A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising
good.is
good.is
Here are some links for pictures of before/after. For more images, you can search for images of Lei Cidade Limpa SP or Lei Cidade Limpa São Paulo (we use the tilde here, you can remove it if you prefer)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonydemarco/sets/72157600075508...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sueluzfotos/page4/
http://ftorquato.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/gilberto-kassab-de...
And here's a link with a article in Sao Paulo prefecture about this law (google-translated to English).
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&tl...
Cheers, -B
In a sense this didn't hurt advertisers at all, as the demand for advertisement stayed exactly the same, they just had to change the available media. Think of it as a prisoner's dillema-like situation, where defecting is plastering a huge sign in front of people. It's better for everyone if nobody does that, but whoever breaks the law and does it can get an advantage.
Preventing people from defecting in these situations is exactly the point of a government (regardless of how much I disagree with Kassab's actual politics and would never vote for him).
I'm not saying that this is the case here, but it's a fair question, I think.
[Edit: Here is an older but more-balanced article from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5355692.stm]
[1] I'm yet to figure out what the colours mean on buses.
Edit: Found one: http://banbillboardblight.org/?page_id=4251
I grew up in a suburb of Minneapolis that had similar restrictions on advertising, and I can say that it is very nice as a resident. Now when I visit however, I find it difficult to locate some of the new businesses.
I'm curious how this law has affected business revenue from tourists in Sao Paulo.
Doing indoor media "right" seems to be a yet unsolved problem in São Paulo. And still I'm not sure how relevant these terminals are in the smartphone- and tabled-filled environments they're usually spotted.
That does not address the business concern of capturing new business via signage, but the whole point here is that urban dwellers also have legitimate concerns and that private business interest should yield when reasonable collective concerns are being addressed.
[edit: in fact, there is startup opportunity here that can address both concerns, and it would seem to be a win-win. I don't have a car myself, but last time I rode one shutgun, the nav device (Lexus) had option to pepper the map with fast food, etc. icons. Hang your billboard there and spare the rest of us who object to being subjected to visual/textual noise that we have no means to avoid otherwise.]
Yes but the question is how much business do you get from signage.
I work for a construction company, you wouldn't know we exist by signage unless you drive down the industrial address our company is on. Most of our business comes from the signs on our trucks and trailers. On a single job I've had upwards of a dozen people come up to me and ask for a business card because they're impressed by our work.
We're not going to get huge business by a sign on main street, we get business by just doing our job because you get interested customers who might be hesitant and have questions. If they come and ask why us vs our next leading competitor, I can tell them "because they only use contractors, you might get good work and you might not".
I haven't been to a single restaurant in the past 5 years that either I didn't look for, or someone didn't refer/take me to.
I understand why some business owners might be annoyed if store front signage is restricted too much, especially if they're dependent on walk-in customers. However, I can't think of the last place I had to walk into that I didn't already know where it was.
However, I know around here there's Little Caesars pizza restaurants that keep popping up in plazas out of the way and they hire people to stand on the sidewalk to hold a sign. Why do I find this less offensive? Basically because someone who might need a job is actually getting paid, rather than a fee going to a signage company, and also because they're doing this on baron sidewalks that are basically only ever used by highschool kids anyway because no one walks in a non-verticalized city.
I'd be shocked if many people, on this site in paritcular, used street ads as their primary means of locating new businesses they'd been wanting to find.
This store, for instance, was fined R$300.000,00 for it's signage a couple months ago: http://img.vejasp.abril.com.br/t/2/t420x280/ponto-frio-megas... (the penguin is their trademark)
I was actually paying attention to that. They allowed business to put up their own sign on their own residence, but not other ads. For example you see the Mcdonalds sign at the Mcdonalds, the Xerox sign at the Xerox, and the Shell sign at the Shell. But I didn't notice anything other then that.
1) Do you think most tourists (be it in Sao Paulo or elsewhere) can speak the local language? Read it? Do the signs need to be very visual to make even sense?
2) Isn't there still a huge difference between the number of times you actually found an ad helpful ("Ah, okay.. Let's go there") vs. awkward, boring, distracting?
I especially like the first one. This country has less people than Sao Paulo. In fact, the local language is probably spoken (and read) by less people than those living in Sao Paulo. Billboards are everywhere, including hotlines, shortcodes, directions - and I cannot understand a single one. I'd argue that the average tourist here wouldn't care about the ads. They are for residents/citizens.
2. Ads weren't that localized to begin with. Billboards usually advertised appliances, commodities, magazines... not nearby places of interest. So they could have been anywhere, really, they were just "visual pollution" really. (I suppose by saying this I'm confirming your hunch?)
Concerning #2 still: when the bill got passed, the government started selling advertising space in the back of buses and inside the metropolitan transport system (trains and stations). I'm not sure if this is on purpose, but these ads have usually been far more localised (relevant to the route of the vehicle or the vicinities of the stations) than the billboards they somewhat replaced.
But removing the ads for the business just under the ad does not strike me as better. It makes the business district look sleepy and quiet, rather than active and bustling.
And as a resident I don't mind ads telling me what I can do/get/buy at a location - that's sort of what I want when I visit a business district.
Only to people looking at pictures on the internet. When you're there, there's just as much commerce happening as ever. Note that Brazil is one of the few countries that was able to evade the global rape that the finanical industries committed over the past few years.
What was the last thing you bought that was directly attributable to seeing a street advertisement at a location?
You've never bought some food from a street vendor? Or gone in a coffee shop and bought a bagel? Or made a photocopy after seeing a shop on the street?
I've done all of those things, but never because of, or in a way that would have been altered by, the presence of advertising above said businesses.
Or starbucks? Those names don't in any way tell you what the business does. Without advertising above the shop you wouldn't have any idea what they sell.
Look at those photos again - the only thing they have is the name, with no indication about what those shops sell or do.
Should all small business have to advertise on TV until they have a household name?
Small businesses need not be able to afford a TV presence to advertise; indeed, I do not know what your neighbourhood is like, but in mine most small businesses already cannot afford large billboard-like signage on their stores and already rely upon simple names on their store-fronts. Their primary and most effective tool is, and always will be, positive word-of-mouth.
How nice for you - and even nicer for those places with large advertising budgets. But that is not the case for everyone. I don't need a huge billboard above a shop. But some ads that show what they do are quite helpful.
> "Campus Copy Shop"
So you suggest that all shops name themself as basically what they do? And what about a grocery store that has a copier? How would anyone find out about it unless they already go there?
> Their primary and most effective tool is, and always will be, positive word-of-mouth.
That's great when you live there, and an utter failure for visitors.
If I'm walking down a Manhattan street and I want to make a copy I'm looking for a picture of a copier or a sign that says "Copies made here".
There's no getting around the fact that socializing with the locals is inconvenient, but sometimes it can be a nice inconvenience.
It has the added benefit that if your business pisses off the locals (crappy service perhaps) they'll probably recommend a competitor if there is one.
Big stores don't really need much advertising - it's the small shops that need this, and it's exactly those smaller shops that would be less known to the locals.
I live in Toronto, so not too small. I know my neighbourhood very well actually. If you bumped into me on the street I could tell you:
1) Where to make a copy (small independent office store nearby, but it's expensive, also where to find others).
2) Where to grab a coffee / baked goods with a recommendation of which one I prefer (none of them being Starbucks or a Tims).
3) Your options for Indian, Thai, Italian food, etc.
4) Grocery stores and the quality of their produce.
5) Local mechanics.
6) Parks.
7) Parking.
And plenty of more specific shops.
Most of these places are small independent shops. They really didn't need any signage since I've walked or driven past many of them multiple times.
I've only lived in this specific neighbourhood for a year and a half. I've lived in the city for about 15 years.
You may not know where to go to get a copy, but many of us do and not through any kind of superhuman effort either.
Also, having the internet on my phone means I can quickly find most services I need in a specific neighbourhood when I'm feeling too shy to ask.
Quite helpful, for you. Useless, for me.
Neither of us should mistake our preferences for some kind of universal fact.
The public commons are a space that needs to be governed by the balancing of competing interests. Sao Paulo has evidently chosen to balance those interests in a way I would prefer given my preferences and needs, but you would not given yours.
The only thing that can be really said here is that you probably shouldn't move to Sao Paulo.
What is the sight one sees upon traveling through an area? A composite of many things, but including a large amount of the public faces of shops if there are any. Yet surely that sight has a considerable impact on the common areas.
I suppose you would also support legislation to regulate what color clothing people can wear if they go out in public?
Should shop keepers be required to have window shades on their stores so you are not offended by the display of merchandise?
I currently live in an area in which my window coverings are regulated to show an off-white color on the outside when closed, for what little that's worth. And almost all jurisdictions have some regulation on public clothing: public nudity is often punishable, for instance, thus excluding clothing with the color “invisibly transparent”. I neither directly support nor directly reject such laws, at the moment.
My best approximation of a “correct” solution might have involved upgrading everyone's perceptual filtering capability enough to obviate most commons regulations, but I've recently gone through a (possibly fake—I haven't stabilized the prionic meme filter yet) realization that humans are not at all what they seemed to me to be earlier on, and the inference propagation has not converged, so that shouldn't be treated as a stable opinion.
But really, why do people resort to controlling others this way? It's a real shame. Freedom and property rights are important, no matter what the visual flavor of the day.
He traveled to São Paulo and this movie shows footage of the city. I learned of the city's ban from that movie.
(Edit: thanks Icebrain for correcting my spelling)
The movie shows before and after images and interviews people there, directly answering the question of the post I responded to.
After seeing the movie I even looked online to see if anyone posted those specific scenes (of São Paulo) online. I didn't find any, but if anyone else found them, please let me know.
To me, it's quite bad in any other city.
The fact that business can carry on as usual when everyone is forced to cooperate in Sao Paulo shows that advertising is mostly a huge inefficiency.
It makes the city look vibrant, and often covers up some of the... less successful architectural experiments.
I think there is scope for banning of large scale ads in certain locations. When you walk through a tourist town that is, for want of a better word 'quaint' because of old buildings or similar, it's nice when they restrict the erection of modern advertising.
I think it's a case of horses for courses. In some places it works well, in others, not necessary. As long as the residents of the location can decide which way they want to go, I don't see an issue.
I'd be willing to bet the great majority here would oppose it, and I'd be willing to bet that people would be exploring all of the negative and potential unintended consequences.
Have you considered the immediate losses advertisers will incur from removing/destroying their advertising assets? Will those costs be passed on to customers? What about the "public" cost of implementing and enforcing the ban itself? What effect does this have on companies that sell outdoor ads? Does this concentrate power to companies that sell other types of advertising and reduce competition? Does this lower the value of real estate properties that previously sold ad space? What happens to people who previously discovered or visited businesses via outdoor ads? What about the people who actually enjoy the ads?
On a deeper level, why stop at banning outdoor ads? Should we ban other things we find aesthetically unpleasing or is there something about these outdoor ads that was materially damaging people? Also, how exactly do you determine if this ban was a "success"?
Before the vote, polls indicated that the majority of "paulistanos" wanted the ban. Now, 5 years later, a poll done by a local paper showed that over 90% of residents approuve the results and want it to continue.
Where are the studies showing that visual clutter benefits everyone? Oh ya that's right nobody asked for studies because "benefitting everyone" is low priority next to silencing the voice of the public to ensure no obstacles to the corporations that rape our world.
- outlawed billboards anywhere, period
- regulated the size of "corporate totems" (such as
McDonald's distinctive pole thing with their logo)
- regulated the size and number of times one can use
corporate branding on their business's façade
São Paulo wasn't horribly polluted by billboards to begin with, compared to every other large city. This bill, on the other hand, had such extreme impact... we grew used to it very quickly.
I live in Belo Horizonte, another large brazilian metropolis 580 kilometers away from Sao Paulo, and all the cabling is underground in the whole downtown area.
And it's not just the looks, in the five years I lived in this area I never had a blackout caused by storms. Had to buy several UPS units after moving to a suburb.
I AM SICK OF IT. I would love to see a new movement to lower the amount of ads we are faced with each day and give us back our ability to concentrate on what's really important.
In particular, New York City establishments said people who came in from the suburbs and brought money in would stop coming in.
The ban was successful. A year or two later Hoboken passed a ban because people were increasingly going into the city for the cleaner indoor air they couldn't get in Hoboken.
As a New Yorker of over two decades, I'd love to see such a ban here, perhaps with some areas, like Times Square, zoned to allow it. As with smoking, I expect a large majority would support it once implemented.
However, it is the purview of government to legislate things like this to establish protection of the "commons".
No it doesn't. Architecture, etc, does that.
More to the point, cities are where people live, not works of art. Seeing all the advertisements in Manhattan might be fun for tourists, but they're straining for people who live there.
If you want to just see the architectural facades as they were meant to be seen, then no tech required. I would love to see Vegas or New York, for instance, with the ads scrubbed and then be able to pull up dynamic ads with a phone or heads up display.
The even made an iPhone app for reporting those things. Everyone got thrilled at first, but now it looks like it's grinding to a halt (econ. crisis and all).
The city is indeed cleaner (at least the main avenues). Also, we had many road accidents involving drunk drivers hitting on those huge ad poles (now, at least, somebody might have a chance for survival hitting something else other than metal).
(and you only thought it looked like a ghost town because the pictures didn't include people in them)
I look forward to the future, when citizens realize their government is the biggest barrier between themselves and prosperity.
This is government red tape that hurts the economy in that city.
Could you then show some evidence for the below quote? -
> Basically, the economy in that city is worse off overall as a result, and there are fewer jobs to go around.
Don't do that shit. It's annoying and adds nothing to the conversation.
We have regulations on vehicle drive-by noise limits. Yes, this costs consumers and manufacturers. But overall, it is a net gain as it results in a quieter society, which is better. Visual pollution is just as bad as noise pollution.
It's a sensible move for people to adopt if they choose to do so.
I actually think it would be broadly neutral. A lot of value invested in advertising is actually wasted. So redistributing that back into the economy may turn out to be marginally beneficial. For every signwriter that had to get a new job, perhaps a magazine editor, online ad creator or telephone sales operator got a job. Or perhaps the companies that saved in constructing advertising changed to improving their products instead.
It will always be impossible to know. But don't argue that all government regulation is wrong.
The aggregate gain in a quieter society that you describe is not an aggregate gain in happiness. It's a society in which we're silenced.
Advertising is a form of speech, and we should all support free speech in all forms, lest we find ourselves silenced.
Hacker News would be free of visual clutter if we all stop posting. If a government mandate forced us to stop, supporters may argue that it makes the world a cleaner place. Clutter-free as it might be, those supporters don't have the moral right to prevent us from speaking. That in essence is why all government regulation is bad.
Every collective has it's own rules which are mostly designed to facilitate better running of the collective. This is true from the couple, the family, the business, the church, right on up to the planet as a whole.
It is imperfect to assume that everyone will agree to get along and abide by the same rules. Therefore, you need a level of collective creation and agreeance of rules in order to try and optimise behaviours.
Once you decide that there needs to be rules, you've got to decide on who makes the rules. There are many choices, from outright dictatorship to various levels of democracy.
So in a sense, we surrender ourselves to certain rules in the understanding that we consider the cost to be greater than the benefit. This will always involve compromises - but in a truly free society freedom to stick up massive advertising hoardings conflicts with the freedom to walk down the street without having to see such things.
The middle road, the compromise, is a representative government whereby we agree to rules in the understanding that, if the rules aren't working out in the way we want, we collectively change the rulemakers.
Of course, in practice, there is plenty of evidence that this is problematic. For the most part, there is far too much government regulation over matters which the government has no part in agreeing to.
In the case of the advertising hoardings - well, presumably whomever enacted the ban would be free to be challenged in an election and the decision overturned if people felt the cost exceeded the benefit. In this case, I don't really think it's a case of violating free speech, as the advertisers are still free to speak in many forms, just that there are restrictions in a certain form.
But a dogmatic sticking to an approach where nobody has any say over anybody elses business just invites ridicule, just as communists and socialists of varying stripes invite their own ridicule with ridiculous 'property is theft' comments.
Of course you're right that this is how the world works, from a Collectivist perspective. The Individualist perspective, which I tend towards, asserts that individual happiness is far more important than any attempt to "optimise behaviours".
There are many choices, from outright dictatorship to various levels of democracy.
At the end of the day, my giant sign isn't harming anyone, and no one's forced to look at it. Restricted speech in the name of "cleanliness" is not acceptable in my book, but from a Collectivist perspective I guess it's alright.
If that stance invites ridicule, I accept -- just as long as we all remain mutually respectful about letting each other voice our opinions -- and that includes businesses and politicians.
Increasing the amount of advertising redistributes value instead of creating new value. It's a classic example of a prisoner's dilemma. Everyone does better individually by advertising more, but when everyone advertises more they do worse.
From the perspective of society, money spent on advertising is almost entirely wasted. It could be better spent on other things, like making air travel cheaper.
I know advertising does have a useful purpose: a mechanism to inform people about things they didn't know. But the amount of advertising necessary to achieve that purpose is minimal. Creating laws that limit advertising to that minimal amount is a net benefit to society.