Submit to the Research Blog
Know of a great article, video, photo to submit to the site? Just completed a project you think should be shared with our readers?
Related Posts
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Girl in the Photo on Portland Summer Advertising Smorgasbord
- Michael Mandiberg | Exactly what are you selling me? on Murky(ting) Water
- Michael Mandiberg | Give me my damn three feet! on You Don’t Need It – Stencil
- Michael Mandiberg | Ad Creep: Health Insurers Bribe Users of Facebook’s Mafia Wars on Ad Creep Hits the Bike Lanes
- Michael Mandiberg | Who owns & who controls public space? on James Howard Kunstler on Public Space
-
Most Popular of All-Time
- Oprah, baby, please let me DeTouch you… 25656 view(s)
- …The greatest love of all 8985 view(s)
- New Lauren Greenfield video on NY Times 3562 view(s)
- The Illusionists » Annals of Offensive Advertising: Nikon 3267 view(s)
- You Don’t Need It – Stickers 3163 view(s)
Tag cloud
not creative justfollowingorders you don't need it thingsthatmakeyousayhmmmmm marketing poster sticker nyc history hack AAAFFF brands toronto china public space billboard art ad creep los angeles add-art politics tv illegal advertising free aaaproject online social marketing humor consumer resistance how to haha video greenwashing prank ads everywhere graffiti branding bad deals the law outdoor san francisco self-loathing taxes chicago grl

Sorry Amber, for Calif. Republicans you’re just not as important as this precious, precious money.
The L.A. Times is reporting Clear Channel has its eye on 674 state owned digital billboards on California Highways. The billboards were installed to alert drivers to road hazards and for Amber Alerts providing “urgent bulletins in the most serious child-abduction cases.”
But now the state is listening to Clear Channel.
Apparently California needs money. In the Governor’s budget it says, “chronic underinvestment has increased congestion and has resulted in California having some of the most distressed highway and road conditions in the United States.”
Of course, this is the neo-liberal fantasy:
I can’t imagine this proposal going very far, but the whining about being broke and the publicity that follows may be intended to prepare voters for a comparatively less disgusting option.
As argued in the L.A. Times story, yes it’s an eyesore, yes it might be dangerous to drivers, yes it will train people pay less attention to a sign designed to help abducted children and tell them about emergencies – thereby nearly nullifying it. But more important that that, it’s public space and public property that belongs to us, not corporations.
But perhaps you’re more fiscally minded. This is another bad deal made by politicians with advertising and marketing companies. (Politicians who are most likely being lobbied by and receiving campaign donations from Clear Channel.) Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster) says the money will be used for highway repair and _potentially_ may be “tens of millions of dollars.” The California Transportation Commission’s annual budget is $28,466,000,000.
Another drop in the bucket. Sorry Amber.
Thanks for the tip from reader Sam.