Hacker News Reader

Comment by amadeuspagel | Hacker News Reader

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 in a long list of "why are these 5 companies controlling everything after I've destroyed every single alternative".

View on HN

> 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 of advertising, word-of-mouth. Some of the most successful local businesses in my city have literally never paid for advertising.

Lastly, your complaint is meritless because Adfree Cities is not campaigning to ban all conceivable forms of advertising. From TFA (well, the FAQ page):

> Why doesn’t Adfree Cities campaign against all kinds of advertising?

> Our focus is on creating neighbourhoods and cities free from corporate outdoor advertising such as billboards. There are specific problems with outdoor advertising as explained briefly above and in more detail here: The trouble with billboards. And there are unique opportunities for communities to reclaim these spaces for art, nature and local initiatives.

> > 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.

I could be wrong. Maybe the majority are those sorts of local businesses.

What I never seem to see is local businesses I actually want to visit. The cool vintage stores, the goth stores, the retro game shops, the hole-in-the-wall Filipino restaurants, the local craft supply stores, the cat cafes, the weird toy stores, the artisan candy stores, the dubious bone and bone decor shops, the gay book stores, the Japanese import stores, the handmade ceramic planters store... you get the picture. The lifeblood of a city is not what's on its billboards.

> vintage ... retro ... hole in the wall .. weird ... artisan .. dubios

The adjectives you used are the opposite of mass market. Thus mass-market advertising doesn't work, so those businesses don't spend money in those channels.

The ads that work on billboards are very high dollar services businesses, or multi-nationals who need to spend through budgets everywhere for neilsen scores.

For example: insurance, lawyers and RE agents - they need to build "trust" through name recognition so when you do decide to make that purchase/call, you call them first.

A retro game store billboard would be awesome - but how many people driving the interstate are interested in vintage games vs how many people will be buying a home in their lifetime?

There's nothing stopping any business from buying billboards, but the economics just don't make sense apart from the whole "getting your face on a billboard" schtick that's fun.

On the flip side, if you've ever been to a local sporting event like farm league baseball or local race track, you'll see all sorts of billboards for funky little local shops and services. That's cause the ads cost a couple hundred bucks and come with perks like tickets for your employees, and you're supporting your local community, so the ROI doesn't really matter.

Roadside billboards cost thousands per month and typically come with pretty high minimums.

> The adjectives you used are the opposite of mass market. Thus mass-market advertising doesn't work, so those businesses don't spend money in those channels.

I know why they don't advertise on billboards. My point is that billboards are not the life support of local business suggested by the comment I was responding to, because the local businesses that give a city character and community generally don't use billboards.

> For example: insurance, lawyers and RE agents - they need to build "trust" through name recognition so when you do decide to make that purchase/call, you call them first.

...Right. So in other words, the billboard is mostly deception, and it's probably not bringing value to the public.

Don't forget sex shops. I road trip quite often and the amount of billboard advertising purchased buy Lion's Den is truly staggering.

> Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations. Local businesses usually rely on the most effective form of advertising, word-of-mouth.

Your experience of this will depend on where you're living.

When I lived in a 100,000 population city, the local theatres and museums weren't really big/organised enough to run billboard marketing campaigns and could fill their seats without. On the other hand, in a 500,000+ population city you were more likely to see such organisations marketing.

Places like theatres tend to have location-specific marketing needs, because if you're 90 minutes travel from the opera house you will not be attending a Tuesday evening performance that ends at 22:30*, and marketing it to you would be a waste of time.

I still hate city advertising though, and the way the ad infestation spreads once it's started.

* Yes, people will travel more than 90 minutes for a Christmas performance of The Nutcracker, as a special treat - perhaps even staying in a hotel. But if you're trying to keep your theatre open in months other than December, you've got to fill the seats. And of course, patrons who buy interval drinks can't drive home, further shrinking your core market...

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.)

Franchised businesses, are still local businesses. They're not advertising a service far away, or a hotel on the other side of the planet.

Hotels are often franchises, but it appears to me that the larger the franchise the less likely they are to advertise. McDonald's does some national ads, but often the billboards are a single store paying. Small mom and pop restaurants do get a fair number of billboards as well.

> Most billboards are from [inter]national corporations.

You literally made that up, because that's just plain false.

Comment removed, didn't notice I was responding to the troll again.

JCDecaux seems to run pretty much every billboard/hoarding/outdoor ad surface in Europe.

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 existing players.

I don't know where you are, but in NYC and in the area all billboards that I can remember are of local businesses.

Just off the top of my mind the billboads that I remember seeing driving round Manhattan - RPM Raceway go-carts, HSS Hospital, a gentlemen's club, local news anchors...

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.

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.

I don't remember seeing too many of those billboards, but I'll take your word that they're out there. Most of the billboards I recall seeing are telling me all my dreams will come true if I go to a tribal casino. I still think most people just look up local restaurants on their phones. I can't imagine the lack of billboards would hurt too many small, local restaurants.

I don't like the billboards in my city (it's light pollution and it distracts me from driving at night), but I also have to agree with you. I came at a point where I had to do some marketing/advertisement for my website system and instead of throwing money in the black hole of Google and Facebook, I opted for addressed postal mail on one hand and placing some small billboards around my city. The results were mixed, but it felt good to not being dependent on online marketing.

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.

This is silly. If I remember a building company name when I want to make a change to my house, that's not abusing my neurology.

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 information on a silver platter for every customer and business to take.

And then the likes of Donald comes in and decides, that anyone that didn't support his campaign isn't worthy to be listed in the government "dictionary"(it's directory).

Yeah... I'll live with bad advertising, rather than pave the way to 1984.

Advertising has nothing to do with political speech, free speech, or whether or not you can have a business. I think it’s a leap to claim that regulating and restricting some forms of commercial speech (equally across the board for all players btw) is on the road to 1984.

I was responding to the proposal to have a government run directory, to replace all and any advertising.

Advertising is also a matter of freedom of speech. Political speech is absolutely advertising... and a business exists exclusively based on the ability to disseminate information about the existence of a business (aka advertising)

What is "commercial speech"?

It's one thing to talk about billboards, that take up public space... and advertising in general.

Government already controls the market. It sets the rules what's allowed and what's not. It might as well do it efficiently and while providing accurate information to the customers.

Negative sum for society but zero sum for the players

Producing advertising metrials isn't free. So it's a negative for everybody.

Right now this would be seen as impossibly radical, but I am increasingly of the opinion that advertising will someday be totally banned and our descendants will look back on it as barbaric. "You allowed corporations to spy on you and psychologically abuse you, instilling feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, everywhere you went? Why?"

Exaggerated (it's not 100%) but partially true. If I'm specifically driving on a highway or through a town, I only have two options to find businesses: billboards or Google Maps. Plenty of times on a road trip, I've seen a sign for a diner I like and headed over there.

Where I'm from, billboards are another monopoly. Sure, they're not the big tech monopoly, but is that the part that matters?

Even if billboards are another monopoly, they creates more competition in the entire advertising market.

This makes no sense. Solo entrepreneurs, Etsy/Shopify stores and other random small businesses aren't buying giant billboards in the middle of cities, they are getting customers through Google and Facebook ads. Big tech literally invented direct consumer targeting.

Eh, most small to medium size towns in the US have ordinances and zoning restrictions that effectively outlaw this type of fixed advertising. Many outlaw billboards and Businesses can only have a single sign and it has to be within a certain size.

You can still advertise in those areas, you just have to do it through mediums like bulletins, mailers, sponsorships, media and print -- things that are generally easier to avoid and opt-out of.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com