The end of tube train advertising?

[littlebabyjesus]

I would imagine the reasons people dislike the tube are:

70% crowding
20% delays
9.9% BO, chewing gum on seats, beggers, buskers and other annoyances
0.1% advertising

So getting rid of the advertising wouldn't cause a rise in passenger numbers sufficient to balance out the loss of revenue. Even if you did attract some ad-haters, you'd drive out an equal or greater number of ad-ambivalent crowding-haters. Not withstanding the fact that a peak times the tube is largely operating something very close to maximum capacity.

I like the idea of not having advertising in the tube, but it would simply never work in the world in which we live.

And like Rich! pointed out, people DO make use of the advertising in the tube. We all need products like insurance - I'd sooner pick up a bit of info on the tube rather than spend my own time looking through the yellow pages or something. I'd sooner ads on the tube rather than billboards or TV advertising if it came to a choice.

Why limit yourself to those choices? Why not live in a totally advert-free world? If you need something like insurance, google it. Since some people don't have computers, companies could use some of the money they currently spend on advertising to pay for public computers on which to find goods and services.

Like Brainaddict, I don't understand the fatalism that leads people to dismiss alternatives as impossible.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

companies could use some of the money they currently spend on advertising to pay for public computers on which to find goods and services

You know, that might work. Like white bikes in Holland. Public laptops at convenient kiosks. For selecting appropriate goods and services. Paid for by companies, delighted at no longer needing to advertise. I'm trying to see flaws and I can't.

 

[ovaltina]

google it

Google makes money through advertising, so it won;t be around come the revolution. We'll have to go back to the Yellow Pages, except that the Yellow Pages makes money through advertising. Maybe the govt could produce local directories or something?

 

[kyser_soze]

Online ads - so long as there's more than one person offering a service you'll see it.

Good idea tho - personally I couldn't give a toss. Ads have been around as long as there've been cities (and the tube for that matter); most of the ads that are on the tube are for London-based events (about 40% of all tube advertising is theatre&gig stuff, about 40% retail and 20% 'other')...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Google makes money through advertising, so it won;t be around come the revolution. We'll have to go back to the Yellow Pages, except that the Yellow Pages makes money through advertising. Maybe the govt could produce local directories or something?

Yellow pages is advertising, yes. What I'm talking about is having adverts forced on you if you wish to do something, as part of the 'price' of doing that thing. When you want to go shopping, go to a shop. When you want to peruse advertising, go to a special advertising place.

 

[beeboo]

Why limit yourself to those choices? Why not live in a totally advert-free world? If you need something like insurance, google it. Since some people don't have computers, companies could use some of the money they currently spend on advertising to pay for public computers on which to find goods and services.

Like Brainaddict, I don't understand the fatalism that leads people to dismiss alternatives as impossible.

Personally I'd actually *prefer* to pick up a bit of information on the otherwise wasted time on a tube journey than spend my own time on researching it on the internet. And will they be allowed to advertise online, or will all companies be restricted to stating what services they offer in plain text with no embellishment?

I get the general point about the increasing pervasiveness and persuasivenes of advertising, but at the root it is just "touting your wares" which has been happening ever since trade began.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ads have been around as long as there've been cities

Not true.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Personally I'd actually *prefer* to pick up a bit of information on the otherwise wasted time on a tube journey than spend my own time on researching it on the internet.

I'd prefer to look at Class 2e's latest art project, myself, but hey-ho.

 

[kyser_soze]

Actually it is. There are records of trademen advetising their services, as well as announcements for public gatherings etc going back at least as far as Rome, and since the Romans invented very little it's a good bet they there were notices for business and information all the way back to Sumer.

Besides which, art is WAY more subjective than advertising. Why would it be any less visually polluting than ads?

 

[Brainaddict]

This debate wouldn't be complete without raising the point that soooo many people in this country automatically see higher taxation as a bad thing. This is kind of weird, because not too many miles away from us, over a very narrow channel that you can see across with the naked eye on a clear day, there are all sorts of countries with higher taxation than us who are also consistently measured as having a higher standard of living/quality of life than this country. It's weird the way Britain just pretends all those countries don't exist.

I only mention it because presumably that's how Berlin's metro can afford to be advert free.

 

[beeboo]

I'd prefer to look at Class 2e's latest art project, myself, but hey-ho.

If I want to look at Class 2e's art project, I'll do it in the time I save trawling the internet for insurance services

 

[ovaltina]

Well, if nothing else the Space Hijackers have made a few of us think about the issue.
Dunno why it's not in any of the newspapers though. They should have leaked what they were doing to the press, and launched a wider debate.
They need to buck up their ideas re marketing/PR.

 

[kyser_soze]

WAY more outdoor and ambient advertising in Europe, by a fucking mile. Every single café, bench, parasol has a brand slapped on it, be it coffee, beer or whatever. Ambient in Europe is a much bigger slice of the media pie than it is in the UK.

 

[beeboo]

They need to buck up their ideas re marketing/PR.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Besides which, art is WAY more subjective than advertising. Why would it be any less visually polluting than ads?

You miss the point, which is the intention. The intention of any public art would be to contribute something to people's lives, nothing more. The intention of a great deal of advertising is to create unhappiness so that people will go out and buy their goods - hence the wholly objectionable adverts on the tube trying to sell us holidays by commiserating about how shit work is.

At the very, very least, no advert should be allowed anywhere that attempts to make people unhappy or dissatisfied in order to create a need for a product.

 

[kyser_soze]

What, so you'd insist that this art be uniformly cheerful, happy and uplifting to this 'improve' people's lives? And whom, or what, would make these choices that the rest of us have to put up with?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What, so you'd insist that this art be uniformly cheerful, happy and uplifting to this 'improve' people's lives? And whom, or what, would make these choices that the rest of us have to put up with?

Are you deliberately missing my point?

 

[teuchter]

The main objection I have to tube adverts is that they are generally crap.

Particularly crap are the ones which try to make some sort of (crap) play on the tube map diagram, as if they've just had a really great idea that no-one else has thought of before: "lets make an advert based on the tube map because we are going to put it on a tube train".



By the way with regard to the suggestions about public art... I've always thought there must be some mileage in the idea of companies "sponsoring" art in these kind of situations: the panel contains a photograph or a poem or whatever, and the sponsor's name at the bottom. Sponsor gets their name/brand out and about and associated with something people enjoy. Much like "sponsoring" films on telly, or football teams, or whatever.

 

[Bristly Pioneer]

They need to buck up their ideas re marketing/PR.

According to some, that is all we do.

 

[beeboo]

At the very, very least, no advert should be allowed anywhere that attempts to make people unhappy or dissatisfied in order to create a need for a product.

Even if it doesn't do that explicitly, it can do so implicitly - a picture of a sunny beach whilst your sat on a tube platform is probably going to make you feel dissatisfied with standing on a tube platform even if it isn't saying "Hey loser look at your miserable existance".

I'm all for more responsibility in advertising, enforced where necessary. I'm all for advertising not being allowed to swamp our cities. But I'm not anti advertising per se.

I think it is interesting that a lot of people choose to decorate their homes with advertising memorabilia of one form or another. Admittedly I can't see anyone with an ornamental red telephone on wheels in 50 years time, but you never know.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

By the way with regard to the suggestions about public art... I've always thought there must be some mileage in the idea of companies "sponsoring" art in these kind of situations: the panel contains a photograph or a poem or whatever, and the sponsor's name at the bottom. Sponsor gets their name/brand out and about and associated with something people enjoy. Much like "sponsoring" films on telly, or football teams, or whatever.

'Sponsored art' is an oxymoronic concept. It is also profoundly undemocratic as only those sectors of society that companies wish to target are catered for.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

'Sponsored art' is an oxymoronic concept. It is also profoundly undemocratic as only those sectors of society that companies wish to target are catered for.

Yes, art preference is rigidly stratified by socio-demographic segment. Again, your arguments are flawless.

 

[kyser_soze]

No I'm not. Your point is that advertising makes you miserable when you're on the Tube and in public spaces, and you want it taken away, and possibly replaced with art. And if you can't get this you would like to see all advertising that relies on negative reinforcement messaging to be banned as well, because you don't think it's right that stuff should be sold by making people feel shit to increase their desire for any given product.

Your extended point is that advertising is a blight on people's lives, but that they are too braindead/stupid/lazy/fatalistic to want or demand any kind of change.

Not that hard, altho you have used replacing ad signage with art

to contribute something to people's lives, nothing more

while I might agree with some of what you say - specifically regarding negative messaging - what difference does it make if you've got art or ads as a visual backdrop to the world? Just because you hate ads doesn't mean everyone else does, nor does it mean that because you think 'public art' would contribute something to people's lives that it would necesarily be the case.

My own take? There is too much outdoor advertising now. It's confusing, can be annoying depending on the ads but most relevant for every single new ad site Viacom, JCD or whomever buy from a council or from LU, the value of every other site goes down and the actual utility of outdoor advertising goes down because most people are able (and do) tune it out. Which completely defies the point of spending £30K on a photo shoot and then £100K on a fuckign 48 X-Tube campaign because despite having people's undivided attention for up to 180 seconds THEY DON'T NOTICE IT OR TAKE THE PRODUCT MESSAGE ON BOARD.

The other point is that you've altered your basic premise - that ads should be replaced by art because you've got no comeback to the same complaint you have about ads being levelled at art.

 

[teuchter]

'Sponsored art' is an oxymoronic concept. It is also profoundly undemocratic as only those sectors of society that companies wish to target are catered for.

Lots of art is effectively sponsored. And so what if it's undemocratic. I'm not suggesting it as the sole means of bringing art to the masses. Just as an alternative to conventional advertising that could be more pleasant for the advertisee.

It would be pretty much the only form of advertising allowed if we were to follow your ban on anything that tries to make people unhappy in an attempt to make them want something.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The other point is that you've altered your basic premise - that ads should be replaced by art because you've got no comeback to the same complaint you have about ads being levelled at art.

*Bangs head on wall*

My comeback is the intention behind it.

 

[jæd]

I only mention it because presumably that's how Berlin's metro can afford to be advert free.

I've always found ad-less subway systems soul-less and quite un-imaginative. Ads on the tube can be quite handy... I used to walk to work (45 mins, Earls Court to Hyde Park Corner) and I was always missing new albums, films, etc were out...

 

[kyser_soze]

'Sponsored art' is an oxymoronic concept. It is also profoundly undemocratic as only those sectors of society that companies wish to target are catered for.

The Cistine chapel and about half of Italian renaissance art, the music of Bach, Beethoven are all examples of restrictive and the oxymoronic nature of sponsored art. The Medicis were patrons of vast swathes of Italian art over 150 years, partly because some of them were genuine aethetes, but mainly because it was good PR for their bank and it kept them popular enough to make it hard for other mercantile families and the Vatican (another sponsor of art) to slander and attack them.

What do you think patronage was and still is? It's just another name for sponsorship; it gave the ruling élites of the day a chance to be associated with something prestigious, something that may or may not outlive them and this guarantee a memory.

Incidentally - that stupid crack in the floor at the Tate; sponsored, as have all the Turbine Hall installations, by Unilever.

 

[kyser_soze]

*Bangs head on wall*

My comeback is the intention behind it.

Which I've also addressed.

Not much of a comeback really.

 

[Brainaddict]

Kyser, if I can be allowed to wander off into abstractland for a moment in an attempt to provoke you , I see your way of thinking as quite narrowly instrumentalist, versus lbj's more systems thinking style. Which is why you reach very different conclusions from essentially the same information.

I side with the systems thinking.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which I've also addressed. .

You haven't addressed it at all. Is the intention to add something interesting to the world of existing things and ideas...or to make money? It's very clear-cut.