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

51–60 of 278 posts

Re: Adfree Cities

#51

Post by twosdai »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #11
docdeek wrote: post #4

The award of the contract for the outdoor advertising space (bus shelters, roadside space) in my city was tied to providing and maintaining a cheap metro-area wide bike sharing scheme. For 30ish euros a year I get unlimited 45 minute trips on bikes that are widely available, well maintained, and easy to use. In 2022 there were more than 10 million trips taken on these hire bikes and nearly 84,000 annual subscribers.…

It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without having to go through a monopolist that captures all of the value.

I mean this appears to be a similar model as a utility. Right? Basically a legal monopoly with a set of restrictions. I don't see how it's really a bad thing.

Re: Adfree Cities

#52

Post by digging »

vlovich123 wrote: post #25
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…

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.

Advertising isn't a zero sum game because not all ad dollars are spent equally. Two companies can spend $5M each and get different results. One main variable is, to what degree do their ads exploit and abuse human neurology? Advertising is a hostile action. It's parasitic. Almost all forms of advertising ought to be illegal in a reasonable society.

Re: Adfree Cities

#53

Post by snow_mac »

I wonder, what's the carbon impact to junk mail (advertisements), billboards, digital ads and ads in video. These all take billions of dollars to produce, print, edit, mail, send all over the world. I want to know what percentage advertising plays in emissions.

Re: Adfree Cities

#54

Post by Espressosaurus »

docdeek wrote: post #41
amadeuspagel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a good trade, there shouldn't be a monopoly on public ads, local businesses should be able to reach consumers without having to go through a monopolist that captures all of the value.

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.

Re: Adfree Cities

#55

Post by dudul »

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…

Billboards are kind of funny to me because I wonder if they really work.

I would assume that people living in the city are so used to them that they don't even notice them.

Re: Adfree Cities

#56

Post by karaterobot »

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 businesses (a bakery, a bookstore, a barbershop) aren't buying outdoor advertising at the rate that large companies are, and so if anything they'd be on a more level playing field.

Re: Adfree Cities

#57

Post by simonbarker87 »

We were on a small island off the coast of Mexico a few weeks ago and they have a program where buildings can make their external wall/walls available for local artists to pitch and paint on. It made the island have a really nice feel and brightened the streets considerably. Much nicer than a soap or movie ad.

Re: Adfree Cities

#58

Post by dudul »

technotarek wrote: post #32
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…

I don’t know where you live, but what about all the mail spam — physical mail like catalogs and email advertising/marketing? And that half of what’s published by most journalistic outlets is now veiled ads? Dear Products, I know me better than you. I’ll come find you WHEN I need you. In the meantime, please just sit tight and stay out of my way. -Mr Consumption is Overrated

I do like these. I need them as kindling to start a fire.

Re: Adfree Cities

#59

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jmugan wrote: post #13

I think of it as "stealing" my attention. Instead of enjoying blue sky as my thoughts wander peacefully, someone takes this from me to yell that I should buy a new widget.

Not just your attention.

Advertising is designed to make the person you are envy the person you could be if you bought their product. That is, it attempts to steal your satisfaction, and then offers to sell it back to you.

Quoting from memory, and I don't remember who I'm quoting, so I can't give credit where due. I didn't originate the thought, or even the wording. But it has stuck with me, because it explains what so much of advertising does.

Re: Adfree Cities

#60

Post by digging »

arketyp wrote: post #33
helen___keller wrote: post #12

I understand why people hate advertising but if I’m honest, I don’t agree with having an “adfree city”. I personally like the aesthetic of visual overload that you find in ad-laden cities (let’s say in Tokyo). It makes the space feel living, breathing, and alive, which a city should be. And then the visually quiet spaces, like temples and parks, feel much more sweet. Also at a conceptual level I disagree with the jus…

They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them. Now I can steelman the argument against ads by likening them to parasites or drugs. The "want" can then be put into question. Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not enough for their efficacy and continued existence. Someone has to actually buy the stuff too, and that's a choice which is up to the person. Are we so incapacitated we…

I do suggest you read the FAQ page on the linked site because it answers all of your disagreements. In particular:

> Any way, the bottom line is that simple exposure to ads is not enough for their efficacy and continued existence.

Modern ads are so effective at exploiting our minds that their existence is enough to drive our purchases. You don't even have to be aware of them.

> personal responsibility

is never the answer to powerful corporations abusing the public. Vulnerable people do and always will exist.

Post reply on HN