Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adfree Cities

adfreecities.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#81

Post by cheriot »

Espressosaurus wrote: post #54
docdeek wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ad space exists and the city owns all the ad space. They either get in the business of pricing it and selling it themselves, or they contract that business out. In this case, a condition of the contract was you have to pay for the bike scheme.

So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist? Everything is a choice, we don't HAVE to accept these shitty ads everywhere.

> This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space.

Yes, it's a trade off. I wish my city had free bike share.

Re: Adfree Cities

#82

Post by walthamstow »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #43
tylervigen wrote: post #6

I have personally gotten very aggressive at removing as many ads from my life as I can. I pay for the "premium" version of everything I can to remove ads (Spotify, YouTube, podcast subscriptions) and use adblocker aggressively. It's so much nicer than the alternative. There are two places where ads remain: 1) Social media where the ads are integrated and not blocked (Facebook, YouTube in-video promos) 2) Billboards i…

Do you watch any sports on TV? The amount of ads packed into an NBA basketball game on TV is startling and exhausting: - each player's jersey - arena walls - courtside walls (tv screens) - projected onto the court floor (updated each minute) - on the side and top of the backboard - most TV graphics ("Taco Bell play of the game") - split-screen ads during free-throws - traditional commercials during time-outs

Advertising isn't quite as pervasive on UK TV sports coverage but the one and only I ever see or hear and advert in my life is when I'm watching football on Sky Sports. It's unavoidable.

Re: Adfree Cities

#83

Post by chankstein38 »

tylervigen wrote: post #6

I have personally gotten very aggressive at removing as many ads from my life as I can. I pay for the "premium" version of everything I can to remove ads (Spotify, YouTube, podcast subscriptions) and use adblocker aggressively. It's so much nicer than the alternative. There are two places where ads remain: 1) Social media where the ads are integrated and not blocked (Facebook, YouTube in-video promos) 2) Billboards i…

Pro tip about Youtube in-video promos, SponsorBlock is a really nice extension that will auto-skip those in many more popular videos!

Re: Adfree Cities

#84

Post by bluGill »

digging wrote: post #31
amadeuspagel wrote: post #9

The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly, without going through an intermediary big tech monopoly. I have a sense that the people most likely to support this thing also whine a lot about big tech, so this is just another bullet point…

> The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. I really don't think this is true. What evidence leads you to believe that? > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form…

While the billboard may be an international corporation, they target local business. Most billboards I see in rural areas are for local businesses targeting travelers with things they probably need anyway - gas, hotels, and restaurants at the next exit. In cities there is a different mix.

Re: Adfree Cities

#85

Post by chankstein38 »

I've never understood why billboards are legal. They're distracting and placed along the roads and highways. In my driving course I remember being told that even so much as talking to a passenger or adjusting the volume of the radio can be dangerous so you should be paying 100% attention to the road.

So why are billboards, things that are specifically built, along roads, to draw my attention legal?

So let's go adfreecities!

Re: Adfree Cities

#86

Post by bluGill »

karaterobot wrote: post #56
amadeuspagel wrote: post #9

The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly, without going through an intermediary big tech monopoly. I have a sense that the people most likely to support this thing also whine a lot about big tech, so this is just another bullet point…

You seem to be speaking about Big Tech as though they were the ones who are buying physical advertisements, rather than selling them. I think Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. mostly place digital ads for businesses, which would not be affected by a ban on physical ads in cities. The parties affected by a ban on physical ads like billboards in large cities would mostly be the large companies who buy them. Small busines…

You picked small business that wouldn't buy billboard ads. I see local restaurants and hotels on billboards all the time: they are targeting non-locals who might use that business if they only new how close it was.

Re: Adfree Cities

#87

Post by celestialcheese »

digging wrote: post #31
amadeuspagel wrote: post #9

The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly, without going through an intermediary big tech monopoly. I have a sense that the people most likely to support this thing also whine a lot about big tech, so this is just another bullet point…

> The fact that you can advertise in cities is the reason that big tech doesn't capture 100% of profits in every single market. I really don't think this is true. What evidence leads you to believe that? > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form…

> > Advertising in cities, from billboards to flyers to stickers is the only way to reach people directly

> Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form of advertising, word-of-mouth. Some of the most successful local businesses in my city have literally never paid for advertising.

Are they? From my experience, at least on roads here in the US, the majority seems to be realtors, ambulance chasing attorneys, restaurants/casinos/road-side attractions coming up, and various political/religious/group-affiliation advertising. Corporations make up some of course, but it's a lot more mixed than, say, TV ads.

Re: Adfree Cities

#88

Post by secretsatan »

sunday_serif wrote: post #23

Not so long ago, I was traveling around Switzerland. During my time in the country, there was always something just a little off, and I couldn’t place what it was. Was it cleaner? Was the architecture just very modernist? Did it have something to do with the season? Eventually, I realized that the difference I was noticing between Switzerland and California (my home state) was that there was simply much less advertis…

Geneva narrowly rejected banning billboards recently.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/geneva-throws-out-ban-...

Re: Adfree Cities

#89

Post by maxwell »

germandiago wrote: post #67

This is totally double-edged. We get information from the environment as well. If advertisements get forbidden they could easily get replaced by "good things to do" monopoly gobernments. Namely, propaganda. Also, ads make life for many people. I think regulation is enough. Forbiding would be harmful IMHO as a whole.

Any signs of this in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, or Maine, where billboards have been banned since 1977 and earlier?

Re: Adfree Cities

#90

Post by vlovich123 »

scotty79 wrote: post #68
vlovich123 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly maybe we should just ban all advertising? Advertising is generally a zero sum game - there’s no meaningful difference if you spend 5M on ads and your competitors spend 5M on ads or you spend 0 and your competitors spend 0. There is a difference if you can spend 20M and your competitors can only spend 5M, but that’s one way larger companies kill competition.

It's a negative sum game. I'd happily ban all advertising and replaced it with government managed services and products dictionary where suppliers would put their offers with prices. It would also be a hub of technical information about the products and their reviews. Also information about companies operating on the market. Conduct, ownership structure, financial information, everything. Basically all the market inf…

Negative sum for society but zero sum for the players
Post reply on HN