art not ads

This story has been kicking about for a while, but it’s worth mentioning. Have you seen those awful ads that a certain tissue-manufacturer has been airing, where a guy sits on a blue couch in the street and invites people to “let it out” and talk to him? There’s a box of tissues on the table, and as the volunteers open up their hearts, they tug out a tissue to dry their eyes. Very touching.

The manufacturer in question, Kimberley-Clarke, make a proud boast of using 100% virgin fibre. Campaigners Kleercut say that this material largely comes from clear-cutting ancient forests, which are home to wolves, caribou, and other wildlife that are forced to move on as their habitat is destroyed. It certainly doesn’t look very pretty.

The Kleercut campaigners took to the streets of New York to interrupt the filming of some of these ads. The results are quite amusing. However, the really interesting part of that film from is the comments from the advertising film crew that can be heard in the opening sequences. The volunteers are told that their tears should be genuine, so they’ll need to discuss something moving.

Very few people are naive enough to think that the actual sessions on the blue couch are as open and heartwarming as the final edit purports; and some may not agree with Kleercut’s tactics. But it’s fascinating to get a glimpse into the machinations of an advertising campaign that sets out to deceive. Of course, TV is all theatre, but this advert uses members of the public in an ostensibly impromptu display of emotion, a facade that is demolished by the overheard comments in the film. The link to the final product is tenuous at best, though as any marketeer will tell you, if you engage the audience’s emotions, they’ll most likely remember the product. It’s disappointing that everyone involved in the ad, even presumably the volunteers for the blue couch, were aware that they were all being duplicitous about the premise of the ad. In any group activity, responsibility can become diffused among all participants, so the individuals feel little responsibility themselves. Is it a little harsh to suggest similar mechanisms are at work in advertising, particularly in cynical and exploitative ads? Is there any other reason that people are induced to take part in this sort of advertising? (Apart from cash of course..!)

Lots of lovely stuff happening out there at the moment. Clicking a few links on the internets today turned up all this booty.

The New York Times reports that Steve Lambert, a “conceptual artist” (tee hee!) from the Anti-Advertising Agency, has created AddArt, a small piece of software for the Mozilla Firefox browser that replaces adverts with art imagery. (Via Stay Free Magazine.)

The Anti-Advertising Agency blog has a wonderful story, complete with photos, of fly-posters being arrested for placing Microsoft adverts illegally around Los Angeles. It’s good to see they also mention the Pixelator and David Lynch’s opinion of product-placement in films.

The Anti-Advertising Agency collaborates with the Samara Project, which aims to “call into question the purpose and effects of advertising in public space.”

Stay Free also has an article on “ad creep”, the pernicious race to cover all available surfaces with advertising.

The Other Paper has an article about a “sophisticated defacer of public property” named Vinchen.

Two weeks ago, the floor manager of the Hilton Columbus at Easton was strolling through the hotel when he noticed something strange. From a distance, it appeared that a new Hilton advertisement had been hung on the wall of the hotel’s conference room. Everything about the picture projected dignity and sophistication: the Hilton insignia, the Hilton colors, even the Hilton lettering. Everything, that is, except the Hilton daughter. In the right half of the poster, a tipsy-looking Paris Hilton appeared bare-breasted. The text accompanying her image read: “For over 80 years the Hilton name has been synonymous with elegance and class.” Then, in large letters: “A tradition that continues today.”

A little “Banksy” perhaps, but top work.

Oh my word, now this is just gorgeous:

http://www.jasoneppink.com/pixelator/

“Pixelator turns those ugly, blinding video billboard ads into art”. It certainly does.

The last word in street-chic, someone has created printable coldsores. Download the delightful graphics, print them onto sticky labels, and apply to the glamorous model in your favourite advert.

More genius from the wonderful Ji Lee who brought us the Bubble Project. This time, abstractor.tv demonstrates how to turn a TV or “video billboard” (something that is increasingly pervasive in the UK) into a work of art. Art Not Ads, activist-stylee. Luv it.

The London Underground uses Oyster cards instead of paper tickets. There are many benefits to Oyster, they can all be read on the London Underground and Oyster websites.
There are also a few problems. For example, the Oyster database contains hugely valuable information, most likely including the age, gender, social status and travel habits of Oyster card users (a lot of this coming from correlating Oyster card usage with credit or debit card payments). Unfortunately the London Underground service coerces people into purchasing and registering Oyster cards, by raising the price of paper tickets and keeping Oyster prices relatively low. Paper monthly travel cards can no longer be purchased, and Oyster season tickets require registration. So it’s doubtful that the caring, sharing LU and Oyster executives sat around the boardroom wondering “How can we best serve the people of London?” You can picture the guffawing and the mopping of tears from mirthful eyes. No, far more likely, they pondered “This database was commissioned in order to generate profit; how can we maximise that profit?”

Is the Tube really run for profit, instead of for the benefit of the paying public??? Surely not! Well, yes of course it is. But is that a bad thing? Surely there’s nothing wrong with making profit? Hmm, maybe not. But maybe there’s a problem with a profiteering monopoly that forces its captive audience to provide valuable information in order to generate yet more revenue? That seems remarkably close to exploitation.

Incidentally, if you want some idea of the sort of cash that’s injected into the Tube, let’s look at the sorry facts. In July 2003, responsibility for running the London Underground was passed from the Government to the Mayor of London. The Government had already put in place a Public/Private Partnership, and this remained intact after the transfer. The Government will provide TfL and the Mayor UK£1billion per year, until 2010. That’s an awful lot of money, but the Tube gobbles it up quickly. Mayor Ken Livingston has been sceptical about the PPP, and in April 2005 his Tube advisor Bob Kiley described its performance as “bordering on disaster”. The program of work continues to be way behind schedule despite making millions in profit for the private firms involved.

The horrible truth about Oyster is that it isn’t even fully functional. Many stations, particularly overground stations, don’t have the Oyster card facilities necessary to register a customer’s passing. Changing or boarding at these stations can lead to the dreaded “incomplete journey” which of course carries a penalty fare, instantly deducted from funds registered on the card. “Ah,” say the Oyster defenders, “but this is just an inconvenient side-effect of a system that is used to trap fare-dodgers. It will save us all money in the long-run by preventing crime!” Really? I’d like to see the figures that categorically support that. And the problem with this sort of attitude is that it’s one-sided. Prevention of fare-dodging is only one requirement; surely it’s just as important that any ticketing system doesn’t penalise legitimate users? Imagine going to a theme-park or concert and being charged £4 more for going through one entrance rather than another, indistinguishable entrance. “Ah,” say the bouncers, “it’s just an inconvenient side-effect of a system designed to stop ticket-touts. Now pay up or get out, you filthy proto-criminal.”

I personally experienced a nasty side-effect of the system recently. Specifically, some Oyster card readers can be “turned up” so they read the cards at an increased distance. This was confirmed to me by station staff. It was the only explanation they could come up with for why I was unwittingly being charged a penalty fare every day while using paper tickets, while my Oyster card remained in my pocket. I lost quite a lot of money before I realised. Nice one. Wish me luck claiming that back. (In case you wish to recreate the problem, I’ve noticed it has since stopped. The journey was: enter Chalk Farm using Oyster pre-pay. Exit Euston. Walk to train platform, purchase paper return ticket to Wembley Central. Pass through barrier using paper ticket [barrier also has Oyster reader]. Take train to Wembley Central, exit using paper ticket. Reverse journey in the evening.)
So. What does this have to do with Art Not Ads? Very simple. The Oyster database collects hugely powerful information that can be used to make decisions about which ads are placed on which platforms. Maybe that’s no bad thing, it’s your call. Personally I don’t want to provide the sort of people described here with any more information that will help them wring more cash out of the public while they fail to provide the service required.

What can be done? Here’s where there’s a small, interesting loop-hole. In Euston underground station, there is an Oyster card vending machine which sells the cards for £3. It’s a mechanical vending machine that takes coins, not cards. I have recently discovered that the cards are “registered”, although they of course contain no personal information about you, the proud new owner. This means you can purchase one and “load” it with pre-pay and season tickets, and the Oyster database will not be able to collect any useful information about you: no name (from which software can guess gender and age), no association with credit/debit card details (name, possibly marriage status, credit card reference for credit checking and estimation of social status) - in short, no information that LU has been forcing its customers to provide. Provided you always pay in cash, the card is completely anonymous.

What a lovely gift.

Of course there are problems. If you lose the card, you lose the cash. Plus you don’t get the convenience of paying with plastic. But with convenience comes complacency, and that’s a slippery slope.

What a great idea. Print out a load of cartoon speech-bubbles, and stick them onto posters, allowing anyone to write whatever they feel in the inviting blank space. The Bubble Project .

Mark Thomas , comedian, author, activist and dissident (nice CV) has been busy organising a series of “lone protests” in Parliament Square. The Guardian describes this as “designed to subvert the government’s widely criticised ban on taking part in protests within a kilometre of parliament without prior police authorisation. Each participant is being encouraged to apply to the police for a ‘lone protest’ licence (one demonstrator holding one placard)… The police cannot refuse an application made at least six days in advance… Mark Thomas, said: ‘What we hope to achieve is to put a sense of fun and play into protest. We want the police and the politicians to know that these laws preventing us from peaceful protest are ridiculous. The government needs to know that it has passed bad law.’ But he warned that any protester without a licence could face a �5,000 fine and even prison.”

And so last month (yes I really should update this blog more promptly) I joined around 100 other like-minded individuals to register my protest at Charring Cross police station. The day itself was good fun, and the police were patient and amused, if a little annoyed at people filming and taking photographs inside the station. One week later, on the 31st of August, I turned up to Parliament Square, to make my lone protest, and to join the throng. And quite a throng it was. There were probably 200 people, although I’m not very good at estimating crowd sizes. A token police force of 3 luminously-clad coppers ambled about on the other side of the square. Mark himself looked characteristically pissed off, or maybe he just hadn’t had enough sleep, it’s hard to tell.

There were all sorts of protests going on, and the atmosphere was one of mischievous fun and cameradery. A lot of people didn’t know each other, and it was great to meet new people and talk to them about their causes. I even bumped into two people who have signed the Art Not Ads pledge!

The last I heard, Mark Thomas is busy organising more of these protests, so check out his site for more info. I took a few photos of the event, so here they are:

From the registration day at Charring Cross police station:

And on the day itself: