I came across three advertising campaigns that are worth noting. The first is a City of San Francisco outreach campaign to property owners asking them to clean their walls of graffiti tags or call the Graffiti Watch hotline (the text reads: “Clean up tagging in your neighborhood before it really spreads”). By the looks of it, SF and Toronto share a similar abatement policy where they place the onus on property owners to get rid of tags or face fines.
The campaign’s execution is quite clever. While I’m no fan of tagging, I don’t find it that offensive. But at least San Francisco is not hiding their attempt to white-wash the city — it looks like paint-rollers have covered the white space at the bottom of the ad. It’s a shame they didn’t actually use real taggers because the ones on the walls are even worse than the ones we see in back alleys and on the sides of buildings.
The second campaign is for the San Francisco Zoo. I’m torn about this — I think the idea is brilliant but the ad creep watchdog in me cringes. This may come across as hypocritical, but I usually don’t mind when a city (or one of its agencies) advertises on its own property. What bothers me is that Coke or Nike will see this and want to do it too. Once it has been done its hard to say no.
The last one is a campaign unveiled in New York that uses the steam rising from a manhole cover to look like it’s rising from a coffee mug. Again, this is amazingly creative but is also completely obtrusive. My only conflicting emotion with this example is whether to point blame at the company’s voracious marketing campaign (and their ad agency) or at New York city officials for allowing it to happen.
9 comments
That bathroom looks great with the graffiti. I’d love to have that on some boring white tile.
While I am generally morally opposed to most corporate advertising, those ads are neat and I appreciate the creativity of their designers. It makes me wonder what ad companies could come up with if challenged a little and given more freedom to create ads in public or publicly viewable spaces.
Perhaps we could have an annual “advertising festival” in the city, where for one week only, public spaces could be used as the exhibition space for the most creative advertising marketers can come up with. The competition would be juried, and contestants would purchase particular spaces, each space going to the highest bidder. So it would be one part commercial art competition, one part city fundraiser.
Of course a big problem with this idea is that people may think it’s cool, and wonder why the city couldn’t look like that every day, and ad companies might fight the city arguing the same thing. Or, people wouldn’t even notice the extra advertising in the midst of all the stuff already out there.
Just a thought…
Sure the ads are creative, and a more interesting use of advertising creativity. But in the case of the Folger’s manhole ad, are they not moving advertising off of designated spaces and – quite literally – on to the streets or street furniture?
I think the graffiti one is the worst. I’m surprised that a city like San Francisco would be so blatant about their desire to whitewash over something as ‘offensive,’ as graffiti, or other types of urban blight. Most cities are more coercive in stiffling people. So they got that going for them…
I think a big problem with what Melissa is suggesting is that even if for one week only, is this ‘advertising festival’ not the most blatant example of selling off public spaces to corporations, big or small?
Also, some spaces in the city – say, at Yonge & Dundas – would be more highly prized and this would be, as they are now, laregly in the realm and affordable only by large companies able to afford $5,000/month already in rent. So the smaller, more out-of-the-way public spaces would be all that’s left to the average person.
Sound familiar?
Andrew-
I wasn’t thinking of the “advertising festival” as trying to encourage equity of any sort. Big ass corporations will get all the prized spots, no question. That way, the “advertising festival” represents the true spirit of advertising: market forces prevail, and the little fish will have to be more creative with the resources that have at their disposal to compete with the big fishes. This isn’t a festival for “the average person.” This is a crass cash grab for the city and an opportunity for Fortune 500 companies to wow the average consumer. Jurors will evaluate ads based on creativity (levelling the playing field somewhat…like the “World’s Best Commercials”), but if a company wants to continue to paper Yonge/Dundas with shite L’Oreal posters, that’s their perogative.
As for the blatant selling off of public spaces, that’s the part I like best. Right now we sell off public spaces discreetly and people don’t realize the significance of what’s going on, and besides the TPSC, no one thinks twice about it. This festival denaturalizes the whole idea of selling off public spaces, gives the city the opportunity to talk about the signficance of advertising in public spaces, on funding the city by selling off public space, about who gets the prime areas and why, etc. etc.
Actually, another thing I like about the idea is that it’s an actual Festival of Advertising rather than a Festival of Something Else, dominated by advertising.
I thought the Wooster Collective’s growing collection of “BBDO ad mashups” might be of interest:
http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/07/bbdo_ad_mashups_1.html
http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/07/bbdo_mashup_by_copyright.html
http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/07/bbdo_mashup_by_mr_nilsson.html
http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/07/bbdo_mashup_by_kelly_towles.html
http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/07/bbdo_mashup_by_rockstar.html
Melissa, I suppose that what I still have a problem with would be that ALL advertising, regardless of where it is, but especially video and large billboards across the city, are nothing but crass cash grabs. When billboards are rubber stamped, but even when they’re not, this is in essence what it’s all about.
And I dont know if I have your point exactly right on this: are you condoning the selling off of public space for corporate interests as long as there’s fanfare? a jury? or prizes? Or does the theoretical debate and discussion amongst the citizens and councillors that we hope would follow such a festival worth the cash grab?
Some of your questions it seems can already be answered without the need for such a festival. They who can pay get the prime areas, and that’s why right there. It’s not a matter of necessity, or of being deserving, but solely a matter of money. Of that much we can be certain.
I suppose what throws me is that your idea is very corporate, but wrapped in bohemian clothing. At its core it seems to be about making money and maintianing city-advertisings unfortunate status quo, but hoping to spark a long-overdue debate on the significance of advertising in public space, as you say, as an end result. Which is moble enough in and of itself, don’t get me wrong.
But do the ends justify the means? I guess I’m asking: do we have to use advertising and the crass cash grab of public corporate advertising to spur a debate on how to reduce such urban blight as this in the future? Are we sinking to that level, or hoping to use it against them?
I’m condoning the TEMPORARY selling off of public interests as a spectacle in the same vein as firemen auctioning themselves off as dates to raise money for charities.
As it stands now, the city whores itself out for money on a regular basis and asks the general public to condone the act, or at least look the other way. What I’m proposing is a publicly recognized whoring, where the city acknowledges that it is being “naughty” and capitalizes on doing something that 51 weeks of the year is considered taboo.
But that’s the problem, it isn’t taboo 51 weeks out of the year. So I guess this would only work as an alternative to the everyday selling off of public spaces to advertisers, not in conjunction with it.
Originally I came up with the idea because of the Folgers ad above. It’s a great ad, but also an awful imposition of advertising in public space. I thought, “it’s true, restrictions on advertising in publicly viewable spaces really do restrict what advertisers can do–both bad AND good–in those spaces. I wonder what people would come up with if those restrictions were lifted? Is there some way we can find out in a “safe” and temporary way?”
I hate advertising because of the way that it supports, perpetuates and encourages consumerism, unhealthy beauty, happiness and lifestyle ideals and a totally screwed up value system. However, I also appreciate the artistry, the strategic thinking, and the creativity of really great ads. I wrestle with this contradiction daily. This idea was a way to both address this contradiction and address the city’s desire to capitalize on the fundraising potential of selling its public spaces to advertisers.
But I have issues with this idea too, so can anyone think of anything better?
That coffee cup one is hilarious mostly because Folger’s advertising is all about the aroma, and the steam coming out of manholes often stinks to high heaven.
I just stumbled across this blog. Good stuff. I think the San Fran ad woudl be more interesting if instead of graffiti there was major corporate sponsor ads all over those walls. It would give an indication of how ugly corporate ads on public spaces are.
It’s too bad, though, that ad people are so creative, yet rampant overadvertising is so ugly.
Cheers
Dan