Adfree Cities

Post by JAlexoid » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #95

bluGill wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At least in the US many of these are franchised businesses, so it is still corporations (Hilton, Best Western, McDonald’s etc.)

Post by JAlexoid » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 10:34 PM UTC

_Algernon_ wrote: post #42

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…

I doubt this is true, but would be interested in seeing evidence of the contrary. Based on my anecdotal observations 99% of advertisements I see in my city are by gigantic international conglomerates: Coca Cola, Disney, H&M, HBO and so on. I don't recall seeing a local or small business advertising (ignoring signs on or near their own store front of course). If anything it seems advertising works to entrench the exis…

Post by vlovich123 » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 10:42 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #230

digging wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. Great. High traffic areas are the most dangerous places for distractions. > why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate. I'll list the reasons: 1. Road signs are standardized in a given state, and they're designed to be extremely easy to understand at a glance, so t…

You can surely provide some kind of research, that can support your argument... right? It's not just your opinion based on...

Post by digging » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 10:49 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #231

digging wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. You literally made that up, because that's just plain false.

Post by digging » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 10:54 PM UTC

ponector wrote: post #167

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. The alternative is to have a cheap popular bikeshare system supported by taxes. [Edit to reply to okr, because I'm rate-limited: Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service. As it is, you're pushing ads in everyone's face, whether or not they use the bike. Also no thanks.]

In theory. But in real life you'll pay more with taxes for poor service. My big city in Poland tried several times to get public-private bike sharing. It ended the same: company ceases operation after few years and take all bikes from the streets. People get nothing while millions already spent.