Culture Jams, and Jellies
My fellow YULBlogger Marie-Chantale Turgeon, who I have great admiration and respect for, recently posted something in favour of vandalizing subway ads with little “You don’t need this” stickers, a kind of adbusting move.
I disagreed in comments with both the ethical stance and the economic logic behind this campaign (and hey, the use of paper is a bit unecological isn’t it?)
I find such anti-advertising moves puzzling because while they might raise consciousness, they rarely offer any antidote to the alleged social malaise of “overconsumption to fill social/spiritual emptiness.” Following the logic that advertising is bad, then capitalism is bad, thus any exchange of money for services or goods is bad, so then what? Do we all stay home and raise turnips? I don’t think that’s a viable policy option…
Andrew Potter posted something about Sao Paulo’s complete ban on public advertising over at his Macleans blog; he notes that yes, advertising can be annoying, but it’s also interesting, often delightful and enjoyable, and a necessary part of capitalism - and it also serves the needs of arts and alternative subculture groups, whose flyers were also swept up in the ban.
Regulating advertising seems to be much more effective than banning it entirely. Since the Drapeau era, Montreal is relatively ad-free and even our commercial signage is tamer compared to the 1950s neon jungle we used to have. (It seems to have all moved to the Internet, actually).
If advertising bears a social cost of annoyance, then let it be taxed or as Potter and Joseph Heath suggest, remove its deductability as an expense for businesses; and individual communities can decide to place limits on when, where and how big it can get.
But that sort of lengthy, negotiated, collective agreement isn’t as sexy as stickering ads — it doesn’t make you feel like an outlaw rebel, does it? ;)
January 7, 2007 10:24 AM
Comments
I agree that it’s important to be heard, and your point that it’s an emotional response is correct, however, our tax dollars then go to pay a city employee to scrape these stickers off, probably using some toxic un-goo solvent in the process.
The question “what if everyone did that?” is highly relevant in this case. What if I chose to sticker over the other sticker to express my disagreement, for instance? We’d have a very sticky city pretty quickly.
I have a post in the works about this, but for now, I can say that the emotional response is important, but how we deal with it is best addressed through boring old “collective action solutions,” like legislation.
I for one would like to see some sort of Equal Time rule. Part of advertising fees could be taxed, and that money put into a public fund to create and air counter-advertising. In print, it’d be in the same magazines or billboards (alternating schedules), or broadcast in the same timeslot as the original, not relegated to 4 AM or something like that.
wrote AJ Kandy on January 10, 2007 2:24 PM
A lot of the debate about advertising and public spaces mirrors the debate about the commercialization of campuses. As much as I can see the point, and god knows I don’t want to see the Pepsi Library anytime soon, there seems to be a disconnect between stuff costing something and where the money is coming from.
Absent governments suddenly turning the spigot to full bore and funding everything to the hilt (and increasing taxes to do so) I honestly don’t know how institutions like schools or public transit can fund themselves without advertising.
That said, it would be nice if a few of the public institutions would think a bit about what ads they accept, what they look like and what kind of content they feature.
Also, hello AJ.
wrote Cameron Campbell on January 13, 2007 4:07 PM
He he!
“We’d have a very sticky city pretty quickly.”
I like that.
wrote LazArt on January 13, 2007 6:22 PM
Cameron! You’re ALIVE!
I do agree, certain kinds of ads are unacceptable; no ads in primary or secondary schools. I’m not down with things like Channel One or Pepsi sponsoring a high school, but I wouldn’t say no to IKEA light rail…
wrote AJ Kandy on January 18, 2007 6:30 PM
While I’m against vandalism in general, there is something about the “You Don’t Need This” stickering campaign that I find appealing. It doesn’t correlate with a desire for a total ban on advertising — it’s more about finding and expressing your voice in an environment that is overwhelmingly controlled by the corporate voice.
Things don’t have to make logical sense in order to be useful or positive. Without doubt, the stickering of ads is an emotional response, not a logical one. Sometimes you just want to throw your hands up and shout “ENOUGH!” and that’s basically what those stickers are an expression of. It’s a reminder to people (not just those doing the stickering, but those seeing the stickers) that everybody has a voice.
wrote blork on January 10, 2007 10:43 AM