1. It’s far from free. You can go to any public place and say whatever you want. And anyone else can too. In the United States we’re pretty much covered on that. But you can’t advertise whatever you want in public space. Financially it’s out of reach. It takes an unreasonable amount of money to communicate your message through advertising that makes it inaccessible to all but a few citizens. Try to work outside the advertising spaces and you become a vandal. Ultimately, advertising is for private, business interests, not the public.

“But what if you can gather up the unreasonable amount of money?” you ask.

2. Even if you have the money, advertising spaces are not publicly accessible. The company has to approve your message. This gets all kinds of messed up. Here’s 3 quick examples:

a. In 2008, Suzanne Opton’s contract with a billboard company was canceled because the company didn’t want to display her portraits of active-duty soldiers. And she was ready to pay the $50,000 they agreed to in the contract.

b. Last year this WTF subway ad was rejected by the MTA because it conflicted with the MTAs interests:

The ad is targeted toward transit riders and is in the general interest. It’s target is not the MTA as much as Mayor Bloomberg. Yet still, it was rejected.

c. While the MTA decided the above ad was not acceptable, just this week, in a controversial move, the MTA decided this ad is acceptable and it is running on trains now:

(Excuse the fact that I’m sidestepping the disgusting, semi-racist, anti-Islamic, pseudo logic in this ad because Jeffery Goldberg nailed it already and I’m trying to make a separate point.)

Private interests are making judgment calls on what falls under the 1st Amendment. It doesn’t matter what the courts would say when the gatekeepers to the discourse won’t supply access. While I find the above “Why There?” add simple minded and counter-productive, it would be great if I could enter the dialogue on a level playing field – where I don’t have to have tens of thousands of dollars to buy in to the debate.

We can’t depend on businesses to uphold and defend our rights. Business argues that advertising is Free Speech protected by the Constitution so they can broadcast their message, but make no mistake, they’re not interested in the free speech, freedom of ideas, equal access, and open discussion and debate that culture and our democracy needs. They’re simply interested in getting their sales messages into your brain.

Here’s a thought from Paul Sachelari, Anti-Advertising Agency Legal Counsel:

Of course, the First Amendment, as any grade school kid will tell you, is the right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution. However, the right is not absolute, but rather elastic. It applies absolutely to some speech and less so to others. The most protected is political speech, while commercial speech requires much less deference.

What do you think?

No related posts.

• LA Weekly profiles advertisers in Los Angeles, as well as AAA compatriot Public Ad Campaign’s Jordan Seiler. Here’s how it starts “Supergraphic multimillionaire Barry Rush couldn’t have been pleased to hear a few weeks ago that Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich had taken the audacious step of jailing a compatriot in arms, a Hollywood landlord who, for an undisclosed sum, cut a deal with a shadowy firm that draped an illegal supergraphic around a historic Hollywood Boulevard building.”
• Following the arrest, Ban Billboard Blight reports that several illegal “supergraphic” billboards have come down. “It’s surely no coincidence that companies have been removing these signs after City Attorney Carmen Trutanich filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against one sign company and a number of property owners, engineered the arrest and jailing of a landlord in Hollywood who put up a huge illegal supergraphic on an historic Hollywood Blvd. office building, and issued arrest warrants for sign company executives and a property owner who allowed three illegal supergraphics on yet another Hollywood building.” And they seem to be coming down all over the city.
• Fuel Outdoor has finally been removing their illegal signs after losing in court.
• Ban Billboard Blight has also reported on NPA Outdoor’s illegal activity in Los Angeles. And Public Ad Campaign has reported the NPA Outdoor is leaving New York.

Related posts:

1. Office Tenants Plagued by Series of Illegal Supergraphic Signs; Do the L.A. City Attorney and District Councilman Care?
2. Owner Arrested For Hollywood Supergraphic Previously Cited For Sign Law Violations
3. Clear Channel Messed with LA Weekly and Lost!

Photograph: Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters

Distributed yesterday morning to surprised NYC commuters, the paper replaced the oft frivolous Post content with imperative stories about climates change, while keeping all other elements equal. The idea was that Post readers do care about climate change (by virtue of their desire to remain both comfortable and alive), the paper just needs some assistance finding their greener voice. Generously, we were there to offer a helping hand — demonstrating how the Post could use their hallmark writing style and pun-ny headlines to tackle important environmental issues. Read all of the articles here.

The ads seek to remind consumers of the commonsense value of what they already have, rather than enticing them to buy anything new. Can you imagine the sheer brilliance of tap water — it is delicious, refreshing, and LITERALLY comes out of your faucet…and doesn’t cost $1.50 a pop! Can you think of a single earnestly advertised product that rivals tap water’s miraculousness??

Related posts:

1. Listening Post: MySpace Play Count Inflaters – The Steroids of the Music Industry
2. Murky(ting) Water
3. 5 Samaras Project Post Cards

Note that the failed program is “Advertising”

Related posts:

1. Graffiti Fail (Advertising)