difficult for class-action lawsuits against corporations to succeed. Deeply pro-business, while being the kind of guy who expressed himself as strongly anti-"entitlement program" while in the Senate. Even while it's true that you gotta have somebody in this position who understands the ins and outs of the issues, you gotta question whether this kind of self-policing is ever going to be much more than window dressing. Unless you go completely over the line like Enron or Arthur Andersen.
• This is a really great thread, getting at some of the core issues of our time, I think. Thanks to all involved.
• Realize, too, HW, that the SEC is a large and exhaustive organization that doesn't sit on its thumbs until someone says "Hey, look, that Enron is acting funneh." When I was in financial services marketing, we faced annual SEC and NASD compliance audits (I was one of the company's compliance officers) that were both exhaustive and comprehensive. If we were to fail, we lose our ability to sell commissionable instruments and securities, and they we would have essentially been f*ked. And these audits go on continually, for all companies. Companies that don't sell financial products also have significant regulatory and tax law they are required to follow. Ask any small businessman - a huge portion of his time is spent in compliance activities. The FDA, Small Business Administration, IRS enforcement division, Social Security administrative apparatus, Commerce Department, state trade enforcement bodies, local zoning/taxing districts - all these and more layered over business. Companies do commit crimes, but to assume a sort of regulatory free-fire zone or, worse, a generalized level of collaboration is inaccurate. There is also the question that corporations are subject to the same laws, essentially, as individuals. Mr. K feels they're unenforced, or at best selectively enforced - but is the same not true for individual lawbreakers? I read somewhere once that 80% of all felonies committed are never prosecuted. This is not your garden variety speeding ticket or disturbing the peace - felonies. It is not a perfect system. And some of the noted cases were especially egregious BUT look at, say, Sarbanes Oxley, which is a package of new law written specifically to prevent those sorts of crimes from being committed. It is complicated, encompassing, onerous - and surprisingly effective. and I'd like to echo the same thanks, HW. I have, admitted, taken an unpopular position on the above topics, and overwhelmingly everyone has voiced their disagreement with reason and without rancor, for which I am grateful. It is discussions like this prompted my return to Mofi. And I'm additionally pleased about the new shirt and tie, for which I will require a picture.
• Well spake, ol' Fester. And perhaps true enough, though I'll continue to pursue the thought that something rotten in Denmark this way smells. But I'll refrain from confounded blabbery, at least for now, and agree that there are good reasons to treat corporations as criminals. Err-people! Individuals. Whatever. And am also glad you're back Fes - with you on board, our collective Suavity Quotient is through the roof!
• Just what are you hawking? Er... cork grease, maybe? The National Endowment for the Arts? Ummm, don't buy instruments made from grenadilla wood because it affects the baboon;s habitat? I... I.. I DON'T KNOW!! *sticks head in bucket*
• So i can have your fruitsicle then?
• I want one too
• Until I see Wal-Mart or GE or Boeing or Disney locked behind a fence in Gitmo or forced to wear a bag over their head while dogs sniff their genitals, it'll be impossible for me to consider 'em as real peoples.
• It's tough but fair.
• Those aren't real people either, silly.
• OK, I stuck my head back in here to formally apologiize - I DID have the billboard slogan wrong all along. It's "more bananas and less flinging," not "more poo."
• Well that changes things a bit
• Okay, I'm back from Auckland and I come bearing photos of men with overly-long nipples and/or wearing nothing but undies while catching rugby balls. Now it's up to you, the monkeys! to decide which is better: billboards? Or blank walls?
• Blank walls. Which, would be addressed by building designers if they wanted the sides of the buildings to look interesting. Although, the top picture is composed much better than the lower one. Cheater. : P
• I'm with stupid. ^
• Thanks for sharing the pics, No. 1. The more I look at photos focusing on billboards, the more they turn me off. Perhaps one needs to step back and take a look at how they affect the visual landscape. When I'm out-and-about, amongst them, they seem to blend in more (probably because I'm in NYC and there's just so much to assault your senses in general). I'm tempted to bring my camera along with me tomorrow and document my commute to work. How much am I being bombarded with?
• Consumers today encounter from 3,500 to 5,000 marketing messages per day, vs. 500 to 2,000 in the 1970s.
• I wonder if the percentage of ads tuned out remains the same?
• The next three comments in this thread are brought to you by the makers of Genuine Einbinder Flypaper -- when you think flypaper, think Einbinder.
• I was recently comparing a 1927 and a 2006 magazine ad for the same product for my class - the 1927 had 233 words and the 2006 had 44, including the small print.
• I was just doing a wee translation for a company that's installing giant curved LED screens in shopping malls all across China. Bladerunner here we come. Went to a friend's birthday do at a restaurant in the mall with the current biggest outdoor screen in Asia. Massive long corridor thing with the screen as a roof. It was showing a very nice planetarium type thing at the time, but you couldn't avoid the irony that it was adding to the light pollution that is part of the reason you can't see real stars from the city.
• 3500 to 5000 marketing messages a day = roughly one every 17 to 25 seconds. That 17 to 25 seconds, you might want to know, includes the 6 to 8 hours you are asleep. Let us remove these sleep hours (let's say 7). The numbers then devolve to a marketing message every 12 to 17 seconds. Which is simply ridiculous.
• 3,000 messages a day seems to be one repeated google-wise. Ex: here and here, the latter of which notes: Marketing is a contest for people's attention. Thirty years ago, people gave you their attention if you simply asked for it. You'd interrupt their TV program, and they'd listen to what you had to say. You'd put a billboard on the highway, and they'd look at it. That's not true anymore. This year, the average consumer will see or hear 1 million marketing messages - that's almost 3,000 per day. No human being can pay attention to 3,000 messages every day. The interruption model is extremely effective when there's not an overflow of interruptions. If you tap someone on the shoulder at church, you're going to get that person's attention. But there's too much going on in our lives for us to enjoy being interrupted anymore. So our natural response is to ignore the interruptions. Television is unbelievably cluttered. Can you recall one TV commercial you saw last night? The Web is even worse! There are more than 250 million people in the United States, and almost all of them watch TV. And maybe 10 channels really matter. That's 25 million people per channel. There are 45 million people with Web access and 1.5 million commercial sites that are vying for their attention. That's only 30 people per site. The economics just don't work. What's the alternative? Interruption marketing is giving way to a new model that I call permission marketing. The challenge for companies is to persuade consumers to raise their hands - to volunteer their attention. You tell consumers a little something about your company and its products, they tell you a little something about themselves, you tell them a little more, they tell you a little more - and over time, you create a mutually beneficial learning relationship. Permission marketing is marketing without interruptions. You still have to get people's attention in the first place, of course, and that still costs lots of money. But that's the beginning of the story, not the end. You have to turn attention into permission, permission into learning, and learning into trust. Then you can get consumers to change their behavior.
• "I was recently comparing a 1927 and a 2006 magazine ad for the same product for my class - the 1927 had 233 words and the 2006 had 44, including the small print." TUM: Once upon a time, there were very few advertisements, and people drove slow enough to read, anticipate, and enjoy the punchlines to a Burma Shave ad. I can remember my grandfather sitting and reading the long advertisement for horse liniment, and discussing it with my grandmother. This ad was in a paper that was put out once a week, and maybe had 12 pages total--no inserts. They had about 35 books in the house, including a bible, and they would trade with neighbors when the visited, otherwise they just read Shakespeare and Dickens over and over with great enjoyment. They probably saw ads when they read a paper and went to town for groceries. a marketing message every 12 to 17 seconds. They probably saw a message every two or three days. Ad men have to shorten the message--we can't be bothered to read 15 words, let alone 44. Logos, baby. Logos.
• I am still of the firm opinion that the number in question directly out of someone's butt. I mean, even if we say 3000, it's STILL a marketing message every 20 seconds of your waking day. It's just impossible.
• Does that assume that the message is consciously understood? Or just taken in subconsciously? A flip through the newspaper would yield about, what, 30 ads, sorry messages, in 1 second? That doesn't mean each one is focused on, but would average out the per-message time a little.
• At that rate, men would be bombarded with ads just as often as they think about sex, and nothing at all could be accomplished by us.
• OK, if you want to count every print ad you see in a newspaper, you would have a concentration in a small period of time. Still, those concentrations do not continue throughout the day. What about when you are reading a book at your house, or cooking dinner, or playing with your kids, or working in the yard, or working in your office, or a billion other things that have nothing to do with any media or marketing? My point is that, while there are some periods where you are (shall we say) vulnerable to being peppered with messages, it is not a 24/7 sort of thing - you're just simply not in a position, most of the time, to be pitched.
• What about when you're driving 45 minutes to work, and you pass a couple of hundred billboards and signs of various kinds, and hear 5 radio commercials every 10 minutes along the way? That's 225 marketing messages in 45 minutes. Then you get on your computer at work, and every web page you go to has at least 4 ads on it, and you go to 400 web pages during the day (not an outrageous number; check your browser history). That's another 1,600 messages. Then you get in your car and drive home from work. That's another 225 messages. Then you turn on the radio while you rake the leaves in the backyard. That's another 30 messages. Then you leaf through a magazine while your mac & cheese dinner's in the microwave. That's another couple of hundred messages. Then you eat dinner alone in front of the tube. That's another 40 or 50 messages. You can get up there pretty darn quick. And if you live in a city, between all the ads on the sides of buildings and bus stops and buses and in subways and in store windows and whatnot, that really sends it skyrocketing. As soon as you open a newspaper or magazine or enter a shopping district, the messaging blitz is plenty concentrated enough that these kinds of numbers are fathomable.
• I don't get the paper. I read library books, so I don't get those ads in paperbacks. I don't listen to the radio, and seldom watch TV. When I do, if there's a commercial, Mr. BH and I either channel surf or mute it. There's 50 miles of desert between Mtn Home and Boise with maybe eight billboards between har and thar. I have a popup stopper, and can move my slide bar down so fast the ads can only be subliminals . It's like living with my head in a hole, people!
• Sounds like heaven...
• Adblock, people, Adblock!
• Look, Hawthorne - yes, we're bombarded, but do you actually read the billboards, adds on computer sites, etc? If you do, why? I like a good billboard, but none has ever influenced me to buy anything, and I get all the newspaper gmail, yahoo, etc. ads, but I block them out to the point that I can't tell you what they want me to buy. Maybe I miss some really good deals, but I don't care. You can do it, baby! Concentration on the issue at hand, to the exclusion of distractions, is your friend. Sorry, Fes.
• Yes, block and ignore the advertisements that there are lots and lots of. Unless you're a little kid, in which case you don't have much money anyway.
• Learn 'em young to ignore ads, is what I say! now get offa my lawn *shakes cane ($9.99 with 10% off at CaneWorld)
• Yes, path, I ignore the bombardment. Again, though, why should I have to? I get the feeling from your tone that that means I shouldn't complain about it, that I should just sit back and take it. I'm sorry, but it's my world as much as it it all those advertisers', and I think it's a good fight to try to lessen the bombardment where possible.
• On the kid tip: My feelings about being pitched have deep roots. When I was a tyke of just 4, my mom tells me, I came to her one day after my birthday, after opening one disappointing toy or another, and said decisively, as though I'd discovered one of the truths of life, "They don't tell the truth in the commercials."
• Seen any kids advertising lately? Me neither. I assume the advertisers fully respect the fragile learning stages the kids are in as they work to inform them of their breakfast, playtime, and entertainment product choices. Perhaps someone should check, though.
• My 2-year-old has seen less than one episode of Dora the Explorer in his life, but he can nevertheless recognize her image and triumphantly shout "Dorra!" whenever he sees her. How is this? Well, part of it is that when he watches another show on DVD, there's an ad for Dora that appears automatically on launch. We diligently skip these ads, but the first second, during which Dora says "Ola, soy Dora" often gets through before the player moves forward.
• Seen any kids advertising lately? Watch many kids shows beside channel 4? DVDs? "New release of Diznzy pic!" Movies? Coke, Reeses Pieces. Target/Gap/Old Navy? Usually have kids clothes. Sun comics have half sheet ads attached that needs to be ripped off and thrown away before you can read. (just because I don't get the paper doesn't mean I don't read the comics if I find it somewhere) I sub for K-12, and there's plenty of advertising on promotional items sent to teachers (which they wind up using, because education is so underfunded, that if you have a colorful poster with the time tables and a Coke logo, you use it anyway as a learning tool) There's the kids Info channel that they watch once a day. Includes school news, national news of "items of interest to students," and a few subtle placings of advertisements. Shots of kids with obviously chosen for logos, kids drinking Pepsi, billboards in the background--enough of these that the shot angles can't be totally accidental. Not to mention the little "sponsored by" notations afterwards. (which the kids generally turn off) It's stupid enough that most of them ignore it when it's showing and just keep passing the notes with teh pink/purple ink and heart-dotted i's. That's the problem. Ads are so pervasive in our society we take them for granted. We hardly notice them as a matter of course, but they do impact our lives. Even if you don't think you're swayed by the content, the visual and mental pollution are still a background to your day.
• Well, product placement's a horse of a different color. Give me honest, "this-is-an-ad" advertising over product placement any day. Ever read James Tiptree's The Girl Who Was Plugged In? One of my favorite dystopian sci-fi stories.
• We hardly notice them as a matter of course, but they do impact our lives. Even if you don't think you're swayed by the content, the visual and mental pollution are still a background to your day. See, Bluey, I think this is a root of the argument here - the belief that, somehow, advertising manipulates people to do... things, through virtue of it's pervasiveness. No we can argue all day long about aesthetics, and I'll gladly concede that most people thing ads are clutter at best and pollution at worst. But the contention that advertising is somehow warping your brain, Machurian Candidate style, into doing things you wouldn't ordinarily do is not only high tin-foil at it's most Blofeldian, but also demeans the capacity of adults to say pfft and manage themselves. I'll grant you that a lot of people are not very smart with their money, consume too much, extend themselves too far with immediate gratification, etc. But this is something that advertising only *tries* to take advantage of, not something it itself creates. There's no evil magic to advertising, no subliminal manipulation, no autohypnotic suggestions.
• Are you saying that marketing's not really effective, then? If you're saying marketing's not effective, why are companies spending so much money on it? Why are you and I able to make our living off of marketing? Without ads for Prada dresses or Armani jackets, we wouldn't have nearly as many people thinking they'd finally be happy if only they had those products. Advertising may not create the desire for "more, better, now!", but IMHO you're kidding yourself if you think it doesn't magnify that desire. It's not about evil magic, or subliminable whatever. It's about psychology, and IMHO advertising is pointedly about using psychology to manipulate people to do things they'd be less likely to do otherwise. (Please don't tell me you think advertising is primarily about getting information about a product or brand in front of people who can benefit from that information.)
• See, Bluey, I think this is a root of the argument here - the belief that, somehow, advertising manipulates people to do... things . . . I think it boils down to something subtler: namely that images affect people. Maybe we don't buy FesCo brand jeans specifically as a result, but the FesCo billboard has an effect by virtue of that truism. What that effect is, and whether it "makes" people do or think anything, etc. is something else. (Oh boy TV Turnoff week is approaching isn't it! . . Yay!) On Preview: Darn you HWingo, leggo my eggo!
• ACK! It is TV Turnoff week! Quick! To the FPP-mobile! *MonkeyFilter logo zooms in and out*
• Fes: I meant the sentence meaning to indicate that ads are visual and mental pollution whether or not they influence people. However, SOMEONE out there is influenced, otherwise advertisers wouldn't discuss the effectiveness of said ads. You, yourself, above stated that ads are made in order to influence people to brand recognition, and thus to have them reach for that brand over one with less exposure. ...X times out of ten, is that you'll pick the name that you've heard the most, because you have equated the idea that you've heard about it a lot with the idea that a lot of people use it and thus is must be ok. A bit like manipulation, no? It's pretty much a given that advertising has influenced what is regarded as being the "ideal" body type of women. Even when Madison Ave doesn't sell jeans, they sell an image of beauty.
• Are you saying that marketing's not really effective, then? If you're saying marketing's not effective, why are companies spending so much money on it? Why are you and I able to make our living off of marketing? Of course it's effective, but not in the way that people seem to believe. The impetus behind the advertising = bad idea seems to be that people think that advertising has some sort of unconscious power to drive people to do things that they would otherwise not do, and that's just not true. The idea that there is a sub rosa manipulation going on is a fallacy. Recognition through repitition, the occasional ludicrous claim, influence through sometimes esoteric strategies? Guilty. But, as you and I both are aware, we don't make zombies out of people. Everyone and anyone is fully capable of fighting the advertising-driven urge to buy Fesco jeans. Whether they choose to is a different story, and ultimatley our of my marketing department's control. We HOPE they choose not to, and we will work dilligently to assist in that decision, but every merchant's transaction comes down to you plunking down your hard earned cash for something you want. Advertising, at it's heart of hearts, is simply information designed to assist that decision, packaged as attractively as we can manage. And we STILL get vituperative detractors like Mr. K and Bluehorse! We suck at this! But what you're saying is, why should we be subjected to it at all? My answer to that is three-fold. First, it's a freedom of speech issue, and I'm not talking about the giant corporations (who are not comprised of souless robots, but of actual people, individuals who have the right to free speech and collective action under the Constitution) but the little guy in the souk who puts up a billboard outside of town. Trade is as old as the history of man, the impetus (outside of war and religion) of our advance through time, and the enternal dance of commerce is the engine through which the modern age moves along. Trade is what binds disparate peoples together, that equalizes every man with every other. Commerce is one of the great binding elements of humanity! Second, although the debate raged fiercely before, I still contend there is an art to great advertising, an art that should have every privilege to stand amongst the paintings, sculpture and literature we traditionally think of as art. And third, try as we might to pretend we are not, we are all consumers. It is part and parcel of the human condition to eat, drink, adorn, and huddle in front of our fire. We cannot escape it. But we can *perfect* it, as far as we are able. Economic theory talks of perfect markets, perfect knowledge - but that's theory, and thus unattainable. But we can do what is possible to approach that, and advertising - even the humble billboard - provides that infinitesimal, yet incremental bit of information that lets us take another single shuffling step towards that perfect platonic form marketplace, where competition keeps prices low, quality high, and efficiency maximized. Would you destroy all this for a better view of a cinder block wall or scabby tree along some depressing highway?
• Ads make my radio play free music, and make my TV (yes, Pete, I know) show me free pictures.
• A bit like manipulation, no? You and I have different ideas as to what constitutes manipulation. You want jeans. I make jeans! And I'd love to sell you a pair. But so do a thousand other companies. How is it manipulation for me to remind you that I sell jeans, and try to persuade you as I am able to pursuade the jeans that I sell?
• Gawd, I suck at typing. "... and try to persuade you as I am able to PURCHASE the jeans that I sell."
• First, it's a freedom of speech issue, etc. I'm not saying we should outlaw advertising. I get it, about the value of trade. I'm just saying that we as citizens are perfectly within our rights to try to limit the places and times and ways that are acceptable when it comes to businesses trying to reach us with advertising.
• Alternate spin: You want jeans. Without my advertising, you'd be perfectly happy in your $30 jeans. Because of advertising, though, my $200 jeans are cooler than your $30 jeans, and you think you won't be happy until you buy my $200 jeans. When you buy my $200 jeans, though, you learn that they don't actually make you happy.
• How is it manipulation for me to remind you that I sell jeans sex sells, but it may not constitute manipulation depending on your definition. Is it only manipulation if the product is purchased? 'cause I'm defining it at the level of intent. It's manipulation to try to get me to do something. A whiny kid is manipulating me to buy a toy for them, that kinda thing.
• It's pretty much a given that advertising has influenced what is regarded as being the "ideal" body type of women. That's true. And not to callous, but what of it? I understand that many think this ideal contributes to self image, eating disorders, etc. And it might, I don't know. But are we really saying that advertising is responsible for these problems, that they created them, that they even exacerbate them? It's the old "video games made me shoot up the post office" argument, the contention that rock music turned my kid into a pothead noodge living in my basement. We rail long and loud against those other contentions - but this one we pet like a kitten. I don't buy it. There are people with psychological problems, and they need help and undestanding - but advertising doesn't cause them, and it's not Madison Avenue's job solve them. Advertising may sometimes serve to highlight them, but the underlying psychological/medical/parenting issues remain the cause.
• Ads featuring this "ideal" body type are more effective than those featuring other body types. That's a given. You can't blame advertisers for choosing the most efective approach. That's their job, after all. But why are they more effective? The answer to that question lies more in the psyche and human nature of the consumer than in the advertiser.
• Because of advertising, though, my $200 jeans are cooler than your $30 jeans There it is. $200 jeans are cooler than $30 jeans because you believe they are and your friends believe they are. Now the reasons behind that may be that advertising has made that claim, along with a thousand other possible reasons, but ultimately? If you have $200 to spend, and you spend it on cool jeans, and you eventually regret your decision to do that, how is it the seller's fault? Unless you are purposefully deceived (which is a crime, and duly prosecuted), I don't see how you can hang the consequences and regrets of your decision on an ad. I am reminded of the vaunted Sea Monkeys of yore :) A whiny kid is manipulating me to buy a toy for them, that kinda thing. Well, that's a little different. Perhaps we are differing on semantics. My idea was that manipulation was causing you do something that you would not otherwise do through trickery. I'm just saying that we as citizens are perfectly within our rights to try to limit the places and times and ways that are acceptable when it comes to businesses trying to reach us with advertising. I can live with that. I just dislike blanket, citywide bans with no recourse.
• Monkeyfilter: High tin-foil at its most Blofeldian Easily the best turn of phrase I've heard all week. And I've been translating French poetry! I would argue that a good many other things have had as trong an effect on the cretion of our ideal body type as advertising. UNless you count the shameless self-promotion of celebrities as advertising, which I guess you could. But movies and TV have just as much influence. And the fashion industry itself.
• TUM'S TYPOS™ brought to you by the good folks at Manichewitz™. "Man, that's Chewitz!"
• But all of those things are more popular and effective when they show us the ideal body type. In other words, the "ideal" is demand driven. Movie and TV audiences are more likely to want to watch "ideal" bodies. Clothes are more likely to sell when displayed on "ideal" models. If producers or designers stray from the ideal, consumers punish them by taking their business to their competitors. I believe the "ideal" exists first and foremost in the minds of the consumers. Madison Avenue and Hollywood didn't invent it, but they do exploit it to sell their products.
• In other words, the "ideal" is demand driven. That's far too simplistic rocket; seems to me it stands to reason it's an interaction. When you consider the number of body-types and so forth that have been considered appealing in different times and places across the globe and down the centuries, it's impossible to accept any hard-wired preference beyond, say, symmetry or big eyes in babies. I am also someone who thinks that violence in video games and movies influences children. Again, I don't think it's a simple direct causation there either, but if we deny that, we deny enculturation as far as I can see,
• advertising doesn't cause them, and it's not Madison Avenue's job solve them That's a cop-out, same excuse as those working for cigarette companies. Not my problem. I don't need to work on a solution. It's everybody's problem, whether it's kids shooting other kids, promoting a body image that's unrealistic, taking care of the hungry and homeless, providing decent health care, whatever society's problems are, they belong to all of us. Shitty video games, nasty movies, advertising that screams in your face or uses sex to sell--all of it's irresponsible. All in the name of capitalism, all in the name of making money. Art that makes you think, that's one thing. Advertising, no matter how entertaining, is not art. It's not designed to make anyone think, it's designed to make you buy. Rocket used the right word: exploit. Maybe these images don't do anything but reflect what is going on in society, at this moment in time. But future thought is influenced by what is seen and heard now. We have no cohesive moral thread in this country, no standard of behavior toward others. We desperately need philosopher-kings. We need to think about what is the Good, the Right, the Just. How do THOSE concepts figure in advertising? I'm tired of the rah-rah about capitalism. Rank capitalism is not good for society. Rank capitalism is not good for the environment. How much money does any one person need? Is it right that one man should have billions while a thousand others starve? Even if he earned those billions, has a 'right' to that money, he can never use it all for himself, shouldn't he look to the greater good and at least help others in a meaningful way? I'm not talking creating some philanthropic organization that ends up making more money and provides a lucrative tax-shelter. I'm sick of hearing about everyone's 'freedoms.' So you got rights, you've also got responsibilities. Freedom stops when it impacts in a negative way on others, and people have a responsibility to think before acting. Many people don't like bulletin boards. Do they have ANY chance against the money that advertising and corporate lobbyists can used to influence politicians to keep the current practices in place? You talk about the little businessman's right to advertise--does the little guy have a chance against corporate dollars? Sure, that's why we have Wal-mart and all the big-box stores as opposed to mom-and-pops. That's why products like Coke and Pepsi are world-wide. Those little national soda manufacturing companies did real well with their ad dollars. Would you destroy all this for a better view of a cinder block wall or scabby tree along some depressing highway? You've proved my point. Our society could be spending ONE TENTH of the billions involved in advertising to make our living spaces more beautiful and to make a 'scabby tree' into an environment that will encourage the mental health of its citizens as well as the physical well-being of the planet. It's not a dichotomy, either ugly or ads; it's about something different, something better.
• seems to me it stands to reason it's an interaction Fair enough, but from the advertisers, producers, and designers' standpoint, it's demand driven, in that they have no vested interest in promoting any one body type over another. Their interest is solely to sell their product*, and if they are reinforcing our biases, it's just a secondary effect of showing us what we want to see. * Unless their product is a diet or exercise device, in which case they do have an interest in convincing us that our bodies aren't perfect.
• I see what you're saying, but you could broaden that and add that the whole industry is in the business of creating aspirations from more nebulous emotions. There's a whole bit in Adam Curtis's Century of the Self (I think it was that one; one of his) where he describes how Freudian insights into the subconscious were seized upon by advertisers to get us to associate products and consumption with things like desirability and status. When you start mixing something that is designed to play on these kind of deep-seated emotions and fears it becomes quite powerful and will reinforce and shape tendencies which weren't quite so pronounced to begin with I suspect. Add that to the reach and ubiquity of all our modern media and it will be making as well as reflecting. Comment rescued from server crap-out. maybe it was trying to tell me something
• Ah, I had such a wonderul response to HW when downtime happened, and I'm not inclined to go back and copy and paste stuff. But, here's a summary. HW: we now know that you've bought an Egyptian cotton shirt. Did you do that because you liked the cut and feel, or did you do it because you'd been forced to by ads? Otherwise, wouldn't a yeoman pima cotton one have sufficed? When I was in the medium level in a corporate hierchy, I switched from Penney's and Sears to Macy's and Nordtrom's. The fit was better, and silks and wools felt better, plus I could deal with customers/executives with more authority. And, I could afford them. And I'm glad I bought them, since they've lasted a lot longer than the others (well, except for waist-band elastic, though the classic styles make that worth replaciing.) But that wasn't based on influence from ads. And, where do you see Prada and similar ads? I don't think they're in regular-guy advertising since that would be a waste of advertising money. So, aren't companies directing their messages at those who will actually buy their stuff? How many $200 jeans do you have in your closet? I don't think most of the population does, and if folks with a bunch of money want to buy them, why should I worry? Your take on the effects of advertising seems overly pessimistic. I do believe that the majority buy what they can afford, and if there are some who get into trouble, well, that's their problem, but even they don't need nannies to tell them they're dumb, since they'll find out for themselves. I don't think limiting ads will save them.
• Listen, path, you seem to have a problem with almost everything I say. So let's just say we see the world differently. I believe advertising is not always benign; you apparently don't. So be it. Let's leave it at that.
• According to the Fed, total consumer credit debt, excluding mortgages, hit a record $2.4 trillion in September 2006.
• ON ADVERTISING: Sut Jhally v. James Twitchell
• Their interest is solely to sell their product*, and if they are reinforcing our biases, it's just a secondary effect of showing us what we want to see. * Unless their product is a diet or exercise device, in which case they do have an interest in convincing us that our bodies aren't perfect. An interesting thing I recently learned - a lot of the push toward the Size 2 ideal for women is that the free designer clothes celebrities are given to wear on the red carpet and elsewhere are made in "sample size," which is the smallest possible size in an attempt to save both time and fabric.
• Changing body image in Mauritania
• Amazing article - thanks AC.
• Sut Jhally and James Twitchell consider advertising to be the central meaning-maker in our culture, the key storyteller; both concern themselves not with what advertising is supposed to do--sell stuff--but what it does while doing it; What it does while doing it. Yes. That. What that says. Nicely ranted there, GramMa!
• Very interesting article AC. Thanks! Easy to be offended or taken aback by force-feeding, but interesting that "healthy" is a factor in what is considered a beautiful body image. I don't think there is such a consideration on my boob tube. Waifish silicone-infused exercising bleach-blondes baby. Pam. Ya know it. Not "healthy". Just jiggy.
• I'll take our definition of healthy over Mauritania's. That's pretty sick stuff.
• Unlike bulemia.
• I'll take our definition of healthy over Mauritania's. But we don't really have one though - do we? If we do, isn't it underweight? What about the now un-chic "Heroin chic"? Or physically-unlikely-if-not-impossible proportions?
• The main point there that I thought relevant rocket was how attitudes to body types can be culturally determined and change under the influence of advertising. As a practice I'd agree it's grim.
• It's interesting, but not new. Insular cultures have always been influenced by new contacts with previously foreign cultures. In this case it wasn't advertising that did it, but a Lebanese version of American Idol. Pete: How do you define healthy? Are the physiques of Olympic-caliber track & field athletes or swimmers underweight? I can't think of a more "healthy" example.
• Or steroid-soaked baseball players?
• I'll say it again: According to the Fed, total consumer credit debt, excluding mortgages, hit a record $2.4 trillion in September 2006. Do you really think hyperconsumerism -- that our culture is absolutely pickled in advertising -- isn't a major factor in this?
• If advertising is the cause, why aren't other countries, with just as much advertising (more even - Japan is a good example) in just as much personal debt? The credit debt has lots of causes - easy and undue credit, poor impulse control, live for today attitude, baby boomer fear of retirement and mortality - but if advertising caused this behavior, these levels of debt would be found all over the world. They're not.
• I'd argue that advertising contribute to poor impulse control, live for today attitude, and fear of mortality/youth-worship in our culture. But your point is well taken.
• Also, you keep saying that advertising doesn't *cause* this or that, but I don't think anyone's claiming that it does, only that it *contributes*.
• Consumer debt: not an American monopoly Maybe we're just the vanguard. Lucky us. And more culturally instilled discipline has kept Japan from following our lead, thus far. What I'm looking forward to is when I can reduce my monthly costs by having advertising printed on the inside of my eyelids.
• Apologies for the serial comments, but in addition to cultural differences, lending differences may play a role in differing consumer debt rates in different countries. Doesn't mean advertising isn't a factor in consumer debt in any case.
• My understanding is that being in debt and overusing credit is completely American behavior that is slowly becoming more common in other countries as they develop more disposable income and move further away from a barter and/or one-for-one system. I just want to say, ya'll, that even though I don't think my basic feelings about advertising will be changed, all this discussion has certainly made me look at different aspects and thing about why and how I feel about the subject. Great discussion, all. Passion without snark or trolling--only on the MoFilter.
• culturally instilled discipline The what now? Anyway, advertising contributes to consumerism. (Or hyper-consumerism perhaps - America probably does deserve another tier of consumerism after all.) More advertising contributes to more consumerism. Is that point under debate? Also, I think FesCo. brand jeans would be teh awesome.
• Apparently, I'm referring to the third definition in that above comment, "attachment to materialistic values or possessions". So there's probably a better word here. con·sum·er·ism (kn-sm-rzm) n. 1. The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards. 2. The theory that a progressively greater consumption of goods is economically beneficial. 3. Attachment to materialistic values or possessions: deplored the rampant consumerism of contemporary society.
• OHHHH, I thought you said "consummate rhizomes." Consummate rhizomes, Wake unto me Starlit no-fly zones Are waiting for thee Sounds of Rube Goldberg Heard in the skies Lulled by the moonlight Have all paseurized Consummate rhizomes Queen of my song Listerine's woozy With soft melamine Gondola carrots Like fuzzy thongs Consummte rhizomes awake unto me
• The doctrine of limited liability is central to the rise of unfettered, irresponsible corporate power. It must be challenged in the interests of individual freedom, equality before the law and shared prosperity, argue Stephanie Blankenburg & Dan Plesch.
• Interesting read, AC. Reminds me when I was young and "innocent", working my first "real" job. I received a call from a client, and he was going on and on about our company name - "But I want to know, what does this LLC stand for?" Sir, I believe that stands for Limited Liability Company. "Limited liability? What? Does that sound like a good thing to you?"
• Ah, is that what the "Ltd." in British companies signifies? I always took it to mean that they were specialized in some way. Of course, looking back, that was a patently ridiculous thing for me to think.
• No, Underpants. The "Limited" refers to the limited issue of stocks. "Limited Liability Company" means that there's only so much you can sue the company or the directors for, essentially.
• I'm not going to argue with the site lawyer, but I was under the impression that the "limited" part meant the shareholder's liability is limited to the value of their investment. In other words, shareholders aren't liable for the debts of the company.
• MonkeyFilter: No, Underpants
• What rocket88 said.
• Nice article, AC. If equality before the law is to have any meaning, it must apply to human beings, not fictitious persons, and organisations must not be handed blanket exemptions from accountability simply on the grounds that they can thrive through privilege. We cannot, on the one hand, treat corporations as if they were just any person, and on the other, invest them with unequal protection. Otherwise, we are guilty of a double blindness to power: disregarding it by setting human beings equal to powerful corporations before the law, and disregarding it again by granting special-interest protection to the powerful through limited liability. Not sure I understand the proposed solution, though: replacing limited liability with an "insurance system."
• Limited liability is essential if you want to have individuals investing in corporations as shareholders. There are definitely problems with unfettered corporate power, but they're not caused by linited liability. And getting rid of limited liability is not the best solution. I'd start by eliminating corporate (and union) political contributions.
• I'd follow the rocket's proposal up with precluding people who are members of commercial concerns from drafting legislation on congress' behalf that affects their industry. I did some industry lobbying support work back in the day and the access and influence our people had, even to DRAFTING of law at the request of legislators, was just unbelievably egregious.
• A particularly egregious example of the sort of thing Fes is talking about.
• To circle back to one of the main discussions in this thread: I'm grappling with the following questions: If society grants corporations limited liability, should society also be able to insist that corporations not enjoy the same level of rights such as free speech as do individuals? I.e. should advertising and PR not deserve the same level of free-speech protection as does individual free speech?
• Well, HW, that situation already exists to a certain extent. Advertising, for example, is regulated for content and tone, and heavily regulated or restricted in certain situations (Joe Camel). False or overtly misleading advertising is legally actionable by the consumer. PR is a bit stickier wicket, but otoh it is also gatekept - traditional public relations is, in large part, persuading the media to promulgate a particular story, or a particular side of a story. I work in marketing and PR. When I came to the firm I work for now, I was told in NO uncertain terms that lying - even at direct client request - was absolutely unacceptable and a firing offense. I once attended a press conference on behalf of a client that wished to remain anonymous, and members of the press asked me who I was and whom I represented. I told them I was a private citizen, a fact I duly reported back to my superiors. You'd have thought I'd told them I was Fucko Bazoo the Dog-Faced Boy. I got tuned up by my boss like you wouldn't believe. Never lie, they told me. You don't have to wear your affiliation on your hat, but if someone asks you a direct question, you tell them the truth. If society grants corporations limited liability In light of the LLC discussion, what society is doing in that case is granting *individuals* limited liability, not the company. The company can be litigated down to its hind tits. the LLC protects the non-corporate assets of the individuals in the LLC, limiting liability to the assets of the corporation itself.
• And for the record, corporations do *not* have all the rights of individuals. Voting being one of the more important examples.
• I'm going to start calling you Fucko Bazoo the Dog-Faced Boy now.
• That's true, rocket, but they can lobby, which is almost as good.
• Fucko Bazoo, the Dog-Faced Boy!
• He actually looks like that.
• They can only successfuly lobby because they're allowed to fund campaigns, and because bribery is rampant in government. Those problems need to be addressed before we start calling for an end to limited liability.
• Half of all billboards in Toronto are illegal. Here's a map of them.
• Wow, I'm impressed with how comprehensive that site is, rocket. They've even got friggin' jpegs of permits. I like the example of how the city's own ad agency purchased illegal space.