[HN Gopher] Adfree Cities
___________________________________________________________________
Adfree Cities
Author : edward
Score : 277 points
Date : 2023-12-13 16:31 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (adfreecities.org.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (adfreecities.org.uk)
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Replace ad spaces for murals, public art, or interesting
| architecture!
| donjorgenson wrote:
| Incredible
| docdeek wrote:
| The award of the contract for the outdoor advertising space (bus
| shelters, roadside space) in my city was tied to providing and
| maintaining a cheap metro-area wide bike sharing scheme. For
| 30ish euros a year I get unlimited 45 minute trips on bikes that
| are widely available, well maintained, and easy to use. In 2022
| there were more than 10 million trips taken on these hire bikes
| and nearly 84,000 annual subscribers.
|
| This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded
| away its outdoor ad space. There's not more ads, just a monopoly
| on who sells the space to advertisers. The city might be prettier
| without the advertisements but it seems a good trade off to be
| removing vehicles from the road and promoting healthy transport
| via the bike scheme.
| k__ wrote:
| This is cool!
|
| They should force restaurants at public places to provide
| places to sit, even if you don't buy anything.
|
| Instead, they do crap like anti-homeless spikes...
| polonbike wrote:
| I guess you live in Lyon, France, same as I do. Even if I
| despite the ads, the bike sharing deal is quite good for users
| and the city.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public
| ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without
| having to go through a monopolist that captures all of the
| value.
| ponector wrote:
| The alternative is to not have a cheap popular bikeshare
| system.
|
| Also with monopolist it is really easy to keep some
| standards, quality of the ads.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| False dichotomy. The alternative is to have a cheap popular
| bikeshare system supported by taxes.
|
| [Edit to reply to okr, because I'm rate-limited:
|
| Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost
| of the bike service.
|
| As it is, you're pushing ads in everyone's face, whether or
| not they use the bike. Also no thanks.]
| okr wrote:
| So, instead of paying my money for a bike as a choice, a
| monopolist takes money from everyone. Very funny, but no
| thanks, i take Ads anytime over that.
| j_maffe wrote:
| The collective community ends up paying a lot more in
| quality of life with these ads up. Also, ads are the
| primary way to get the lower economic classes to give
| their money to the rich.
| okr wrote:
| You give money to get goods. What is wrong about that?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| You give money you can't really afford to give in order
| to get goods that you don't really need. You do so
| because advertisers are skilled professionals, and are
| better at manipulating you than you are at not being
| manipulated. And they have put themselves in places where
| you cannot help but see them. _That 's_ what's wrong
| about that.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| This has little to do with advertising.
|
| Consumer sentiment will be shaped by media other than
| advertising. You watching Instagram of people drinking
| alcohol and (seemingly) having fun will make you want to
| drink alcohol.
|
| Ads for a particular type of alcohol will only steer your
| selection of product, but do not induce a desire to get
| it.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> ads are the primary way to get the lower economic
| classes to give their money to the rich_
|
| This seems very implausible. People's largest expenses
| are things like housing, healthcare, childcare, and
| groceries, which are mostly not driven by advertising.
| ponector wrote:
| In theory. But in real life you'll pay more with taxes
| for poor service.
|
| My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-
| private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases
| operation after few years and take all bikes from the
| streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.
| lancesells wrote:
| I live in NYC and I wish bikeshare was a part of public
| transport. Kids get to use them with their pass, low
| income gets them, they get the same importance as the
| train or bus, etc. All part of one system instead of
| having to use the Lyft or any other app.
| digging wrote:
| > My big city in Poland tried several times to get
| public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company
| ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from
| the streets. People get nothing while millions already
| spent.
|
| Is this an argument _for_ public-private deals?
| _dain_ wrote:
| _> Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full
| cost of the bike service._
|
| Great, so long as motorists pay the full cost of the
| roads.
| willmadden wrote:
| The beneficiaries of roads are much more than motorists.
| Almost every employer and the government needs roads to
| operate. The motorists include trucks that keep society
| functioning. You would have no food, water, or
| electricity in 1-2 weeks without roads.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| The beneficiaries of road alternatives include road users
| as well. Since it benefits road users, it also benefits
| everyone you just listed.
| digging wrote:
| Then let private motorists pay _their share_ of the
| upkeep. I 'd throw out a guess that it's upwards of 99%.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| I don't know what to say here anymore. Is this city not
| capable of collecting taxes? Is this how they pay for any
| sort of public infrastructure? What monopoly did they
| exchange to have some private company build and maintain
| roads, pipes and cables?
| JambalayaJim wrote:
| Local businesses would benefit substantially from the
| bikeshare service though.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Not if that bikeshare service captures all their profits by
| having a monopoly on ads.
| docdeek wrote:
| The ad space exists and the city owns all the ad space. They
| either get in the business of pricing it and selling it
| themselves, or they contract that business out. In this case,
| a condition of the contract was you have to pay for the bike
| scheme.
| Espressosaurus wrote:
| So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't
| exist?
|
| Everything is a choice, we don't HAVE to accept these
| shitty ads everywhere.
| cheriot wrote:
| > This bike share scheme is only possible because the
| city traded away its outdoor ad space.
|
| Yes, it's a trade off. I wish my city had free bike
| share.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| > So the possibility that the space remains ad-free
| doesn't exist?
|
| It does exist, but then the cost of the bike sharing
| would have be borne by
|
| a) users of the bike system - this would impact ridership
| and equity of access. b) local govt - budget would have
| to come from somewhere.
|
| considering b) would likely mean that the project
| wouldn't get past planning, really a) is the only
| alternative.
|
| Everything is a tradeoff.
|
| From my perspective, I'll take shitty ads if the money
| earned from those ads is spent on significant quality of
| life improvements. Same reason I support legalization and
| taxation of gambling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc
| where the revenues pay for schools, social services, etc.
| Y_Y wrote:
| This is shitty equity too though, I can't ride bikes but
| I still have to look at your ads and make do with worse
| economies of scale for public transportation that's
| accesible to the disabled. If bike share is a public
| good. It should be paid for out of public funds, if the
| city decides to sell advertising rights in public spaces
| then it can. Those two ideas need not be linked, money is
| fungible!
| celestialcheese wrote:
| If public funds pay for it, you personally (assuming you
| pay taxes) are also paying for the program, but this time
| with real dollars instead of attention.
|
| > money is fungible
|
| What?
| Espressosaurus wrote:
| Money can be moved.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| From where? You might live in a flush city, with lots of
| extra discretionary $$ flowing around, but most cities in
| the US are nearly bankrupt, and leveraged to the hilt on
| providing basic services. This is the definition of a
| "luxury belief", thinking the average city can just find
| money and put it towards removing ads that pay for
| services.
| Y_Y wrote:
| But I don't want to sell my attention! At least not at
| the crappy valuation the bike advertisers offer.
|
| Money being fungible means that one dollar is as good as
| another. It all goes in a big pile for the budget. In
| other words, you don't have to match up your revenue
| sources with your costs (like bikes with advertising),
| though this is frequently used for the purpose of trying
| to justify one thing or another.
| renewiltord wrote:
| These are assertions but that's insufficient to make
| policy. To make policy you often need to tie things
| together because constituencies will want to keep net
| costs low as they trial programs.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| It's not "ad space", it's our cities. Why is it even
| possible for them to "sell ad space" to private business?
| Should be made illegal.
|
| We want to live in nice towns not in cyberpunk hellscapes
| where we can't even cross a street without being violently
| bombarded with advertising. A business should be able to
| put up a sign on its own building and that's about it.
| twosdai wrote:
| I mean this appears to be a similar model as a utility.
| Right? Basically a legal monopoly with a set of restrictions.
| I don't see how it's really a bad thing.
| tclancy wrote:
| >This bike share scheme is only possible because the city
| traded away its outdoor ad space.
|
| I get what you mean, but arguments like this confuse the
| underlying issue of how we value and price things. It's
| certainly not "only possible" that way. It makes me think of
| the Mark Fisher line "It's easier to imagine the end of the
| world than the end of capitalism."
| croisillon wrote:
| it feels like 1 in 3 cyclists is riding a Velo'v, Lyon is a
| very nice city
| franga2000 wrote:
| We have something similar and it was a terrible deal. The city
| still had to pay a boatload of money to set up the system, but
| it's proprietary so we can only "buy" more stations and bikes
| from the same company. They, of course, refuse to sell at a
| reasonable price, so for every new station, more ad space is
| created and given to them. The term of the contract, which is
| 25 years, is also insanely long and far longer than the maximum
| we allow for such contracts normally (5 or 10 years).
|
| And I won't even go into the corruption that got them the
| tender in the first place... Fuck JCDecaux!
| dantyti wrote:
| The same thing in my city with jcd bikes: no new stations in
| a decade, only a handful of bikes available, bike stop
| density nowhere near anything I've seen in a large city in
| Southern France. Meanwhile, every bus stop, every street
| corner or prominent billboard is owned by jcd.
|
| Your comment has encouraged me to dig up anything I can find
| about our municipality's contracts with jcd during the
| upcoming holiday break and, if it's anything like what you've
| said, raise some awareness.
| franga2000 wrote:
| I've been meaning to do the same. I'm currently trying to
| get information on the number of billboards and when they
| were put up through FOIA requests so I can run some numbers
| and I already made some interesting visualizations of how
| badly the stops are located from JCDecaux's API.
|
| Our capital got these bikes 10 years before us and had
| similar issues. A small news outlet made a pretty good
| report on the "secret costs of city bikes" and that's kind
| of what I'm going for: https://podcrto.si/skrita-cena-
| izposoje-koles-v-ljubljani-og...
| zamadatix wrote:
| I wonder how much this bike contract actually takes to maintain
| vs how much the holder gets in advertisements. Even if near
| flat even, which feels unlikely as why bother holding the
| contract then, it's still a way with more overhead than just
| funding the bike program.
| H8crilA wrote:
| > _This bike share scheme is only possible because the city
| traded away its outdoor ad space._
|
| No, there are many ways to generate revenue to pay for things
| like that at a (local) government level. Your city sold the ad
| space and immediately bought an essentially unrelated service
| (bike sharing) from the same party.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> immediately bought an essentially unrelated service_
|
| At least the way it works here (Boston area's Bluebikes) is
| that the same infrastructure supports both the bike sharing
| and the ad space. There are ads on the bikes and their docks.
| tylervigen wrote:
| I have personally gotten very aggressive at removing as many ads
| from my life as I can. I pay for the "premium" version of
| everything I can to remove ads (Spotify, YouTube, podcast
| subscriptions) and use adblocker aggressively. It's so much nicer
| than the alternative.
|
| There are two places where ads remain: 1) Social media where the
| ads are integrated and not blocked (Facebook, YouTube in-video
| promos) 2) Billboards in cities and airports
|
| #1 has gotten more aggressive lately. I'm not a fan, but I
| understand why it has happened. However, at least I can choose to
| avoid these sites if I wish.
|
| #2, which is what the article is about, is unavoidable for me. I
| find billboards ugly, distracting, and annoying clutter. It's
| just visual "noise." What's worse is that the products targeted
| in #1 above are frequently relevant to me, and I have purchased
| them. But I cannot think of a single time I have ever made any
| purchase based on any billboard. I would love if more
| municipalities clamped down on these.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| You can get rid of #1 by moving to Mastodon. Many servers
| appreciate donations but basically none of them have ads.
| nicbou wrote:
| #1 is about ads in the content itself, not ads that are
| designed to look like the posts around it
| sphars wrote:
| For integrated ads on YouTube (sponsor messages), you can use
| the SponsorBlock extension (https://sponsor.ajay.app/). If
| you're using Android, you can also get NewPipe with
| SponsorBlock integration.
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| If you can't use NewPipe, you can also.get Youtube ReVanced
| which also has sponsorblock
| joelthelion wrote:
| You can get rid of most of your remaining ads by using the
| Firefox version of ublock and sponsorblock. I almost never see
| any ads. Twitch is a notable exception.
| digging wrote:
| In my city there's a major road with no billboards, and I drive
| on it whenever it's a reasonable option. It's not exactly
| lovely, but it's only as bad as driving on a busy road has to
| be, no worse. It's also a lot safer.
|
| Whenever I tell people I prefer this road, they balk. When I
| tell them there's no billboards, they stop and think and
| realize that it's actually one of the nicest roads in the city.
| Parts of it are actually quite beautiful and forested.
|
| I've seen a handful of billboards that were mildly
| entertaining. I've never seen a billboard that made me [edit to
| add: _consciously_ ] want to buy something, in my entire life,
| as far as I can recall. I've seen countless billboards that
| manipulated my emotions, showing me food or sex while I'm just
| trying to drive, purposefully distracting me. And countless
| more that just suck and are pointless. Among my many grievances
| with car-dependency, billboards aren't at the top of the list,
| but they're a very easy target because most people actually
| hate them as soon as they stop to think about it in my
| experience.
| NittLion78 wrote:
| Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and Maine all do not allow for
| billboard advertisement, so at least there are a few places you
| can go for respite.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Some states (Iowa, at least, maybe Nebraska?) seem to have a
| rule that billboards have to be a certain distance away from
| the road - a fairly large distance. You have to _work_ to
| read them. It makes them much easier to ignore.
|
| I don't know if that's the rule for all roads, or just for
| interstates. I don't know if it's for driver safety if they
| veer off the road, or for avoiding distraction, or just to
| limit advertising. But I like it.
| ydant wrote:
| Virginia has a very small number of billboards, and it's
| definitely one of the nice things about this area.
|
| I haven't worked out exactly why some exist, but almost none
| do. The law is here:
|
| https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title33.2/chapter12/
|
| Regardless, the general feel of driving here is very
| different from many other states because of this rule. It's
| one of the first things I notice when I drive somewhere else
| in the US.
| browningstreet wrote:
| I think social media feed ads should have a requirement for a
| different background color of a certain % stronger/lighter than
| default. Everyone's hiding the "Promotion" text in light text
| or moving them around so the eye can't find it.
| technotarek wrote:
| I don't know where you live, but what about all the mail spam
| -- physical mail like catalogs and email advertising/marketing?
| And that half of what's published by most journalistic outlets
| is now veiled ads?
|
| Dear Products,
|
| I know me better than you. I'll come find you WHEN I need you.
| In the meantime, please just sit tight and stay out of my way.
|
| -Mr Consumption is Overrated
| dudul wrote:
| I do like these. I need them as kindling to start a fire.
| digging wrote:
| Careful, many are coated in glossy toxic plastics that also
| make them impossible to recycle. Just an extra "fuck you"
| to the world by the advertiser in permanently ruining the
| materials they used.
| graeme wrote:
| >what about all the mail spam -- physical mail like catalogs
| and email advertising/marketing?
|
| You can opt out of junk mail. Varies by area. Likely can be
| done by a "no junk" sticker, or by opting out via your postal
| service, or both. (A lot of fliers aren't distributed by
| postal service, but legally must obey no junk signs)
|
| Email is trickier, but recently I've had success simply
| unsubscribing from absolutely everything with an unsubscribe
| link. I used to leave stuff in if it _might_ be useful.
|
| To my surprise I now receive very few junk emails per day.
|
| >I know me better than you. I'll come find you WHEN I need
| you. In the meantime, please just sit tight and stay out of
| my way.
|
| All of the above said, ads actually work. It is possible of
| course they don't work on you, the reader of this comment.
| (Meaning anyone reading, not just the parent comment)
|
| But ads really do work in boosting sales.
| technotarek wrote:
| They work on me and that's exactly the problem -- that is
| they work at manipulating me. And that's why I want them
| gone. I'd rather free up the energy I spend on trying to
| ignore them and put that energy into something that
| actually makes my life better.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| Email I almost ignore entirely. I generally only read emails
| that I send myself and a few specific filters.
|
| Physical mail I just go down and throw it all out every so
| often. I wrote the date down on my whiteboard once after
| checking it and I noted that I go roughly three months in
| between times when I checked my mail.
| Feathercrown wrote:
| The Sponsorblock chrome extension does wonders
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Do you watch any sports on TV?
|
| The amount of ads packed into an NBA basketball game on TV is
| startling and exhausting: - each player's
| jersey - arena walls - courtside walls (tv screens)
| - projected onto the court floor (updated each minute) -
| on the side and top of the backboard - most TV graphics
| ("Taco Bell play of the game") - split-screen ads during
| free-throws - traditional commercials during time-outs
| walthamstow wrote:
| Advertising isn't quite as pervasive on UK TV sports coverage
| but the one and only I ever see or hear and advert in my life
| is when I'm watching football on Sky Sports. It's
| unavoidable.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| My mind immediately went to the feasibility of using an AI
| artist to remove most or all of this in real time. Could be
| an interesting shift in terms of the "live" experience being
| significantly worse/degraded relative to the broadcast
| version with all that stuff painted out.
| jareklupinski wrote:
| - each player's jersey
|
| i noticed some pretty no-name companies on jerseys recently
|
| makes me wonder how much it actually costs to get them to
| wear like a pin with my face on it for a few games
|
| "did you see me at the knicks game last night? i was
| everywhere!"
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| That is fucking egregious even by the absolute trip-hazard-
| in-hell standards of television, holy shit. I have no idea
| why anyone consumes anything on TV anymore.
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> But I cannot think of a single time I have ever made any
| purchase based on any billboard. I would love if more
| municipalities clamped down on these._
|
| In California the billboards are now predominantly cannabis and
| casinos.
| floren wrote:
| Depends where you are. Crossing the Bay Bridge, the
| difference is stark.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Which is baffling to me, because when I'm in the mood for
| vice _I will make an active effort to find it_. I 'm not
| going to go "Oh boy, I'll find that one store advertised on
| that billboard I was subjected to", I'm going to Google the
| nearest dispensary (or go to the next closest if I've already
| determined that one to be crap), or plan a Vegas trip. And
| the magic of vices is that you don't need to even put people
| in the mood, vice is it's own attraction. Coke dealers don't
| need to advertise, their customers come to them.
| 0xEF wrote:
| In Michigan, it's cannabis or personal injury lawyers, which
| is pretty on brand for us.
|
| I wonder if you can tell what a whole state is about just by
| looking at the billboards.
| dudul wrote:
| Billboards are kind of funny to me because I wonder if they
| really work.
|
| I would assume that people living in the city are so used to
| them that they don't even notice them.
| amelius wrote:
| > #2, which is what the article is about, is unavoidable for me
|
| Maybe one day you could wear AR goggles, and replace these ads
| by artworks?
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Pro tip about Youtube in-video promos, SponsorBlock is a really
| nice extension that will auto-skip those in many more popular
| videos!
| bvirb wrote:
| Years ago I was driving home and saw a Corona beer billboard
| and distinctly remember thinking that I would love a Pacifico.
| So it kinda worked on me.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| If you ever visit washington DC it is absolutely wild the kind
| of things that are advertised via billboard. Raytheon making
| sure everyone knows where to get their missiles etc.
| easton wrote:
| I still think it's super wild, but after thinking about it
| it's a lot like IT in big companies. Someone cold emails your
| boss and all of the sudden you're demoing some random doodad.
| In DC, your boss sees a fighter jet engine upgrade ad when
| walking into the Pentagon from the metro, and...
|
| (I literally saw that exact ad at the pentagon metro station.
| who buys a 30 million dollar engine upgrade off of a metro
| ad?)
| jabl wrote:
| When my country was tendering for new fighter jets a few
| years ago there were a lot of ads on various social media.
| Since random civilians like yours truly seldom impulse buy
| $100M latest generation fighter jets, I presume the goal
| was to influence public opinion and politicians to lean on
| the actual procurement organization that was responsible
| for arriving at a recommendation for the next generation
| jet. Still, it all seemed pretty far fetched, or maybe the
| vendors just had a poor understanding of how such
| procurement programs are run in my country.
| ydant wrote:
| I noticed the same when I drove around the San Francisco Bay
| Area, except targeted at IT professionals. Just like with DC,
| it makes sense - target the eyes of the people who can
| influence decisions that actually financially matter.
|
| Get outside of these bubbles, though, and it's all lawyers,
| casinos, car dealerships, and sex shops.
| Y_Y wrote:
| There used to be a widget you could get from the likes of
| ThinkGeek that would spam the "off" IR signal for lots of tvs
| and commercial displays. I remember seeing it as a neat trick
| twenty years ago, but more and more.I wish I really had one.
| Lots of storefronts have absurdly bright screens on all night
| now, project moving shit onto the sidewalk and just generally
| bombard your vision with distraction.
|
| I imagine you can use something like a Flipper to get a similar
| "put-outer" device nowadays but I haven't come across anyone
| using it in that way.
| marssaxman wrote:
| You are likely thinking of the Tv-B-Gone:
|
| https://www.tvbgone.com/
| Y_Y wrote:
| That's it! Good remember, thanks!
|
| > Disclaimer: This product is sold for the exclusive
| private use of the buyer on their own equipment . Use under
| adult supervision. For external use only. Side effect may
| include decreased anxiety, increased social skills,
| increased cognitive ability, increased sense of well being.
| The above statements have not been evaluated by the FDA.
| Effective personal choices are the sole responsibility of
| each individual user of this device.
| ydant wrote:
| Looks like it's built in on Flipper:
|
| https://blog.flipper.net/infrared/
|
| > To use the Universal Remote mode, navigate Infrared ->
| Universal library and select the type of device you want to
| control.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| The fact that you can advertise in cities is _the_ reason that
| big tech doesn 't capture 100% of profits in every single market.
| Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is
| the only way to reach people directly, without going through an
| intermediary big tech monopoly. I have a sense that the people
| most likely to support this thing also whine a lot about big
| tech, so this is just another bullet point in a long list of "why
| are these 5 companies controlling everything after I've destroyed
| every single alternative".
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Honestly maybe we should just ban all advertising? Advertising
| is generally a zero sum game - there's no meaningful difference
| if you spend 5M on ads and your competitors spend 5M on ads or
| you spend 0 and your competitors spend 0. There is a difference
| if you can spend 20M and your competitors can only spend 5M,
| but that's one way larger companies kill competition.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Right now this would be seen as impossibly radical, but I am
| increasingly of the opinion that advertising will someday be
| totally banned and our descendants will look back on it as
| barbaric. "You allowed corporations to spy on you and
| psychologically abuse you, instilling feelings of insecurity
| and inadequacy, everywhere you went? Why?"
| digging wrote:
| Advertising isn't a zero sum game because not all ad dollars
| are spent equally. Two companies can spend $5M each and get
| different results. One main variable is, to what degree do
| their ads _exploit_ and _abuse_ human neurology? Advertising
| is a hostile action. It 's parasitic. Almost all forms of
| advertising ought to be illegal in a reasonable society.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This is silly. If I remember a building company name when I
| want to make a change to my house, that's not abusing my
| neurology.
| scotty79 wrote:
| It's a negative sum game. I'd happily ban all advertising and
| replaced it with government managed services and products
| dictionary where suppliers would put their offers with
| prices.
|
| It would also be a hub of technical information about the
| products and their reviews. Also information about companies
| operating on the market. Conduct, ownership structure,
| financial information, everything. Basically all the market
| information on a silver platter for every customer and
| business to take.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Negative sum for society but zero sum for the players
| JAlexoid wrote:
| And then the likes of Donald comes in and decides, that
| anyone that didn't support his campaign isn't worthy to be
| listed in the government "dictionary"(it's directory).
|
| Yeah... I'll live with bad advertising, rather than pave
| the way to 1984.
| digging wrote:
| > The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that
| big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single
| market.
|
| I really don't think this is true. What evidence leads you to
| believe that?
|
| > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers
| is the only way to reach people directly
|
| Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local
| businesses usually rely on the most effective form of
| advertising, word-of-mouth. Some of the most successful local
| businesses in my city have literally never paid for
| advertising.
|
| Lastly, your complaint is meritless because Adfree Cities is
| not campaigning to ban all conceivable forms of advertising.
| From TFA (well, the FAQ page):
|
| > Why doesn't Adfree Cities campaign against all kinds of
| advertising?
|
| > Our focus is on creating neighbourhoods and cities free from
| corporate outdoor advertising such as billboards. There are
| specific problems with outdoor advertising as explained briefly
| above and in more detail here: The trouble with billboards. And
| there are unique opportunities for communities to reclaim these
| spaces for art, nature and local initiatives.
| bluGill wrote:
| While the billboard may be an international corporation, they
| target local business. Most billboards I see in rural areas
| are for local businesses targeting travelers with things they
| probably need anyway - gas, hotels, and restaurants at the
| next exit. In cities there is a different mix.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| At least in the US many of these are franchised businesses,
| so it is still corporations (Hilton, Best Western,
| McDonald's etc.)
| bluGill wrote:
| Hotels are often franchises, but it appears to me that
| the larger the franchise the less likely they are to
| advertise. McDonald's does some national ads, but often
| the billboards are a single store paying. Small mom and
| pop restaurants do get a fair number of billboards as
| well.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Franchised businesses, are still local businesses.
| They're not advertising a service far away, or a hotel on
| the other side of the planet.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| > > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to
| stickers is the only way to reach people directly
|
| > Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations.
| Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form of
| advertising, word-of-mouth. Some of the most successful local
| businesses in my city have literally never paid for
| advertising.
|
| Are they? From my experience, at least on roads here in the
| US, the majority seems to be realtors, ambulance chasing
| attorneys, restaurants/casinos/road-side attractions coming
| up, and various political/religious/group-affiliation
| advertising. Corporations make up some of course, but it's a
| lot more mixed than, say, TV ads.
| digging wrote:
| I could be wrong. Maybe the majority are those sorts of
| local businesses.
|
| What I never seem to see is local businesses I actually
| want to visit. The cool vintage stores, the goth stores,
| the retro game shops, the hole-in-the-wall Filipino
| restaurants, the local craft supply stores, the cat cafes,
| the weird toy stores, the artisan candy stores, the dubious
| bone and bone decor shops, the gay book stores, the
| Japanese import stores, the handmade ceramic planters
| store... you get the picture. The lifeblood of a city is
| not what's on its billboards.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| > vintage ... retro ... hole in the wall .. weird ...
| artisan .. dubios
|
| The adjectives you used are the opposite of mass market.
| Thus mass-market advertising doesn't work, so those
| businesses don't spend money in those channels.
|
| The ads that work on billboards are very high dollar
| services businesses, or multi-nationals who need to spend
| through budgets everywhere for neilsen scores.
|
| For example: insurance, lawyers and RE agents - they need
| to build "trust" through name recognition so when you do
| decide to make that purchase/call, you call them first.
|
| A retro game store billboard would be awesome - but how
| many people driving the interstate are interested in
| vintage games vs how many people will be buying a home in
| their lifetime?
|
| There's nothing stopping any business from buying
| billboards, but the economics just don't make sense apart
| from the whole "getting your face on a billboard" schtick
| that's fun.
|
| On the flip side, if you've ever been to a local sporting
| event like farm league baseball or local race track,
| you'll see all sorts of billboards for funky little local
| shops and services. That's cause the ads cost a couple
| hundred bucks and come with perks like tickets for your
| employees, and you're supporting your local community, so
| the ROI doesn't really matter.
|
| Roadside billboards cost thousands per month and
| typically come with pretty high minimums.
| digging wrote:
| > The adjectives you used are the opposite of mass
| market. Thus mass-market advertising doesn't work, so
| those businesses don't spend money in those channels.
|
| I know _why_ they don 't advertise on billboards. My
| point is that billboards are not the life support of
| local business suggested by the comment I was responding
| to, because the local businesses that give a city
| character and community generally don't use billboards.
|
| > For example: insurance, lawyers and RE agents - they
| need to build "trust" through name recognition so when
| you do decide to make that purchase/call, you call them
| first.
|
| ...Right. So in other words, the billboard is mostly
| deception, and it's probably not bringing value to the
| public.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Don't forget sex shops. I road trip quite often and the
| amount of billboard advertising purchased buy Lion's Den is
| truly staggering.
| Y_Y wrote:
| JCDecaux seems to run pretty much every
| billboard/hoarding/outdoor ad surface in Europe.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations.
| Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form of
| advertising, word-of-mouth._
|
| Your experience of this will depend on where you're living.
|
| When I lived in a 100,000 population city, the local theatres
| and museums weren't really big/organised enough to run
| billboard marketing campaigns and could fill their seats
| without. On the other hand, in a 500,000+ population city you
| were more likely to see such organisations marketing.
|
| Places like theatres tend to have location-specific marketing
| needs, because if you're 90 minutes travel from the opera
| house you will not be attending a Tuesday evening performance
| that ends at 22:30*, and marketing it to you would be a waste
| of time.
|
| I still hate city advertising though, and the way the ad
| infestation spreads once it's started.
|
| * Yes, people will travel more than 90 minutes for a
| Christmas performance of The Nutcracker, as a special treat -
| perhaps even staying in a hotel. But if you're trying to keep
| your theatre open in months other than December, you've got
| to fill the seats. And of course, patrons who buy interval
| drinks can't drive home, further shrinking your core
| market...
| JAlexoid wrote:
| > Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations.
|
| You literally made that up, because that's just plain false.
| digging wrote:
| I mean... prove it. Don't just make a false claim because
| you think someone else did.
|
| It seems to be true in my area. Among the billboards I see,
| the majority are advertising out-of-state companies... or
| even by other states' tourism boards.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| I doubt this is true, but would be interested in seeing
| evidence of the contrary.
|
| Based on my anecdotal observations 99% of advertisements I see
| in my city are by gigantic international conglomerates: Coca
| Cola, Disney, H&M, HBO and so on. I don't recall seeing a local
| or small business advertising (ignoring signs on or near their
| own store front of course).
|
| If anything it seems advertising works to entrench the existing
| players.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| I don't know where you are, but in NYC and in the area all
| billboards that I can remember are of local businesses.
|
| Just off the top of my mind the billboads that I remember
| seeing driving round Manhattan - RPM Raceway go-carts, HSS
| Hospital, a gentlemen's club, local news anchors...
| rambambram wrote:
| I don't like the billboards in my city (it's light pollution
| and it distracts me from driving at night), but I also have to
| agree with you. I came at a point where I had to do some
| marketing/advertisement for my website system and instead of
| throwing money in the black hole of Google and Facebook, I
| opted for addressed postal mail on one hand and placing some
| small billboards around my city. The results were mixed, but it
| felt good to not being dependent on online marketing.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Where I'm from, billboards are another monopoly. Sure, they're
| not the big tech monopoly, but is that the part that matters?
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Even if billboards are another monopoly, they creates more
| competition in the entire advertising market.
| karaterobot wrote:
| You seem to be speaking about Big Tech as though they were the
| ones who are _buying_ physical advertisements, rather than
| selling them. I think Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. mostly
| place digital ads for businesses, which would not be affected
| by a ban on physical ads in cities. The parties affected by a
| ban on physical ads like billboards in large cities would
| mostly be the large companies who buy them. Small businesses (a
| bakery, a bookstore, a barbershop) aren 't buying outdoor
| advertising at the rate that large companies are, and so if
| anything they'd be on a more level playing field.
| bluGill wrote:
| You picked small business that wouldn't buy billboard ads. I
| see local restaurants and hotels on billboards all the time:
| they are targeting non-locals who might use that business if
| they only new how close it was.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I don't remember seeing too many of those billboards, but
| I'll take your word that they're out there. Most of the
| billboards I recall seeing are telling me all my dreams
| will come true if I go to a tribal casino. I still think
| most people just look up local restaurants on their phones.
| I can't imagine the lack of billboards would hurt too many
| small, local restaurants.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Exaggerated (it's not 100%) but partially true. If I'm
| specifically driving on a highway or through a town, I only
| have two options to find businesses: billboards or Google Maps.
| Plenty of times on a road trip, I've seen a sign for a diner I
| like and headed over there.
| codexb wrote:
| Eh, most small to medium size towns in the US have ordinances
| and zoning restrictions that effectively outlaw this type of
| fixed advertising. Many outlaw billboards and Businesses can
| only have a single sign and it has to be within a certain size.
|
| You can still advertise in those areas, you just have to do it
| through mediums like bulletins, mailers, sponsorships, media
| and print -- things that are generally easier to avoid and opt-
| out of.
| paxys wrote:
| This makes no sense. Solo entrepreneurs, Etsy/Shopify stores
| and other random small businesses aren't buying giant
| billboards in the middle of cities, they are getting customers
| through Google and Facebook ads. Big tech literally invented
| direct consumer targeting.
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| Ban all ads. All of them, they all are junk info our brains are
| not designed to handle.
| andrewfromx wrote:
| free speech in the USA prevents this. What do you define as
| "ad". Can I talk to the person behind me in line at starbucks
| and tell them how I feel about the new iphone? Am I advertising
| to them? What if I work for apple? Can I wear a tshirt that
| says "iphone are great!" Ban that??
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I suspect it would still be unconstitutional, but you
| wouldn't be banning the speech but rather the financial
| transaction.
|
| I.e. it's legal to walk into starbucks and tell people about
| your product but you can't pay someone else to do it.
| maxwell wrote:
| Content bans are unconstitutional, blanket bans on visual
| pollution are not, as in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and
| Austin.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Austin_v._Reagan_Natio.
| ..
| Zak wrote:
| Alaska is an interesting case, as it _mostly_ has a right-
| libertarian political culture that says "it's nobody's
| business what I do on my own property" but draws the line
| at billboards.
|
| I grew up there, and seeing billboards other places was
| jarring.
| helen___keller wrote:
| I understand why people hate advertising but if I'm honest, I
| don't agree with having an "adfree city".
|
| I personally like the aesthetic of visual overload that you find
| in ad-laden cities (let's say in Tokyo). It makes the space feel
| living, breathing, and alive, which a city should be. And then
| the visually quiet spaces, like temples and parks, feel much more
| sweet.
|
| Also at a conceptual level I disagree with the justification that
| we should make cities adfree due to the harms of ads (described
| in OP). Ads will appear elsewhere: within stores, online, on top
| of taxi cabs, stapled to poles, and so on. We can't make ads
| disappear. Our best bet is to target specifically the most
| harmful ads by law (like misleading/false advertising and such).
| arketyp wrote:
| They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them.
| Now I can steelman the argument against ads by likening them to
| parasites or drugs. The "want" can then be put into question.
| Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not
| enough for their efficacy and continued existence. Someone has
| to actually buy the stuff too, and that's a choice which is up
| to the person. Are we so incapacitated we can't just take some
| personal responsibility and resist in quiet? I find this
| revolting mob strategy distasteful, honestly.
| digging wrote:
| I do suggest you read the FAQ page on the linked site because
| it answers all of your disagreements. In particular:
|
| > Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is
| not enough for their efficacy and continued existence.
|
| Modern ads are so effective at exploiting our minds that
| their existence _is_ enough to drive our purchases. You don
| 't even have to be aware of them.
|
| > personal responsibility
|
| is never the answer to powerful corporations abusing the
| public. Vulnerable people do and always will exist.
| Nagyman wrote:
| It seems that so many here think they're above being
| manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's
| soft and malleable.
|
| > Vulnerable people do and always will exist.
|
| Hear! Hear! Not to mention that children are even more
| susceptible than adults, and they do not get a choice in
| their exposure to advertising. There's so much "think of
| the children" talk to justify intrusions into privacy, but
| little to be heard (in North America) of exposing them to
| manipulative marketing tactics _specifically_ designed to
| wiggle their way into young and adult brains, alike.
|
| I'm strongly in favour of protecting ourselves from
| advertising in publicly visible areas. Fill it with nature
| and beautiful things (i.e. art). It's our world, and nobody
| has a right to our attention.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| > It seems that so many here think they're above being
| manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's
| soft and malleable.
|
| It seems that you think that banning some ads will make
| any difference. Ads are really poor at actually
| convincing you to do anything in the first place. We had
| to employ multitude of media formats to reduce smoking...
| and even then, it's not at 0 today.
|
| You will not want to go to McDonalds, just because you
| saw an ad for it. You first will have to find it
| acceptable to go to a fast food restaurant, which is
| shaped by culture. Then the ad may result in you choosing
| to go to McDonalds.... but at that point you've already
| chosen to go to a fast food restaurant.
| marssaxman wrote:
| If advertising has so little effect on our behavior as
| you suppose, surely there can be little harm done by
| forbidding billboards, as this would force the companies
| who purchase those ads to save money they are currently
| wasting.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Way to completely miss my point.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| > They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want
| them.
|
| I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I DO-NOT
| want them.
|
| People also want pr0n. Should we paste it all over?
|
| But then all ads are pr0n.
|
| They use vulgar manipulative displays to make you lust and
| desire something usually with overly attractive people.
|
| pr0n feels more honest in a way.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| For me, the ads in Tokyo are unfamiliar, so I can enjoy the
| colors and energy more. vs say Times Square, where the ads
| really hit me over the head.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Times Sq is literally the extreme side of ads. It's literally
| what makes Times Sq - Time Square.
|
| Imagine if NYC banned all visual advertising? One of the most
| iconic sites of NYC would just disappear.
| nox100 wrote:
| agreed. I even enjoy reading the ads on the trains in Tokyo. I
| find out about all kinds of random stuff. There are ads for
| events, museums, concerts, festivals, condos, other train
| lines, manga, video games, etc...
| okr wrote:
| To be honest, i have experienced socialist and communist
| countries, and i never want to go back to this cold, adfree
| world with its purely functional esthetics. I can understand
| the aversion for the Ad-Overload, but no Ads, nah, i want it
| colorful, shiny and blinking. :)
| Nagyman wrote:
| I too enjoy colourful and shiny, but adfree does not imply
| purely functional aesthetics.
|
| Can you imagine another possible scenario?
| paxys wrote:
| Is there really no form of public expression you can think of
| other than commercial advertising?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| You can have beautiful architecture, street art as big as
| buildings. Literally anything is better than advertising.
| visarga wrote:
| > I personally like the aesthetic of visual overload that you
| find in ad-laden cities (let's say in Tokyo)
|
| Tokyo is visually interesting so could get an exemption. But
| ads look much uglier in other places, here's a sample:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/6AOWmdC
| tayo42 wrote:
| It dont think that Tokyo picture is full of ads. While I
| can't read Japanese, from my trip there, those were mostly
| listing the stores in the building.
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| You don't need ads for that, it could just be art. You could
| enjoy vibrant artistic billboards without anyone trying to
| shove products down your throat.
|
| Ever thought of that?
| massysett wrote:
| Who is going to pay for them?
| j_maffe wrote:
| We will pay for them (through governmental taxes) instead
| of the advertised products that the advertisements get us
| to pay for. It's a net-win for the community.
| pastacacioepepe wrote:
| It's funny how nobody ever asks this question when the
| topic is military spending.
| massysett wrote:
| Military is a wee bit more necessary than getting rid of
| billboards, just ask Ukraine.
| dantyti wrote:
| The consumer is paying for the ads in the end. This just
| cuts out the grifters in the middle.
| WWLink wrote:
| I don't know. I think there are differences. Like ads on the
| front of a store (advertising things sold in said store), vs
| ads when you go to use the gosh darn toilet and a video starts
| talking to you while you're sitting there.
| PeterisP wrote:
| I haven't been to Tokyo, however, could it depend on the _local
| focus_ of the ads?
|
| I.e. I'd consider visual advertising that draws attention to
| stuff that is right there (e.g. suggesting to visit the store,
| bar or show behind the door that's below the advert) as
| completely different as the same size ad for something that's
| not relevant to physically being then and there (e.g. a car or
| insurance).
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Ads in commercial buildings aren't actually ads, they're just
| information. You walked into a store to see products so the
| store is merely showing you what you want to see, organized so
| you can find what you want. Nothing wrong with a sign showing
| people the name of a business on its own building either, those
| are actually useful, even for navigation and orientation.
|
| Advertising is when they bombard you with noisy information
| while you're crossing a street or waiting for the bus. Nothing
| but pollution.
|
| > We can't make ads disappear.
|
| We absolutely can. Make it straight up illegal and start
| applying some serious fines. I guarantee they will stop.
| jmugan wrote:
| I think of it as "stealing" my attention. Instead of enjoying
| blue sky as my thoughts wander peacefully, someone takes this
| from me to yell that I should buy a new widget.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Not just your attention.
|
| Advertising is designed to make the person you are envy the
| person you could be if you bought their product. That is, it
| attempts to steal your satisfaction, and then offers to sell it
| back to you.
|
| Quoting from memory, and I don't remember who I'm quoting, so I
| can't give credit where due. I didn't originate the thought, or
| even the wording. But it has stuck with me, because it explains
| what so much of advertising does.
| 2cynykyl wrote:
| I'm turning this concept into my new life motto, thank you!
| (Not that I needed it, I'm already so anti ads). Anyway, if
| you ever remember the source please post it back here.
| benkillin wrote:
| I think this, too.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Ad-free goes hand in hand with distraction-free for me. Thus
| "Stay up to date with Adfree Cities" and "Watch the video to see
| three steps you can take today" do not speak to me, at all.
| cwillu wrote:
| "Greenwashing is a CRIME" disgusted me and soured me on the
| whole thing, despite the concept itself being quite appealing
| and also being generally opposed to greenwashing.
| digging wrote:
| So you're only interested in insulating yourself from ads?
| That's fine, but why even click the link then? Neither of those
| things they're offering are inherently distractions; it's not
| like they're signing you up for push notifications or
| unsolicited calls.
| sunday_serif wrote:
| Not so long ago, I was traveling around Switzerland. During my
| time in the country, there was always something just a little
| off, and I couldn't place what it was.
|
| Was it cleaner? Was the architecture just very modernist? Did it
| have something to do with the season?
|
| Eventually, I realized that the difference I was noticing between
| Switzerland and California (my home state) was that there was
| simply much less advertising in the physical spaces of cities.
|
| I am not sure if this is a result of some legislature there or if
| it is just a result of the way the Swiss think about visual
| design and advertising.
|
| But I absolutely loved it. It was so refreshing to see the beauty
| of a city block without being bombarded by advertisements.
|
| It really lets the character of a city shine through.
|
| LA, SF and Sac seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum...
| practically the only thing you notice are the billboards.
| davidgay wrote:
| Billboards (standalone or on buildings) are not allowed.
| secretsatan wrote:
| Geneva narrowly rejected banning billboards recently.
|
| https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/geneva-throws-out-ban-...
| maxwell wrote:
| Yeah I've heard several people report similar "little off but I
| love it" feelings when visiting here in Maine. The obnoxious
| billboards always bugged me around Chicago as a kid, but my
| kids enjoy the novelty when traveling. Similar with TV: we got
| a digital bunny ear and they were all excited about the
| commercials, as they've seen so few in their lives (YouTube
| Premium, streaming, discs/drives, etc.).
| Zanni wrote:
| Hawaii has a "no billboards" law [0] (as do Maine, Vermont and
| Alaska). I think this is a cleaner, better statement than "ad-
| free city," which is obviously far overstating the case _and_
| paradoxically doesn 't even ban billboards (they're still
| allowed for non-corporate advertising).
|
| [0] https://movingtokona.com/why-there-are-no-billboards-in-
| hawa...
| ruddct wrote:
| I've had the pleasure of visiting a few cities/countries without
| much (if any) physical advertising/billboards, it's a change
| that's both incredibly jarring and incredibly pleasant!
|
| At first there's a bit of an uncanny valley effect, particularly
| when driving around a city. Eventually that settles down, and the
| reduction in low-level visual stimulus is really appreciated.
| Coming back home, you might see the insane levels of visual
| pollution we deal with in a new light.
|
| Not qualified to comment on the broader economic ramifications of
| this, but as a normal person navigating the world, it's pretty
| great!
| woodruffw wrote:
| Seems like a laudable goal to me, but there are degrees here:
|
| * Advertising in the form of pasted posters, signs for nearby
| stores, etc.;
|
| * "Large scale" advertising, e.g. the 60+ foot free-standing or
| roof-mounted pillars that are common in US cities and on roads;
|
| * Mixed-digital advertising that usually has some kind of
| analytics or tracking mixed in (e.g. the much-maligned "digital
| front" displays that some convenience stores are installing[1])
|
| To my mind, the first is mostly unobjectionable, the second is
| _usually_ visually offensive (and should be price-adjusted to
| reflect the diminishing effect it has on the urban environment),
| and the third is civically offensive (and should be outright
| illegal).
|
| [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/business/walgreens-freezer-
| sc...
| sunday_serif wrote:
| I don't have any numbers on hand, but I have to imagine this
| would also reduce a lot of waste.
|
| I didn't realize until recently that almost all billboards are
| made of a thick plastic vinyl material.
|
| I recently saw one of these billboards folded up on the ground
| before it went up. It's just a giant chunk of plastic that I
| imagine ends up in some landfill somewhere.
| givinguflac wrote:
| I love this effort! I try my best to avoid any type of
| advertising. I'll buy an AR/VR headset/glasses when they can
| block IRL billboard ads. That's the killer app for me.
| anonporridge wrote:
| I've had friends observe that I'm sometimes extremely oblivious
| to public signage that gives important information that I should
| really be paying attention to, or looking around lost to figure
| out my way when a directing sign is right in my face.
|
| Perhaps some of that is that my head is too much in the clouds,
| but I suspect a huge part of it is that the overabundance of ads
| everywhere trying to manufacture desire has conditioned me to
| filter out most public signage.
|
| At least in my lived experience, the noise to signal ratio of
| information out in public is way too high.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I've got an overactive filter as well, and I think it's because
| of a similar conditioning around "99% of incoming signal is
| worthless to me".
|
| I'm often wondering what the speed limit is here because I
| missed the sign.
|
| I still notice pretty sunsets though.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| > noise to signal ratio of information out in public is way too
| high
|
| Even if you remove ads, it's not going to change significantly.
| dantyti wrote:
| I've read your comment and looked at some photos of Times
| Square and the Piccadilly Circus. Hard disagree.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Both exist as a thing explicitly because of the amount of
| ads. No one goes to Time Sq to have "authentic Italian"
| meal at Olive Garden.
|
| They aren't a proof of ads being too much noise. Not any
| more than a lion at a zoo is proof that lions have overrun
| the city.
| snow_mac wrote:
| I wonder, what's the carbon impact to junk mail (advertisements),
| billboards, digital ads and ads in video. These all take billions
| of dollars to produce, print, edit, mail, send all over the
| world. I want to know what percentage advertising plays in
| emissions.
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| We were on a small island off the coast of Mexico a few weeks ago
| and they have a program where buildings can make their external
| wall/walls available for local artists to pitch and paint on. It
| made the island have a really nice feel and brightened the
| streets considerably. Much nicer than a soap or movie ad.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| I lived in Grenoble (France) for 9 years and recently moved to
| another city. I arrived shortly after big billboards (but by far
| not all advertising) was banned from the inner city in Grenoble,
| and the difference now is quite staggering. I don't get how
| people put up with this shit, I feel physically attacked every
| time I walk past big billboards.
| danjc wrote:
| I sincerely hope the UK doesn't get that monstrosity of an ad
| billboard - Sphere. In Las Vegas, it's basically right at home
| but in the UK it might be the most unbritish installation ever.
| germandiago wrote:
| This is totally double-edged. We get information from the
| environment as well.
|
| If advertisements get forbidden they could easily get replaced by
| "good things to do" monopoly gobernments. Namely, propaganda.
|
| Also, ads make life for many people.
|
| I think regulation is enough. Forbiding would be harmful IMHO as
| a whole.
| maxwell wrote:
| Any signs of this in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, or Maine, where
| billboards have been banned since 1977 and earlier?
| moolcool wrote:
| > Also, ads make life for many people.
|
| What?
| legitster wrote:
| I'll be the contrarian here and say that I actually like certain
| advertisements and billboards.
|
| If you are stuck in traffic or on a bus in an ugly urban
| hellscape, is a billboard really that bad? I'm sorry, they are
| not going to plant trees in Times Square to replace the
| billboards. Even in their own press photos, they are showing
| several billboards that are covering up even uglier buildings!
|
| Maybe _you_ are an enlightened individual and want to put an end
| to consumerism and society. In the meantime _I_ personally still
| buy things and shop. And billboards are a pretty unobtrusive and
| low-tech way of getting my intention. I still regularly learn
| about new restaurants or attractions or museum exhibits because
| of well placed billboards.
|
| I certainly thing some billboard types and content and locations
| are bad (digital billboards - yuck). But that seems like an
| argument for good policy making from your local government rather
| than a blanket opposition to all forms.
| noqc wrote:
| >How will I ever decide to buy things?
| hot_gril wrote:
| Yeah, I'd oppose the installation of a billboard in my
| neighborhood, that's about it. You wanna put one on the highway
| or commercial zone, I don't really care. I've lived in
| billboard-heavy cities (like LA) and billboard-free ones.
| citified wrote:
| I agree that ads on ugly 10-lane highways don't really detract
| from anything, but this is not the case with the cities this
| organisation deals with. They are mostly historic,
| pedestrianised cities in England where (especially digital)
| advertising would be of serious detriment to the surroundings,
| which is what is being campaigned against here.
| hot_gril wrote:
| That makes sense. I wouldn't want ads or anything else ugly
| in a historic area, but also this is normally something you
| combat locally. It seems like this site targets an oddly
| broad audience.
| Symbiote wrote:
| A lot of people in Britain live in, work in or regularly
| visit a historic area.
|
| However, I think they're targeting everywhere in the UK,
| historic or not.
| legitster wrote:
| I can totally see not wanting ads in historic areas, but
| on their website you can see them protesting billboards
| in industrial sections and freeway underpasses and the
| like.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Man, this site almost looks like an intentional
| distraction from real pollution-fighting measures.
| vlvdus wrote:
| I support you. I've been living in a city with no billboards
| for a while - it's rather boring for various reasons,
| billboards would be an improvement.
| digging wrote:
| How boring can your city be that _billboards_ are enough
| entertainment to improve it? Are you sure you 're, y'know,
| participating in urban life at all?
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Billboards distract drivers and are a safety hazard. They're
| also lit up like crazy and are an extra hazard at night not to
| mention the light pollution.
|
| Advertising for local events should be allowed under some carve
| out but it would be nice if the vast majority of ads died as
| they're not that. Here in SF for example when entering or
| leaving the city the ads are full of coke, Disney, Apple or
| Google phones, or various startups trying to show VCs their
| money is being put to good use (same thing film studios do in
| LA putting awards nominations and tv ada on billboards on the
| route to work/home of influential money people on a given
| project)
| legitster wrote:
| I agree that some billboards are real road hazards. But if
| you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather
| you look at them than your phone.
|
| SF is actually the example I had in mind because they do a
| good job of keeping them away from the scenic areas - but the
| whole downtown core is already such a dump that I really
| don't mind the advertisements.
|
| I think you are also discounting how weird SF ads are - as a
| visitor they are actually unique and interesting to me. One
| of the fun things about visiting different cities is seeing
| how unique the cultures are, and ads actually give you a good
| window into this.
| digging wrote:
| > But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic
| I'd rather you look at them than your phone.
|
| Billboards don't only appear when traffic is stopped
| though. It's not worth the increased danger.
|
| Also, I really don't think the presence of billboards is a
| common deciding factor in whether or not someone is looking
| at their phone. Maybe if they're driving in an otherwise
| featureless void, but I think people are either going to
| look at their phone or not, regardless of what's outside
| their car.
| legitster wrote:
| No. But billboards are generally placed in areas of
| higher traffic. And I don't necessarily see why they are
| implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs,
| bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already
| navigate.
|
| Regardless, your DoT or local authority probably already
| has a lot of rules in place about how visually
| distracting billboards are allowed to be, and which
| section of roads they are determined to be safe on. So
| they are already fairly highly regulated from a safety
| standpoint.
| digging wrote:
| > But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher
| traffic.
|
| Great. High traffic areas are the most dangerous places
| for distractions.
|
| > why they are implicitly more distracting than the
| myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that
| drivers already navigate.
|
| I'll list the reasons:
|
| 1. Road signs are standardized in a given state, and
| they're designed to be extremely easy to understand at a
| glance, so their meaning can typically be understood
| without the driver having to actually read anything on
| them. They're also pretty close to where you should be
| looking already.
|
| 2. Bumper stickers and car decals are necessarily _on_
| the objects you 're supposed to be watching most of the
| time. (But, yes, they can still be distracting.)
|
| 3. Billboards are often not in line-of-sight of the
| things you're trying to avoid crashing into, and can be
| wildly distracting. The fact that they're regulated for
| levels of visual distraction is hilarious news to me,
| having seen billboards in real life. Calling them "fairly
| highly regulated" feels disingenuous; others might say
| "barely regulated."
|
| 4. Having fewer distractions is less dangerous than
| having more distractions, so we should try to reduce
| distractions. We're not going to get rid of road signs,
| because that would be insane. We could get rid of bumper
| stickers, but they're orders of magnitude less common
| than billboards and they're less distracting and they
| typically don't have all the other negative effects of
| advertising that billboards do.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| You can surely provide some kind of research, that can
| support your argument... right?
|
| It's not just your opinion based on...
| vlovich123 wrote:
| I might find this counter at all interesting if not for:
|
| A) it stands to reason that if phones are distracting so
| are billboards which are literally designed to get your
| attention
|
| B) a simple internet search yields all sorts of research
| into this topic supporting the common sense expectation.
|
| As a community, we should strive for higher information
| commentary maybe?
|
| https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/05/02/study-distracting-
| roa...
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411179/
| digging wrote:
| Considering most of my arguments are self-evident, no.
| I'm not going to provide research to prove that... let's
| see, "bumper stickers are attached to cars," or that
| "official road signs are easy to read at a glance."
|
| Try providing some evidence of how "highly regulated"
| billboard distraction levels are and I might take this
| conversation seriously.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| > Billboards distract drivers and are a safety hazard.
|
| And you have any kind of conclusive evidence to this claim?
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Have you actually tried a search online before making this
| comment? I put some links in another comment but it took
| longer for you to post that comment than to find the
| relevant studies.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| > _Maybe you are an enlightened individual and want to put an
| end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally
| still buy things and shop._
|
| Do you really see the removal of advertising from public space
| as this much of a threat to your way of life? Your sarcastic
| remark about ending consumerism and society sounds quite
| hateful towards people who don't want to see advertising,
| whereas (speaking from myself at least) I feel no hate at all
| towards people who don't mind ads. My preference for not
| viewing ads comes purely from my own personal annoyance that I
| experience whenever I see them, it does not come from any kind
| of hate or dislike towards people like you who don't mind them,
| and I don't really want to change anyone's lifestyle.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| If you don't want to see X, you just have to no look. Being
| offended by X, doesn't mean that you have an inherent right
| to ban X.
|
| X throughout the times were/are ads, black people, campaign
| billboards, crossdressing and Pride parades.
|
| Every time someone says "it should be banned, because I don't
| want to see it in public" is eerily reminiscent of the
| arguments of homophobes that I hear all the time.
|
| "I don't want to see" or "it offends me" must never be a
| reason for banning something. It's not sufficient.
| rurp wrote:
| > Maybe you are an enlightened individual and want to put an
| end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally
| still buy things and shop.
|
| It's interesting to me that you connect these things so
| strongly, as if anyone opposed to public ads are also opposed
| to all of modern commerce. I guess it's a sign of how pervasive
| the ad industry has become in certain areas, that it seems
| inseparable from normal business. Fortunately it is quite
| possible to have vibrant free markets in areas that are not
| plastered in corporate advertisements.
| legitster wrote:
| I'm was only being a _little_ flip there. Taken straight from
| their website:
|
| > We see the fight against billboards as part of a wider
| struggle for social, ecological and economic justice.
|
| So to be completely fair, I am responding to the case that
| _they are making_ that combatting billboards is just one
| piece of an intersectional fight against corporations and
| injustice.
| dantyti wrote:
| Well, yes. Previously, anyone could put up a poster on a
| public Morris column in my city, now all the public space
| is owned by jcdecaux.
| dantyti wrote:
| >If you are stuck in traffic or on a bus in an ugly urban
| hellscape, is a billboard really that bad?
|
| Yes, it intrudes into a person's thought pattern with the
| explicit goal of selling you a product/service/idea. I'd much
| rather stare at a wall and continue with my thought or look at
| a work of art (which 99.99% of ads are not, imho).
|
| > I'm sorry, they are not going to plant trees in Times Square
| to replace the billboards. Even in their own press photos, they
| are showing several billboards that are covering up even uglier
| buildings!
|
| So why not put up a non-distracting work of art? Have ads
| become the only visual expression allowed in public?
| uneekname wrote:
| I grew up in a U.S. city without any billboards, and it was such
| a shock to move somewhere with a "normal" number of billboards.
| Besides being ugly, I wonder how they could possibly be
| effective? Does anyone choose their motorcycle insurance based on
| which billboard they see first?
| numlock86 wrote:
| The root problem is people do "fall" for advertisements. They are
| everywhere because ... well, they work. There's rarely any
| critical thinking involved and often ads are not even identified
| as such and people consider them "information".
| chankstein38 wrote:
| I've never understood why billboards are legal. They're
| distracting and placed along the roads and highways. In my
| driving course I remember being told that even so much as talking
| to a passenger or adjusting the volume of the radio can be
| dangerous so you should be paying 100% attention to the road.
|
| So why are billboards, things that are specifically built, along
| roads, to draw my attention legal?
|
| So let's go adfreecities!
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I got the same lecture in driver's ed, but let's be honest:
| that was never accurate. It's perfectly fine to talk to someone
| while you're driving, or to adjust the volume on the radio real
| quick. I imagine that the lectures given to teens learning to
| drive are motivated by the fact that new drivers need to focus
| more, and are stubborn so they need to have the point driven
| home harder. For a responsible adult driver, neither
| conversation nor radio adjustments nor billboards are a
| dangerous distraction.
|
| I do think that billboards are ugly and would prefer to not
| have them, but I don't think that there is a reasonable
| justification to ban them on safety grounds.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| If billboards are a safety hazard, then all road signs are as
| well. (But they aren't)
| rurp wrote:
| Road signs provide information for roads to function
| properly, so even if they are a distraction the tradeoff is
| worth it. Billboards provide no such utility, they only
| impose costs on drivers for the benefit of ad companies and
| their customers.
| JAlexoid wrote:
| Then it would be easy for you to provide multiple
| studies, saying that billboards are distracting.
|
| Not just your opinion, but a lot of concrete evidence. We
| have had billboards for decades now. There's tonnes of
| data on where accidents happen. Yet no one seems to be
| able to provide data based backing to their opinions...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Actually, there is evidence that removing signs in some
| conditions make streets safer.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remov
| a...
| dantyti wrote:
| I wholeheartedly agree. Furthermore, we now have ads that are
| giant flashy LED screens at the busiest intersections.
|
| The most distracting thing you could think of (flashy ads)
| at.the.busiest.intersection... really gets on my nerve
|
| Also, I think this is also a matter of accessibility: these ad
| vendors are endangering drivers with various health or mental
| conditions/disorders (e.g., ADD, ADHD, AS).
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Because advertisers think their concerns over their profits
| override literally everything. How will the poor corporations
| make money if they can't flood people's senses with bullshit
| information they don't want or need?
|
| Driving accidents? Small price to pay, the Instagram model
| needs followers for her fashion business so it's totally fine
| for an ad depicting her in a bikini to be placed right in front
| of a dangerous roundabout where accidents happen on a monthly
| basis. I wish I was kidding, that exact ad is located just over
| 1 kilometer away from my house. I should take a picture of it.
| everdrive wrote:
| Adfree is the only thing I'll currently tolerate. I tried out the
| Spotify client back on linux when the company was really new. If
| I turned the volume off while it played an advertisement, it
| actually paused the ad until I turned the volume back up.
|
| One strike and they're out. Spotify has been banned in my
| household ever since.
| paxys wrote:
| Or, you know, you could pay them.
| everdrive wrote:
| I won't pay somebody who would attempt to force to show me
| ads. Youtube's approach is much more appropriate: deny access
| to the site. I'm not owed content, but no one has the right
| to force me to view content either.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| I kinda like how they do it in Finland. Companies can have a
| smallish logos on their buildings. Most of Helsinki is unspoiled
| by garish boards except a few in the obvious shopping area around
| Kamppi.
| miguelazo wrote:
| This is one of the great things about traveling in Cuba-- no
| billboards.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| This is disappointing. They're covering ads...with their own ads.
| Their methods appear to be mounting targeted campaigns against
| _specific_ ad runs. That's totally unavailable.
|
| Highway billboards cause crashes [1]. In cities it kills
| pedestrians [2]. What we need is model legislation folks can
| introduce to their city councils. Not gushy nonsense, aimed at
| making participants feel good more than tangible effect, where
| the front-page call to action is to join a mailing list.
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31408362/
|
| [2]
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46413392_Effects_of...
| secabeen wrote:
| Santa Barbara, CA has banned most billboards and outdoor
| advertising for many years; it's quite refreshing. Being back in
| LA or SF where it's allowed is somewhat jarring, honestly.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| Interesting that I've been noticing similar sentiment (people
| focusing on making public spaces nicer and ad-free) in the Czech
| Republic as well. It seems related to covid but I think it
| started earlier.
| waihtis wrote:
| Yet another political green movement which will shortly pivot
| into antiracism and other populist leftist topics
| celestialcheese wrote:
| Does this include billboards at local tracks, ballfields,
| sporting centers?
|
| What about ads inside airports? Bus stops? Transit stations?
|
| Where will the money come from to fill in the budget gaps left by
| removing these ads?
|
| If I'm at a local minor league baseball game, and see an ad for
| "Bill the plumber", how is that a problem? It's local community
| supporting local community spaces. If Bud Lite buys a spot next
| to them, great! More dollars for my local ballpark so they can
| stay open.
|
| The nature of local, physical advertising is that the ad dollars
| stay (mostly)* local.
|
| * Mostly because clearchannel manages most billboards on roadways
| around the country. They pay rent to landowners, who may or may
| not be local, but they also pay local taxes. So not perfect
| dollar retention.
| iambateman wrote:
| It's hard to overstate how peaceful being in an ad-free city is.
| the first time I experienced this was Hilton Head Island, which
| does a great job of limiting signage and ads inside the island.
|
| I didn't realize how much the visual noise really does make a
| difference.
|
| Next, let's do cars driving faster than 30mph. :D
| 5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E wrote:
| I've been on a tear blocking absolutely all ads in my life, and
| it has made my life so much more serene and peaceful. The one
| thing I cannot do anything about is ads in the physical space,
| which sucks, so this initiative is right up my alley. I'm not in
| UK, but all I can say is godspeed to this initiative.
| dantyti wrote:
| IRL ad blocking is the only use case that would make me
| consider using AR
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The killer app for smart glasses. I want this so much.
| poniko wrote:
| I would pay 5% tax to skip all ads in my life ..
| triyambakam wrote:
| I live on an implicitly ad free island in the Pacific. You might
| figure out where but I'm being vague for privacy. In any case, I
| don't believe there is any law against e.g. billboards here, but
| there definitely aren't any. I really appreciate it. When I've
| driven in e.g. California I feel so depressed seeing all the
| billboards.
| BizarreByte wrote:
| I lived on an island (not in the pacific) where billboards are
| completely banned, the height of business signs is limited, and
| where very, very few public places had any advertisements, even
| in the "city".
|
| It was wonderful and it's one thing I really miss.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| This group is called "adfree cities", and yet, looking at their
| websites, it looks like they are heavily into ads themselves.
|
| Sure, their ads are more ethical, I guess, calling to action
| against fossil fuels is better than advertising for fossil fuels,
| I guess. But ethical ads are still ads, they clutter the
| landscape, they call for attention and are an attempt to
| influence people.
|
| I understand that even anti-ad groups need to advertise
| themselves, but really, I would have preferred if they could show
| more actual ad removal and less ad replacement.
| lancesells wrote:
| I would also prefer they weren't loading scripts from the
| biggest ad company in the world (Google).
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| I went to that cite expecting to see a list of Adfree Cities, but
| couldn't find the list...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-13 23:02 UTC)