Could we survive without advertising?
Sao Paulo is the only non-communist city to ever have done it. No others as far as I know are eager to do it. But if you think about it, the impact it might have is similar to that of not having a television in your household. Well, nowadays, not having the Internet or TV in your household. . . the idea Sao Paulo had was to remove the advertising from all billboards throughout the city.
Imagine a thousand billboards with nothing to sell, nothing to push, nothing to do but be blank and up there. Several were also demolished according to what I understand - revealing some shantytowns and social problems that were literally covered up by the billboards before.
So my question to you today, on Labor Day, could New Yorkers survive without billboard advertising? Could we stand walking into Times Square with no Jumbotron, no Coca Cola signs, no messages from multi-billion corporations urging us to simply recognize their brand?
Do you think you could handle it?
Photo courtesy: adbusters.org
Related posts:
What benefit am I losing by not having ads? Not seeing opening dates for movies that came out months ago? Not knowing about sales at stores that don’t exist in Manhattan (I’m looking at YOU Target)? Not seeing models in their underwear? Not being constantly assaulted by visual clutter? Tear’em down!!
A place without ads would be just great. It’s like visiting Cuba and seeing there are no commercial ads on billboards and the very few, only have inspirational messages cheering the revolution up.
That’s, indeed, refreshing and inspiring.
I don’t know if we could survive without consumer culture. Advertisements are a huge part of that. Imagine the world being filled with products and having all the choice in the world but no ads persuading us to buy theirs over any other brand.
Who knows what would happen! No logos, no labels, no outdoor advertising, no Internet advertising.
What would happen? Utter chaos.
I can’t say that I know for sure what the positives and negatives of a non-advertising world would be, but for the love of God, I would like to find out.
Imagine a culture not manipulated into believing that the rat race (on a treadmill) was a necessity. Imagine a culture where kids didn’t start developing desires for all sorts of shit from the age of five based on the advertising they see (created by advertisers engaging in “statutory theft” by manipulating the young to follow the advertisers whim). Imagine a culture where we realized that we ALREADY have all that we need. We have food, shelter and clothing — and maybe, just maybe, we have time to enjoy ourselves with family, with friends, with games, with intellectual pursuits, with creative social games, with reading, writing, speaking and debating. Imagine a world where we were not CONSTANTLY under stress to be slaves to some rich guy so that we can “get by”. Imagine a world…
mnuez
http://www.mnuez.blogspot.com
P.S. If I’m not mistaken, any caveman magically transported to our world of plenty would be quite pleased with our cheap food, water and shelter and probably WOULD NOT feel the need to spend his every day slaving for others so that he could afford some more junk.
I’m still not convinced that consumer culture is something that I need to “survive.” Yes, my life might be confusing for a bit, but wouldn’t we all be better off if we actually researched the various merits of something for ourselves instead of blindly following a brand name? Would we still feel compelled to buy a specific brand just for the market recognition rather than the cheaper but still comparable brand if it wasn’t for commercials? Did you realize that most “generic” store brand items liked canned food and basic medicines are processed by the same company that makes the brand name stuff? The only difference is the buck extra that they charge you. Could I live without that? Hell, yes!
Pretty sad situation. Capitalism = freedom to pursue your dreams without government dictating what your dreams should be. Advertising is a necessity to inform the public of your product or service. It is also the great equalizer in allowing the small business to succeed as well as support the existing market. If a product or service does not provide value…the market will inevitably not support it. People who want to eliminate advertising want to stifle creativity and and ingenuity and force individuals to live in a certain way. Advertising is what is good in society. Exitement. Ingenuity. Making life better. Without it…let’s just thrown in the towel.
This goes back to the question of what you value more in life. Liberty or catchy jingles. Creativity often times arises out of situations in which there are limited resources presented. An abundance of messages in a tiny space crowd the consumer and inevitably lead to confusion and ignorance of the message.
If anything, the new ways in which the products will sell itself might make independent corporations more powerful.
And I hope you know I’m playing the devil’s advocate here. I am currently a Marketing Manager.
Advertising is necessary for personal liberty? That’s a specious argument at best. I understand that in a Capitalist society advertising is a necessary evil for companies to get their name and message to the public, and to sell their product. But being burdened with a constant assault of advertising is the price I pay for “freedom?” I’m not going with that one. Just to keep this on the topic of billboards let’s look at Times Square, last year Ironic Sans photographed every single billboard in Times Square separately and laid them out free from each other (see it here).
There were nearly 200 billboards in Times Square vying for visual attention. That’s not counting people handing out fliers, ads on trucks, the people who often set up corporate events in that area, sound advertising, etc. etc. Doesn’t seeing them in that way, out of the context of the space, show how overwhelming and burdensome it all is? It is not exciting, it does not show ingenuity. It is the visual equivalent of sound pollution. I fail to see how it imparts freedom to me.
Cully makes sense on Times Square. My earlier response was a generic response pertaining to advertising overall. As far as outdoor advertising is concerned, what is the litmus test on what should be banned and what should not? What is advertising and what is art? Where is the line between commercial speech and the expression of ideas? If the sign on the top of this page had a beautiful painting on it, is that OK? What if the art on that sign had a person holding a drink on it, is that OK? What if that drink was a Coke…is that OK? Instead of a Coke, what about organic vegetable juice. Is that OK? Where is the line? If no commercial speech can be posted outside, does that mean all street side signs should be banned since they are trying to attract someone into their stores? I understand aesthetic controls but to fully ban a form of that speech…where is the line? Should our cities look like those of the eastern bloc in the heyday of communism? Should we ban radio? TV? Newspaper? Where is the line?
I’m not advocating a complete teardown I guess. Hilton Head, SC for instance has laws that absolutely restrict building styles, including all advertisement. No billboards, no lit signage, and no signs above 6′ tall. Ever. Anywhere. And it’s sterile and a bit boring. But there has to some happy medium between Hilton Head and Times Square doesn’t there? Isn’t there a balance that allows businesses to do business and still keep our cities looking like cities and not like the first 60 pages of Vogue?
A possible way to approach this is to consider whether advertising is, in fact, art and whether it can positively contributes to cityscapes if integrated in a tactful manner (the same discussion is ongoing in regard to graffiti, but more one-sided b/c the artists aren’t paying for their canvas).
After all, the advertising world often employs some of the most talented graphic & design artists in the world because it offers a much more stable- and often greater- salary than freelance artists typically expect and a much larger audience as well: so much of my childhood exposure to visual art was via advertising, I cannot entirely view it as merely a seditious, invasive platform for perpetuating consumerism.
Indeed, a comparative cultural analysis would probably suggest advertising is not quite as frowned upon in all areas- I know it is common in England to go to movies early just to watch the previews and advertisements because they are viewed as unique cultural expressions- not invasions. Advertising awards and conferences, moreover, are quite respectable.
To defend the claim that advertisements can be legitimate cultural expressions, I suggest one merely examine the trend of modern advertisement/marketing campaigns to decontextualize themselves from the product/logo of the are selling (jewelry commercials of people on rooftops dancing in the rain, insurance billboards of mountain ranges, etc.)
Essentially, I feel like advertising agents do have creative freedom because no one can quantify or objectively assess the value of marketing and brand creation- most corporations admit its importance, but cannot link sales comparatively to amounts invested in advertising).
A bit of a long response, but I thought I would try to say something for the advertisers. Cheers for the post though- great question (and interesting to know that an advertisingless city does really exist).