via Ban Billboard Blight.

Related posts:

1. Sáo Paulo Bans Outdoor Advertising in 2007
2. Public/Private Partnerships: Will Commercialization Save Our City Parks? | Ban Billboard Blight
3. Movement Happening on Illegal Signs

A great post over at Ban Billboard Blight about the move to allow advertising in Los Angeles Public Parks.

Public/Private partnerships. At last week’s meeting of the L.A. City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee, the term kept bobbing like a life preserver grasped for by city agencies at risk of being drowned in a violent tide of red ink. Councilman Bill Rosendahl, speaking of the Recreation and Parks department, said that in the absence of such partnerships “we’re not going to be able to sustain our parks, it’s as simple as that.” The other committee members who spoke–Paul Koretz, Greig Smith, and Chairman Bernard Parks–all nodded assent to Rosendahl’s declaration, apparently feeling no need to examine either its truth or its implications for the city’s future.

That’s too bad, because Rosendahl’s statement amounts to embrace of the idea that a large, modern, wealthy city will have to go hat in hand to corporate boardrooms in order to provide one of the most public and democratic–and many would say, essential–services to its citizens. In the picture painted by the silver tongue of Barry Sanders, the retired corporate lawyer and president of the Recreation and Parks Commission, this means some signs in the parks thanking Wells Fargo and Ralph’s and Taco Bell and whomever else rides to the rescue. “In my view, thanking a sponsor is not blight,” Sanders said. “A closed swimming pool on Monday is blight.”

…read the rest! Public/Private Partnerships: Will Commercialization Save Our City Parks? | Ban Billboard Blight.

Related posts:

1. L.A. Council Members Endorse Plan To Sell Advertising In City Parks
2. Why It Matters (from Ban Billboard Blight)
3. Oakland’s Ban on “Visual Blight” Upheld in Court

note: filtered videos are not watermarked with the unlogo "logo". That would be ridiculous.

From Jeff:

On a practical level, it takes back your personal media from the corporations and advertisers. On a technical level, it is a really cool combination of some brand new OpenCV functionality and some brand new FFMPEG functionality. On a poetic level, it is a tool for focusing on what is important in the record of your life rather than the ubiquitous messages that advertisers want you to focus on.

The AAA isn’t as flush with start-up funds as we used to be, so Jeff’s trying to get this project off the ground with pledges in any amount via Kickstarter. I know Jeff, I know he can pull this off, and I know he’s been going broke working on it. So if you can throw at least $2 his way please do.

Please help support Unlogo by contributing to the Kickstarter campaign!

Related posts:

1. Corporate Sponsored Pothole Repair!

It seems that Japan is taking these interactive billboards seriously. When the idea was first postulated, it seemed that only vending machines would be getting the makeover, and the interactiveness would be limited to simply getting directions and picking your favorite drink. But, now a 47-inch (the vending machines were “only” 46-inches) billboard in Shinagawa is showing us that the future is indeed already here.

As with many other demonstrations of technology and future tech, the movie Minority Report generally gets brought up. There was not only a lot of technology in that movie, most of it set in the future, but it showed what it may look like in the “real world,” as opposed to being completely ridiculous. We’ve already seen some aspects of the movie come to life, and now it seems that intelligent billboards is the next logical step. Researchers managed to team up and create a 47-inch billboard that utilizes not only a camera, but also sensors to judge a person that stands in front of it.

The camera and sensors then work together to formulate your profile: your age and gender, and then subsequently proffer you a soft drink, based on that profile. The General Manager of sales at an East Japan Railway subsidiary, Toshinari Sasagawa, said that now they can finally see what people are buying, all over the age range, instead of just making “educated guesses.” We’re not exactly sure that, say, a Coke is generally marginalized to one specific profile or age, but apparently that may be the case.

The 47-inch billboard will interact with you, based on your age and gender, too. And, considering it’s already making decisions simply based on your profile, we can see how this may become exactly like those Minority Report billboards, that recognize repeat customers, and start offering you what you may like, based on previous purchases. Doesn’t seem too far off, does it?

[SlashGear via Wall Street Journal]

Related posts:

1. Advertising Age: “We Hate Ourselves”
2. Billboard Companies Protest Billboard Tax…On Illegal Billboards – from Torontoist
3. Why It Matters (from Ban Billboard Blight)

Canal and Broadway. All you Chisel-tippers and KRINKers go after it.

Related posts:

1. Virgin America goes “street” – why?
2. Advertising Scofflaw Assaults NYT Reporter

Almost a year after the L.A. City Council approved a moratorium on new off-site and supergraphic signs, and four months after it replaced that temporary measure with a permanent ban, advertisers and sign companies continue to wrap, hang, and otherwise display their multi-story supergraphic signs on the walls of buildings throughout the city.

So why are property owners and sign companies willing to risk open violation of the law, and advertising agencies and major corporations willing to look the other way?  The answer is easy to surmise from the fact that a large supergraphic in a high-traffic location can generate upwards of $50,000 in monthly revenue, while the maximum fine for violating sign law provisions is $100 a day.

The City Attorney’s office has filed at least two civil suits under a public nuisance provision that allows fines of up to $2,500 a day, but those lawsuits are slowly moving through the courts and any resolution is likely to be months away, if not longer, depending upon appeals.

In the meantime, absent any sudden displays of social and civic responsibility on the part of the outdoor advertising industry, expect to see the city’s public spaces occupied by more and more of these huge sales pitches demanding the attention of everyone driving, walking, bicycling or otherwise moving past them.

via Sign Companies, Property Owners, Advertising Agencies, Major Corporations Thumb Their Noses at L.A.’s New Off-Site Sign Ban.

Related posts:

1. Office Tenants Plagued by Series of Illegal Supergraphic Signs; Do the L.A. City Attorney and District Councilman Care?
2. Sign Industry: “The Law is interfering with my illegal income!!”
3. Why It Matters (from Ban Billboard Blight)

“For sale” realty signs are a familiar sight in post-real-estate-bubble Williamsburg. It was only a matter of time until some super clever ad exec co-opted this ubiquitous format for some good ol’ guerilla marketing. Well folks, that time has come. And the product for sale (a tv show which features Courtney Cox as a predatory “older” woman ) looks pretty ill-considered as well:

In a neighborhood already awash in actual foreclosure signs and vacant luxury condos, this is almost certainly meant to be a sick joke, right? Or else, borne out of some new type of cynical, afflicted optimism (“in sadness/opportunity,” “if lemons/lemonade,” etc.)? What will the neighbors think, after all?

In an interesting twist of unintentional comedy (or postmodern self-realization?), the content of the show follows a similar thematic trend:

Courtney Cox’s needy female protagonist [Is To] Sadness^TM

AS

Meaningless flings with young studs [Is To] Opportunity^TM

It is an “empowering!^TM ” analogy.

Very disappointing stuff, considering the dearth of middle-aged female characters on TV. I guess they were just waiting for the right demeaning stereotype to come along…

Will someone please call that 877 number and see if the place is really for sale?

Bonus: Funny banter on the subject of the confusing “pumas/cougars/mountain lions” thing by The Hater podcast.

Update: Following the recent Brownstoner post on the faux-real estate/faux-cougar ads, several commentators questioned the signs’ legality. The NYC Department of Buildings prohibits signs at residential addresses that advertise products unrelated to that address, but permits signs that “direct attention to a business at the same location as the sign.” In other words, a [legitimate] “For Sale, Call Realtor” sign is permissible, while leasing your yard to Verizon (so they can shave their logo into the grass) would be illegal. This-parody-of-the-real-thing is ultimately NOT the real thing would inevitably fall into the illegal advertising category. See NYC’s Outdoor Sign Guidelines and the city’s definition of “Advertising Signs” for more information.

Related posts:

1. Portland Summer Advertising Smorgasbord
2. NYT: DoB Removes sign with 103 violation notices
3. IllegalBillboards.org

The lamppost with all the flyers for music shows says “Dont Advertise” but… do they mean, don’t advertise anything other than indy rock. Or does no one care?

At first we thought that the Ginger Ale was listed as Sugar Free because it has Corn Syrup in it, not real Sugar. That would have been some amazing mislabling. Instead, they just ran out of the diet version, and slid everything over. Kind of a let down, but still funny.

The antique store has its new antiques, delivered in a new container from china. Oh, authenticity.

And the Mens Multi. So much for the rumors that it doesn’t exist.

And last but not least, this young woman was go-go dancing in her red-white-blue underwear on the street corner in NW Portland trying to get people to come into the lingerie shop for a big sale. Sex sells, but is that really how bad the economy is, that the company is that desperate, and the young woman is that willing to… dance near-naked on the street for money? I mean, I wholly approve dancing naked on the street for fun, but for money, its just a whole other thing.

Related posts:

1. Advertising Age: “We Hate Ourselves”
2. Advertising Scofflaw Assaults NYT Reporter
3. Is the Ad Porn more Ad Creep?

Fighting The Outdoor Advertising Invasion: A Trivial Pursuit?

From time to time, someone will take offense at our activities on the grounds that advocating for protection of the visual environment from an onslaught of commercial advertising is a trivial cause compared to fighting poverty, or global warming, or gang warfare, or any number of other social and environmental ills.   In other words, “Can’t you find something more important to be bothered about?”

Well, yes.  We could join the quest to find cures for cancer, or to reduce the rate of infant mortality.  We could go around cajoling smokers to quit smoking, and obese people to lose weight.  Instead, we chose to stick our fingers in the porous dike that separates the public spaces of our city from a tidal wave constructed by those who want you to see commercial messages wherever you drive, walk, bicycle, sit, and otherwise experience the urban environment.

A trivial cause?  Consider the ongoing implosion of our economic system, which in a very large measure was built upon the principle of consumption.  Our jobs, our homes, our cars, our lifestyles dependent upon people shopping, which means reacting to those ubiquitous signs urging us to buy a hot new product or sign up for the latest service.  We don’t need text explaining the wonders awaiting us, just an image to trigger a reflexive desire to consume, as though we were a collective Pavlov’s dog.

We don’t hate advertising.  Retail businesses need to attract customers, so they can pay their employees and fund their owners’ retirement plans.  We don’t even hate billboards, having experienced a tug of nostalgia while browsing the classic billboard images in the June issue of Los Angeles magazine.  And we’re old enough to fondly recall the sight of Burma Shave signs scrolling past the windows of the family sedan as it rolled along a Midwestern highway.

But that was then, as the saying goes, and now is now.  Entire buildings are turned into advertisements.  Digital billboards with their dialed-up illumination dominate the night at busy intersections.  How many times do we need to be told to buy an Ipod or sign up with Verizon or chow down on a McDonald’s hamburger?   In some quaint past billboards urged passersby to eat at Myrtle’s Café, or spend the night at the Shady Rest Motel.  Now they urge-no, demand-that you buy a ticket for the latest blockbuster movie, or tune in to the latest titillation offered by Fox TV.  What we have is a voracious corporate appetite for “branding” that is ubiquitous-seen everywhere, all the time, impossible to evade or ignore.

We understand that some people feel this trend to a Blade Runner, Minority Report-esque future is perfectly okay.   We understand that some serious commentators believe that raising alarms about this future is just the fustiness of people-likely to be white, affluent, middle-aged homeowners-who live in L.A. but want to believe they’re really in some small town with white picket fences, elm trees shading the lawns, and friendly mail carriers who stop to pet the dog and exchange observations about the kids and the weather.  People likely to be frightened by the very things that make the urban environment vital and exciting-pulsating images projected onto the sides of buildings, dramatic light shows, vivid graphic expressions that may be intent upon selling you something, but so what?

Yes, so what?  If you want to hang out in Times Square with the hordes of tourists amidst the oversized ads staring down from all directions, by all means do it.  If you want to drive back and forth on the Sunset Strip gawking at the billboards, nobody is trying to stop you.  If you want to spend your nights at L.A. Live gazing in wonderment at the multi-story Nokia and Coca-Cola ads, be our guest.  You have your idea of pleasure, we have ours.  The problem comes when your idea trumps ours and the experience you want becomes the universal experience, and because you happen to like bright digital billboards and huge supergraphic signs everyone has to see them whenever they venture any distance from their abodes.

Giving people the choice to see or not to see advertising might seem reasonable, even democratic, but it works against the principle at the heart of the outdoor advertising industry, which is that effective advertising is advertising that cannot be turned off, cannot be fast-forwarded, cannot be avoided by turning the page or getting up and walking out of the room.  In a heavily fractured media environment a captive audience has great value, which is the reason that this recession has seen spending on outdoor advertising fall much less precipitously than spending on other media.

But just as the bucolic past of hand-painted billboards and Burma Shave signs has been displaced by digital billboards and supergraphic building wraps, the present will give way to something likely to be bigger, brighter, more insistent, more difficult to ignore.  As the writer Evan S. Connell said in his brilliant historical disquisition, The White Lantern,  ”The ultimate question, though, toward which all inquiries bend, and which carries a hint of menace, is not where or when or why we came to be as we are, but how the future will unfold.”

Related posts:

1. Oakland’s Ban on “Visual Blight” Upheld in Court
2. Billboard industry gums up anti-blight enforcement in S.F.
3. Chicago Tribune: City losing war against sight blight

Less than 10 days ago the Times published a story on billboards appearing on vacant storefronts. It almost reads like an ad itself:

Taking advantage of all the abandoned retail spaces in urban areas, marketers are leasing them at cut-rate prices and filling them with their ads.

At first, advertisers saw storefront advertising as a poor man’s billboard — that is, a bad thing. Now, they see it as a poor man’s billboard — that is, brilliantly frugal.

Nowhere in The Times story did it mention the ads were illegal. I wrote a letter to The Times, I got in touch with the writer, and I am hoping they will do a followup.

Meanwhile in San Francisco…

Today Brent Begin at the San Francisco Examiner published a story on the same phenomena, but with an entirely different take. In the first sentence he mentions that the signs are illegal:

A bright-blue advertisement for Intel popped up on the shuttered storefront that used to be a Disney Store on Post Street in Union Square, becoming one of many vacant buildings that has been illegally plastered with promotions.

Turning empty storefronts in San Francisco into advertisements is against city law and bothersome to anti-billboard advocates, but this latest trend in marketing is catching on.

The rest of the story is worth reading. Begin goes on to talk about the planning department’s effort to fight illegal billboards (at current count 43% of the cities 1532 billboards are illegal) and summarizes a brief history of guerilla marketing gone bad in San Francisco.

Kudos to Brent Begin at the SF Examiner for following the money.

P.S. If you’re interested in reading more, Rami Tabello of illegalsigns.ca visited San Francisco in 2007.

Related posts:

1. New York City’s Struggle to Take Down Illegal Billboards
2. NYT: City Room Blog – Ad or Art? Chanel’s 2.55 vs. Zoning’s C5-3
3. NYT: Reporting a Crime as a Business Opportunity