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

Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

amusingplanet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 428 posts

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#351

Post by npteljes »

binthere wrote: post #260
404mm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very much against advertisements in media. If a service doesn’t come with an ad-free option then I don’t subscribe at all. I am not as radical when it comes to advertisements in the cities. 100% no to billboards. But if a local restaurant wants to advertise pictures of their dishes at their location (not across the town), that’s fine with me. As long as ads are local to the business, tasteful and in limited size…

Not everyone has $$$ to spend on a subscription service and they would locked out of content. Ads are necessary to promote accessibility of content in my opinion.

They could just pirate content, as many have always done. But I see your point, ads can be an acceptable form of payment. I have seen this in a mobile game for example, where you can buy the in-game currency with real money, and you can also get some if you watch ads, fill surveys etc. I'm sure it's abused to hell and back, with telemetry and so on, but I could get on top that right after I ban all other ads.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#352

Post by npteljes »

usefulcat wrote: post #217
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most public advertisement is for consumption goods - food, clothes, tech gadgets etc. 1. People have mostly fixed amounts of money for these products. So the role of ads is to influence which brands/products people spend their money on. 10-20% of the cost of coke/pepsi cans is just the cost of ads that are used to influence you buy one of two almost identical products. 2. Ads total waste of society's productive power…

> 10-20% of the cost of coke/pepsi cans is just the cost of ads I think this is an important point. If coke and pepsi were not allowed to advertise, they could only compete on price and quality. This is clearly a win for consumers. For coke and pepsi, maybe a small to moderate loss of revenue? But then their costs would definitely go down (no advertising spend), so it wouldn't necessarily be a net loss even for them.

>they could only compete on price and quality

They can (and do) also compete on exclusive deals with places who sell soda. I'd wager it's more important than competing on ads, because what are people gonna do at a pepsi or coke exclusive place, not drink soda?

I'm sorry but the free market idea that's lurking in the argument is naive, when contrasted to our current (and past, and projected future) reality.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#353

Post by npteljes »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #253
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's considered a radical stance, but I +1. Ads should just be banned anywhere in general. They concentrate power to those who already have it, because you can make more ads if you have more money. The local burger joint cannot compete against macdonals on advertising, the local soda against coca cola. It's ugly, eat attention, and interrupt. It creates business models with terrible incentives, which leads to censo…

> They concentrate power to those who already have it Isn't ads exactly the opposite. A big company could preserve its brand even without ads, while a small company can't build a brand without ads. But I completely agree on removing wall ads. Its ugly.

I think you're right, ads can be the opposite! For example the way Facebook does its targeting, smaller businesses seem to have a real chance to target their niche. So it's not all just like a sporting event, where the big dogs will buy up all available ad space.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#354

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

nelsonic wrote: post #6

This is awesome. Discovering this kind of post is exactly why I read HN and not other "news" sources. Agree with others that the "empty" billboard frames look off. But much better than attention-seeking adverts. Wish more cities would pass this kind of law. Billboards are such an eyesore especially the pointless political ads we are forced to see.

> and not other "news" sources

I mean I really enjoyed this piece too, but it's not really news. HN really shouldn't be relied upon as a singular news source. There's plenty of things you should know that aren't the intellect candy that HN promotes

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#355

Post by tdyfhfhf »

I hate billboards, but I also think they're fascinating. They immediately show you what a city is about. I live in San Francisco these days and it's always funny to me driving around seeing billboards for cloud services, financial services, investment banks, SaaS, Napa wineries ... I grew up in Texas and it was always megachurch, porn store, strip club, megachurch ... I lived in Hawaii for a few years and the complete lack of billboards was so very nice.

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#356

Post by zwaps »

hk__2 wrote: post #136
lucideer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these are distinct forms of street art Can you elaborate on this? I've always thought a mural was just a type of graffiti?

> Can you elaborate on this? I've always thought a mural was just a type of graffiti? According to Wikipedia it’s the opposite: a graffiti is a type of mural [1]. However at least in French and in Italian a graffiti is an inscription on a wall, often done as vandalism, while a mural(e) is more like a fresco which often takes the full wall. As a French, for me this [2] is a mural and this [3] is a graffiti. [1]: https…

In Germany, graffiti is the overarching category and the vandalism are called "tags"

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#357

Post by karlshea »

zwaps wrote: post #356
hk__2 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you elaborate on this? I've always thought a mural was just a type of graffiti? According to Wikipedia it’s the opposite: a graffiti is a type of mural [1]. However at least in French and in Italian a graffiti is an inscription on a wall, often done as vandalism, while a mural(e) is more like a fresco which often takes the full wall. As a French, for me this [2] is a mural and this [3] is a graffiti. [1]: https…

In Germany, graffiti is the overarching category and the vandalism are called "tags"

That’s also how it’s referred to here in the Midwestern US

Re: Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)

#358

Post by pixl97 »

mcpackieh wrote: post #230
fesoliveira wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, good thing art is subjective. To me these are leagues better than ads and they bring social commentary and inspiration far more than any ad. It's one of the few things I am proud of as someone who lived in the state of Sao Paulo for a good chunk of my life.

> they bring social commentary In other words, they're propaganda. At least in the case of graffiti with social commentary, anybody can go out there and put their message up. Murals with social messages are propaganda sanctioned by the property owner, or even commissioned by the government, making it establishmentarian propaganda that pretends to be transgressive by adopting the superficial form of unsanctioned graff…

Right, art can only be anti-establishment...

Might as well cancel the law and put up Wal-mart signs.

Post reply on HN