art not ads

A kind reader sent me an audio clip (MP3 format) from a recent Radio 4 broadcast discussing the future of advertising in London’s rail stations.

As we guessed a while ago on this blog, the images on the plasma screens that line escalators can indeed be controlled so that the image changes as you roll past, ensuring optimal brand exposure. The interviewee also reveals that the large cross-platform advertising will soon be projected moving images, rather than static posters.

I’m sure you’d agree: the future has arrived. It’s maximally intrusive, and nobody asked for it.

(To those who have mentioned the prevalence of London-related stories, my apologies. However, if you have anything relating to the increasing intrusion of advertising in public spaces in your area, then please do get in touch, and we’ll see what can be done).

Funny adverts

When I mention Art Not Ads to people, there seems to be a fairly common response: “Ah, but what about that ad for XYZ? It’s really funny! If we didn’t have advertising, we’d have fewer funny things on TV/billboards/radio!”

Where do you start with such wrong-headedness? First, I suppose, there’s the inherent assumption that we need TV/billboards/radio for our entertainment. This is, of course, daft. With the BBC intent on dumbing-down its content in order to compete with the Murdoch-style popular media, TV and radio are increasingly the realm of banal lowest-common-denominator mush. Intellectual snobbery? Not really, just common sense. If the only half-decent publicly funded broadcasting corporation left on the planet insists on competing with the purveyors of reactionary claptrap then they’ll have to play by the same set of rules. There goes the neighbourhood.

A second assumption is that something funny must be OK. Well, that just doesn’t cut it, does it? I’m sure Jo Stalin knew a few good jokes. “Shame about the whole genocide business but he really knew how to work a crowd!” If something makes you laugh, does that mean it’s something you’d agree with universally? Funny does not equal correct. I sincerely hope anyone that finds Jeremy Clarkson funny, for example, can see that he’s a hideous force for Bad. (And anyone reading this and thinking “Ah! So you’re saying that funny things are wrong?” should be given a quick course in logic and put out of their misery.)

A third assumption is that advertising is the only way that entertainment can be funded or publicised. How nutty is that? Great Aunt Bertha’s nut-cake, that’s how nutty. Squirrel pie. It seems to me that the reverse perspective holds far more water: by corralling the cash, advertising agencies sap a lot of the creative talent. People “need jobs” after all, and a lot unfortunately tend to follow the cash. This perpetuates an environment where it’s very difficult to get non-corporate creativity shown to the public. This is similar to a discussion on the ANA pledgebank.com forum: one poster makes the point that charities are given advertising space if it’s spare, but didn’t seem to appreciate that this is the equivalent of pricing charities out of the advertsing market, then offering them the crumbs from the table and expecting them to be happy. Seems like an odd thing to be happy with.

A little economics

Reading back over the pledgebank.com forum, I don’t think I made one point clearly enough. The question was raised: what’s wrong with using advertising to fund a public service (e.g. bus, Tube, trains, etc). Here are some thoughts:

1. Advertising makes you spend your money with the advertisers. Simple. It has to do this, or there would be no point in advertising. Right? Right.
2. Advertisers pay the public service provider in order to advertise to the public.
3. You (being a member of the public, I presume) pay twice: once to the service provider, and second to the advertiser when you buy their products.
4. Advertisers make a profit, even after paying a share of their revenue to the service provider where they advertise.
5. This means that, by paying both the service provider and the advertiser, we are paying more than required to run the public service without the advertising.

Got that? It’s obvious really: the advertisers spend in order to get back more cash than they spend: in other words, to make a profit. They get that cash from the people who are exposed to the ads on the public services: you and me. The advertisers then deduct the amount they paid to the public service provider, in order to work out their profit. The net result is that by using a service funded by advertising, we spend more money than is necessary to run the service! And somehow people think that advertising provides us with “free money”, that somehow advertising is the most cost-effective way of funding a public service.

In fact, it seems that the only people it would benefit are those who are so completely opposed to advertising that they refuse to buy anything that they’ve seen advertised. Whereas those poor souls who are influenced to purchase advertised products are in fact paying way more than necessary for their so-called public service. Now that is nutty. Completely Alpen.

First, apologies for the lack of activity on this blog in recent weeks. Yet again, “real life” has intruded into the diminishing spare time that is available to run and contribute to this project. Hopefully we shall see more activity!

Flying adverts

A few weeks ago I was wandering through Regent’s Park . It was a pleasant spring day, the traffic hum had faded into the background, and life was good. Then, in a distant patch of grey sky, I noticed a little plane dragging one of those huge banners behind it. It was distant enough that I couldn’t read it, so I can’t pass on the advertising message, boo hoo. It saddened me that in the middle of this beautiful park, advertising could still reach me. In one of the few secluded and green spots in London, a relative haven of quiet and relaxation, it was still impossible for me to prevent advertising from being poked into my eyes.

The Royal Parks are apparently governed by the Royal Parks Agency . They receive funding from a central government grant, but supplement it with “commercial activities such as concerts”. It seems that “commerical activities” also includes allowing advertising. Or maybe it doesn’t? Maybe the plane and banner were actually targetted at eyeballs elsewhere. If that’s the case, I wonder how the law regulates this? Provided planning permission isn’t required, is it okay to erect something that can be seen from 5 miles away? 10 miles? 100? It’s time we found out!

Hijacking Spaces

The good people at Space Hijackers have been in touch, and at least one of them has been kind enough to sign up to the Art Not Ads pledge . These are the people responsible for London to Brighton Crazy Golf, National Siesta Day, and Midnight Cricket, among a great many other things. Wonderful. There’s nothing quite like rattling the bars on the cage once in a while.

This one hove into view a few days ago as I was walking to the shops in Hampstead. The ad was a typical football related piece of pap: logo and name of bank on top, and “COME ON ENGLAND!” underneath. Inspired indeed. I’m sure the advertising gurus will be praising that one for weeks. But of course the question has to be asked again: who’s selling our skies??? And who gave them permission? I don’t remember anyone asking.

Apologies for the terrible picture, I only had my mobile phone at the time. It’s not really clear from this photo how enormous these banner adverts are, although you can compare it with the size of the helicopter, which is visible as a small black blob to the top right of the banner.