art not ads

Well, I suppose it had to happen. Stay Free comment on an article in the LA Times about a TV show called “Firebrand” which is nothing but adverts. It features “commercial jockeys” who actually introduce the upcoming ads.

Now if you don’t mind, I think I’ve just about had it…. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? It’s as if Franz Kafka, David Cronenburg and Terry Gilliam dreamed up some hideous TV monster, and it ATE TV-LAND then crapped out RECURSIVE TV NIGHTMARES. This is in Revelations, right?

Honestly though. Are they on crack or what?

Hmm?

One of the most frequent comments people make when they read this website or discuss the topic of advertising, is that advertising isn’t a new invention, it’s been around for a long time. Consequently, it seems that advertising is a perfectly normal feature of our landscapes, and has been for generations. Which begs the question, why are Art Not Ads so upset about it?
This perspective is naive, and it’s a shame to see people who go about their world so unquestioningly. This picture, from Paleo-Future Blog shows the Statue of Liberty decked in advertising devices (discovered at Murketing). It dates from 1885, demonstrating that in fact advertising has had detractors for a long, long time - at least 120 years, and probably back as far as its origins. Advertising’s longevity doesn’t relate to popularity or acceptance. Its persistence doesn’t justify its continuation.

It’s just as true to say that advertising has been intrusive and irritating for many generations.

The Anti Advertising Agency has published a succinct article on plans for advertising on the world-famous Golden Gate Bridge. The author neatly summarises the glaringly obvious white elephant here:

Here’s the problem, the conservative anti-government types have starved the government of funds, and now our elected officials are at a loss about what to do. You see, people all agree with the cut-taxes mantra, but sure don’t want any services to be cut! Of course the fact that taxes go towards things that we all want and need such as infrastructure and bridges that don’t collapse isn’t explained when politicians talk about tax cuts. So now, the Golden Gate Bridge district is going hat in hand to big corporations, who have got very low corporate tax rates, so they can fund a small portion of the expensive bridge maintenance. Of course, that advertising money which is paid to the Golden Gate Bridge will be a tax-deductible advertising expense to those corporations!

So we sell off the visual beauty of one of our nation’s landmarks for a paltry sum, and the bridge still can’t make enough to cover expenses. I’ve got an idea, how about we start taking in enough money in taxes to fund our basic infrastructure.

At least, that’s what this article in the newspaper Transit Toronto suggests. One interesting point made is that the revenue generated from advertising on Toronto public transport is minimal. Consequently the increase in fares, should the advertising be completely withdrawn, would be minimal too. And the public would potentially be far happier with their surroundings. In fact, it’s possible that by replacing the ads with art, the buses, trams and trains would attract more customers - off-setting the lost revenue from removing the advertising.

Thanks again, Andy!

New Scientist magazine August 2007 reports on a study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health indicating that children aged between 3 and 5 years preferred branded foods. Of the 63 children, 76 percent said they favoured fries presented in branded packaging, compared with 13 percent who preferred the unbranded alternative. The researchers said it was “interesting how strongly branding affects 3 to 5 year olds.” Other foodstuffs were tested; the children were twice as likely to prefer branded carrots, for example. New Scientist suggests that “clever marketing could convince youngsters to make healthier choices.”

Frankly, this seems like a losing battle, with the marketing budgets firmly stacked in favour of food producers who currently have no obligation to supply healthy food. Is there a better way..?
Update: More from mindhacks.com (thanks, Kelly!)

“One sample of the food was presented in [branded] packaging, another sample was presented in a similar plain paper bag. … Children consistently said the food from the [branded] packaging actually tasted better, regardless of whether it was actually from the company, or whether the company even had it on their menus… another significant predictor was how many televisions the family had in their home, suggesting that exposure to advertising itself might play a part.”

Mmm, gotta love that TV.

This via MetaFilter:

“The city of Sao Paulo passed an ordinance last year banning outdoor advertising; photographer Tony de Marco has been documenting the skeletal remains of the advertising infrastructure throughout the city; the impact looks like the aftermath of a new type of atomic weapon that targets marketing but leaves buildings & people unscathed.”

The MetaFilter post has lots of interesting comments and some links to other equally fascinating stuff.

Art Not Ads International!

Thanks - Andy.

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..!)

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.

The China Daily reports that children who are “beleaguered” with advertising “could just blindly develop a passion for famous brands”. The main concern seems to be how advertising affects autistic children, and others with a “lack of discerning abilities”. There’s an underlying pining for traditional family values throughout the story that is frankly a red herring - the key question is about advertising and children: not whether they are affected, but whether we actually care.

Via Stay Free.

The good people over at the Toronto Public Space Committee have kindly added a link to us on their links page. These guys are the bomb, in their own words they’re “dedicated to celebrating our shared common spaces, and protecting them from political erosion, commercial influence and privatization”. What a great idea, we could do with something similar over here. Check them out and be inspired. It’s great to see that people around the world feel as strongly as we do about our public spaces, and are getting involved in protecting them.