art not ads

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 Consequently the increase in fares, should the advertising be completely withdrawn, would be minimal too.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!

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.

London’s Metro “newspaper” today carries an interview with psychologist Oliver James. His latest book, “Affluenza”, looks into the link between consumerist aspirations and mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse. His views are undeniably tinted by his politics, but he backs up his points with some interesting evidence. Some choice quotes:

“One in four people in English-speaking countries has suffered a mental illness in the past 12 months compared with 11.5 percent of Western Europeans… Affluenza makes you ill because it prevents you meeting fundamental psychological needs. Instead you’re lured by ‘wants’ confected by advertisers who encourage consumption… All of us [have become] obsessed with having more money to have a ‘better’ lifestyle… Maybe we should be satisfied with what we’ve got. Your best bet is to try to have happy, satisfying relationships.”

A slight twist on an old story, with a very familiar conclusion.

After indulging in a little “web Zen” i.e. typing “artnotads” into Google and seeing what’s out there, I spotted that Art Not Ads is mentioned in the Broken Windows blog back in July 2006. Wikipedia discusses the “broken windows theory of urban degeneration with these words:

“Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.” A successful strategy for preventing vandalism… is to fix the problems when they are small. Repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage.

An interesting notion. The Broken Windows blog describes itself as a “thorn in the side of marketing”, and they point out that advertising isn’t working , citing ad-company Titan’s use of their own billboards to advertise, erm, themselves. This harks back to comments from a while ago on the Pledgebank notice board that when people justify advertising as a means of funding public services, they’re missing the point. Ad execs don’t sit around in boardrooms all day wondering “How on earth can we find more cash for the public, dammit?” - they sit around wondering how they can make more cash for their clients (and hence themselves). Advertising hoardings are cash-cows, pure and simple, and the agencies want more and more of them. There seem to be so many that they are actually left vacant. And yet worthy causes such as charities and Platform for Art are left to pick up the crumbs from the table, and told to be thankful. What a bizarre situation.

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:

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.

I took a trip into London on the Tube a couple of days ago, and surfaced at Tottenham Court Road. I haven’t been there for a while, so I hadn’t seen the flat-screen TVs that line the escalators. There must be 30 of them, each side. So that’s something like 60 screens projecting animated adverts to the people who are chugging their way up the escalators. The ads change of course, so by the time you’ve reached the top, each screen may have displayed several ads. It’s a long escalator so most people stand rather than walk. I didn’t notice, but I’d be surprised if the ads aren’t timed so that the screens update as you roll past them, to make sure you get optimal exposure to brand names, slogans, and the like.

And of course, Tottenham Court Road isn’t the only place that does this. Waterloo and Liverpool Street stations both have enormous plasma screens, each one several metres across, replete with loudspeakers, projecting advertising and corporate news to the waiting masses.

This all begs the simple question, who gave permission to do this? I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the London Underground is controlled by the Mayor, and the Mayor represents the people of the city. Have the people of London been clamouring for televisual advertising to brighten their journeys? London Underground wishes to improve its service but it’s not clear whether the people of London were consulted about the options available. It seems that an increasing amount of intrusive advertising is the only solution that has been considered.

If anyone can clear up how this has happened, or if you have any opinions on the subject, I’d love to hear them. Email ANA at . I’ll have to contact the Mayor’s office and the London Underground to get the low-down. Feel free to join in!

PS. If you’re not familiar with “Television, Drug of the Nation ” by the Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy, check it out, you may like it.