From The New York Times City Room blog:

For several years — in spite of 103 violation notices issued against it — a three-story, wrap-around billboard has blanketed the lower floors of the 19th-century Cushman Building, 174 Broadway, at Maiden Lane.

On Thursday, clearly feeling that its enforcement efforts had been lost on OTR Media Group, which installed the sign, and 1 Maiden Lane Realty, which owns the building, the Department of Buildings took the sign down itself.

“This is the first time the Department of Buildings has physically removed an illegal sign from a building,” the agency’s press secretary, Kate Lindquist, said. A company called Service Sign Erectors performed the work for the city.

Glad to see the Department of Buildings is able to follow up on one of the more flagrant billboards in the city. Ashamed that this is the first time, but I don’t believe that’s true – I remember they took down ads on sidewalk sheds a couple years ago? Also ridiculous that they hired a media company to remove the sign. But most importantly, there are hundreds of signs just like this one left to go. What to do? Later in the piece it’s clear just how much they respect these media companies have for the city and quality of life:

“The attorney for the respondent signed a stipulation agreeing to cease the display of illegal signage at the premises, and a judge recommended the removal of the sign,” Ms. Lindquist said in a statement. “After a removal order was posted, a Department of Buildings inspection determined the sign was removed, yet it was promptly reinstalled days after the inspection.”

Related posts:

1. NYT: City Room Blog – Ad or Art? Chanel’s 2.55 vs. Zoning’s C5-3
2. Sign Industry: “The Law is interfering with my illegal income!!”
3. NYT: Reporting a Crime as a Business Opportunity

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

Re: As Storefronts Become Vacant, Ads Arrive

Peter Sherman of advertising firm BBDO was quoted in your story, “All you have to do is walk out the door for lunch and notice the number of vacant storefronts — and they tend to be in prime areas, in major thoroughfares, and they’re unused space — so why not get in there and put a message in there?”

I know why not, because it’s a crime! And I was disappointed that the Times didn’t mention this. Outdoor advertising is regulated by the Department of Buildings for several reasons; so billboards aren’t erected in dangerous places and ways, to regulate advertising to specific districts keeping the city livable, and to prevent persuasive messages from being placed anywhere and everywhere a corporation can buy space.

The Department of Buildings has strict regulations on size and these storefronts turned billboards are simply too large for nearly every commercial district in New York with the exception of Times Square.

The Times is mistaken in reporting on this as a “thriving” type of advertising emerging from declining economy.  Call it what it is, advertisers desperate for profits, committing organized crime, and hurting the livability of our city.

New Yorkers who care should call these signs in to 311 and have them removed!  Or just tear them down themselves.

Steve Lambert
Senior Fellow, Eyebeam Art and Technology Center
Founder, The Anti-Advertising Agency

Jordan Selier
publicadcampaign.com

Related posts:

1. NYT: City Room Blog – Ad or Art? Chanel’s 2.55 vs. Zoning’s C5-3
2. Advertising Scofflaw Assaults NYT Reporter
3. NYT: You Are Here (And Probably Seeing an Ad)

I just went to NYTimes.com, as I do multiple times a day. A split-second after I arrived at the homepage, it was covered up with a full-page ad overlay. That was irritating, but I’m willing to tolerate some annoyance in return for excellent free content. I found this particular full-page ad overlay downright disillusioning, though. Here it is: New York Times 2040 Yup–it’s a fake New York Times homepage from 2040, with jokey futuristic news stories and a redesign which consists of the Times dumping its logo, tagline, and typography in favor of a look which I’m guessing won’t end up resembling whatever is hip when 2040 does roll around. It’s a component of Intel’s big new ad campaign with the slogan “Sponsors of Tomorrow.”

Read the rest at Assuming There’s a New York Times in 2040, I Hope It’s Not This One | Technologizer.

Related posts:

1. From the New York Times
2. NY Times on Saturation Advertising
3. AddArt in NY Times