Adfree Cities

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.

This bike share scheme is only possible because the city traded away its outdoor ad space. There's not more ads, just a monopoly on who sells the space to advertisers. The city might be prettier without the advertisements but it seems a good trade off to be removing vehicles from the road and promoting healthy transport via the bike scheme.

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 alternative is to not have a cheap popular bikeshare system.

Also with monopolist it is really easy to keep some standards, quality of the ads.

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.]

So, instead of paying my money for a bike as a choice, a monopolist takes money from everyone. Very funny, but no thanks, i take Ads anytime over that.

The collective community ends up paying a lot more in quality of life with these ads up. Also, ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich.

You give money to get goods. What is wrong about that?

You give money you can't really afford to give in order to get goods that you don't really need. You do so because advertisers are skilled professionals, and are better at manipulating you than you are at not being manipulated. And they have put themselves in places where you cannot help but see them. That's what's wrong about that.

This has little to do with advertising.

Consumer sentiment will be shaped by media other than advertising. You watching Instagram of people drinking alcohol and (seemingly) having fun will make you want to drink alcohol.

Ads for a particular type of alcohol will only steer your selection of product, but do not induce a desire to get it.

> ads are the primary way to get the lower economic classes to give their money to the rich

This seems very implausible. People's largest expenses are things like housing, healthcare, childcare, and groceries, which are mostly not driven by advertising.

>Well, then, make the users of the bikes pay the full cost of the bike service.

Great, so long as motorists pay the full cost of the roads.

The beneficiaries of roads are much more than motorists. Almost every employer and the government needs roads to operate. The motorists include trucks that keep society functioning. You would have no food, water, or electricity in 1-2 weeks without roads.

Then let private motorists pay their share of the upkeep. I'd throw out a guess that it's upwards of 99%.

The reality is the opposite, heavy trucks and buses are responsible for practically all road damage.

As road wear and tear is proportional to the third or fourth power of axle weight.

The beneficiaries of road alternatives include road users as well. Since it benefits road users, it also benefits everyone you just listed.

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.

I live in NYC and I wish bikeshare was a part of public transport. Kids get to use them with their pass, low income gets them, they get the same importance as the train or bus, etc. All part of one system instead of having to use the Lyft or any other app.

Kids already get to use Citi bikes for free, as long as they’re part of certain privileged classes (such as asylum seekers or border crossers).

The brouhaha over the pregnant nurse “stealing” a youth’s Citi bike was only possible due to the habit of under-18 users camping on bikes to continue riding them for free when their timer expired.

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.

Is this an argument for public-private deals?

I don't know what to say here anymore. Is this city not capable of collecting taxes? Is this how they pay for any sort of public infrastructure? What monopoly did they exchange to have some private company build and maintain roads, pipes and cables?

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.

So the possibility that the space remains ad-free doesn't exist?

It does exist, but then the cost of the bike sharing would have be borne by

a) users of the bike system - this would impact ridership and equity of access. b) local govt - budget would have to come from somewhere.

considering b) would likely mean that the project wouldn't get past planning, really a) is the only alternative.

Everything is a tradeoff.

From my perspective, I'll take shitty ads if the money earned from those ads is spent on significant quality of life improvements. Same reason I support legalization and taxation of gambling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc where the revenues pay for schools, social services, etc.

This is shitty equity too though, I can't ride bikes but I still have to look at your ads and make do with worse economies of scale for public transportation that's accesible to the disabled. If bike share is a public good. It should be paid for out of public funds, if the city decides to sell advertising rights in public spaces then it can. Those two ideas need not be linked, money is fungible!

If public funds pay for it, you personally (assuming you pay taxes) are also paying for the program, but this time with real dollars instead of attention.

money is fungible

What?

Money can be moved.

From where? You might live in a flush city, with lots of extra discretionary $$ flowing around, but most cities in the US are nearly bankrupt, and leveraged to the hilt on providing basic services. This is the definition of a "luxury belief", thinking the average city can just find money and put it towards removing ads that pay for services.

But I don't want to sell my attention! At least not at the crappy valuation the bike advertisers offer.

Money being fungible means that one dollar is as good as another. It all goes in a big pile for the budget. In other words, you don't have to match up your revenue sources with your costs (like bikes with advertising), though this is frequently used for the purpose of trying to justify one thing or another.

These are assertions but that's insufficient to make policy. To make policy you often need to tie things together because constituencies will want to keep net costs low as they trial programs.

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.

How can a city own all the ad space when there's private property? What stops a property owner from putting up a billboard and renting it out?

Laws against privately putting up a billboard anywhere that can be seen from a public space, without prior municipal approval.

So the monopoly isn't just there because the city happens to own all the existing ad space, but is rather something legally created, and then sold to a private company.

Well yes, everything in a city is 'legally created'.

It's not "ad space", it's our cities. Why is it even possible for them to "sell ad space" to private business? Should be made illegal.

We want to live in nice towns not in cyberpunk hellscapes where we can't even cross a street without being violently bombarded with advertising. A business should be able to put up a sign on its own building and that's about it.

Local businesses would benefit substantially from the bikeshare service though.

Not if that bikeshare service captures all their profits by having a monopoly on ads.

That makes no sense. Most local businesses don’t even have ads on bus stops. Let alone that being where most of their profits are invested???

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.

We have something similar and it was a terrible deal. The city still had to pay a boatload of money to set up the system, but it's proprietary so we can only "buy" more stations and bikes from the same company. They, of course, refuse to sell at a reasonable price, so for every new station, more ad space is created and given to them. The term of the contract, which is 25 years, is also insanely long and far longer than the maximum we allow for such contracts normally (5 or 10 years).

And I won't even go into the corruption that got them the tender in the first place... Fuck JCDecaux!

The same thing in my city with jcd bikes: no new stations in a decade, only a handful of bikes available, bike stop density nowhere near anything I've seen in a large city in Southern France. Meanwhile, every bus stop, every street corner or prominent billboard is owned by jcd.

Your comment has encouraged me to dig up anything I can find about our municipality's contracts with jcd during the upcoming holiday break and, if it's anything like what you've said, raise some awareness.

I've been meaning to do the same. I'm currently trying to get information on the number of billboards and when they were put up through FOIA requests so I can run some numbers and I already made some interesting visualizations of how badly the stops are located from JCDecaux's API.

Our capital got these bikes 10 years before us and had similar issues. A small news outlet made a pretty good report on the "secret costs of city bikes" and that's kind of what I'm going for: https://podcrto.si/skrita-cena-izposoje-koles-v-ljubljani-og...

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

No, there are many ways to generate revenue to pay for things like that at a (local) government level. Your city sold the ad space and immediately bought an essentially unrelated service (bike sharing) from the same party.

> immediately bought an essentially unrelated service

At least the way it works here (Boston area's Bluebikes) is that the same infrastructure supports both the bike sharing and the ad space. There are ads on the bikes and their docks.

I wonder how much this bike contract actually takes to maintain vs how much the holder gets in advertisements. Even if near flat even, which feels unlikely as why bother holding the contract then, it's still a way with more overhead than just funding the bike program.

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

I get what you mean, but arguments like this confuse the underlying issue of how we value and price things. It's certainly not "only possible" that way. It makes me think of the Mark Fisher line “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”

I guess you live in Lyon, France, same as I do. Even if I despite the ads, the bike sharing deal is quite good for users and the city.

This is cool!

They should force restaurants at public places to provide places to sit, even if you don't buy anything.

Instead, they do crap like anti-homeless spikes...

it is absolutely possible to achieve the same without ads. your city simply does not want to do it.

it feels like 1 in 3 cyclists is riding a Vélo'v, Lyon is a very nice city

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 in cities and airports

#1 has gotten more aggressive lately. I'm not a fan, but I understand why it has happened. However, at least I can choose to avoid these sites if I wish.

#2, which is what the article is about, is unavoidable for me. I find billboards ugly, distracting, and annoying clutter. It's just visual "noise." What's worse is that the products targeted in #1 above are frequently relevant to me, and I have purchased them. But I cannot think of a single time I have ever made any purchase based on any billboard. I would love if more municipalities clamped down on these.

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

what about all the mail spam — physical mail like catalogs and email advertising/marketing?

You can opt out of junk mail. Varies by area. Likely can be done by a "no junk" sticker, or by opting out via your postal service, or both. (A lot of fliers aren't distributed by postal service, but legally must obey no junk signs)

Email is trickier, but recently I've had success simply unsubscribing from absolutely everything with an unsubscribe link. I used to leave stuff in if it might be useful.

To my surprise I now receive very few junk emails per day.

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.

All of the above said, ads actually work. It is possible of course they don't work on you, the reader of this comment. (Meaning anyone reading, not just the parent comment)

But ads really do work in boosting sales.

They work on me and that’s exactly the problem — that is they work at manipulating me. And that’s why I want them gone. I’d rather free up the energy I spend on trying to ignore them and put that energy into something that actually makes my life better.

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

Careful, many are coated in glossy toxic plastics that also make them impossible to recycle. Just an extra "fuck you" to the world by the advertiser in permanently ruining the materials they used.

Email I almost ignore entirely. I generally only read emails that I send myself and a few specific filters.

Physical mail I just go down and throw it all out every so often. I wrote the date down on my whiteboard once after checking it and I noted that I go roughly three months in between times when I checked my mail.

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.

My mind immediately went to the feasibility of using an AI artist to remove most or all of this in real time. Could be an interesting shift in terms of the "live" experience being significantly worse/degraded relative to the broadcast version with all that stuff painted out.

- each player's jersey

i noticed some pretty no-name companies on jerseys recently

makes me wonder how much it actually costs to get them to wear like a pin with my face on it for a few games

"did you see me at the knicks game last night? i was everywhere!"

That is fucking egregious even by the absolute trip-hazard-in-hell standards of television, holy shit. I have no idea why anyone consumes anything on TV anymore.

> But I cannot think of a single time I have ever made any purchase based on any billboard. I would love if more municipalities clamped down on these.

In California the billboards are now predominantly cannabis and casinos.

Depends where you are. Crossing the Bay Bridge, the difference is stark.

Which is baffling to me, because when I'm in the mood for vice I will make an active effort to find it. I'm not going to go "Oh boy, I'll find that one store advertised on that billboard I was subjected to", I'm going to Google the nearest dispensary (or go to the next closest if I've already determined that one to be crap), or plan a Vegas trip. And the magic of vices is that you don't need to even put people in the mood, vice is it's own attraction. Coke dealers don't need to advertise, their customers come to them.

In Michigan, it's cannabis or personal injury lawyers, which is pretty on brand for us.

I wonder if you can tell what a whole state is about just by looking at the billboards.

If you ever visit washington DC it is absolutely wild the kind of things that are advertised via billboard. Raytheon making sure everyone knows where to get their missiles etc.

I still think it's super wild, but after thinking about it it's a lot like IT in big companies. Someone cold emails your boss and all of the sudden you're demoing some random doodad. In DC, your boss sees a fighter jet engine upgrade ad when walking into the Pentagon from the metro, and...

(I literally saw that exact ad at the pentagon metro station. who buys a 30 million dollar engine upgrade off of a metro ad?)

When my country was tendering for new fighter jets a few years ago there were a lot of ads on various social media. Since random civilians like yours truly seldom impulse buy $100M latest generation fighter jets, I presume the goal was to influence public opinion and politicians to lean on the actual procurement organization that was responsible for arriving at a recommendation for the next generation jet. Still, it all seemed pretty far fetched, or maybe the vendors just had a poor understanding of how such procurement programs are run in my country.

I noticed the same when I drove around the San Francisco Bay Area, except targeted at IT professionals. Just like with DC, it makes sense - target the eyes of the people who can influence decisions that actually financially matter.

Get outside of these bubbles, though, and it's all lawyers, casinos, car dealerships, and sex shops.

There used to be a widget you could get from the likes of ThinkGeek that would spam the "off" IR signal for lots of tvs and commercial displays. I remember seeing it as a neat trick twenty years ago, but more and more.I wish I really had one. Lots of storefronts have absurdly bright screens on all night now, project moving shit onto the sidewalk and just generally bombard your vision with distraction.

I imagine you can use something like a Flipper to get a similar "put-outer" device nowadays but I haven't come across anyone using it in that way.

You are likely thinking of the Tv-B-Gone:

https://www.tvbgone.com/

That's it! Good remember, thanks!

Disclaimer: This product is sold for the exclusive private use of the buyer on their own equipment . Use under adult supervision. For external use only. Side effect may include decreased anxiety, increased social skills, increased cognitive ability, increased sense of well being. The above statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Effective personal choices are the sole responsibility of each individual user of this device.

Looks like it's built in on Flipper:

https://blog.flipper.net/infrared/

To use the Universal Remote mode, navigate Infrared -> Universal library and select the type of device you want to control.

Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and Maine all do not allow for billboard advertisement, so at least there are a few places you can go for respite.

Virginia has a very small number of billboards, and it's definitely one of the nice things about this area.

I haven't worked out exactly why some exist, but almost none do. The law is here:

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title33.2/chapter12/

Regardless, the general feel of driving here is very different from many other states because of this rule. It's one of the first things I notice when I drive somewhere else in the US.

Some states (Iowa, at least, maybe Nebraska?) seem to have a rule that billboards have to be a certain distance away from the road - a fairly large distance. You have to work to read them. It makes them much easier to ignore.

I don't know if that's the rule for all roads, or just for interstates. I don't know if it's for driver safety if they veer off the road, or for avoiding distraction, or just to limit advertising. But I like it.

For integrated ads on YouTube (sponsor messages), you can use the SponsorBlock extension (https://sponsor.ajay.app/). If you're using Android, you can also get NewPipe with SponsorBlock integration.

If you can't use NewPipe, you can also.get Youtube ReVanced which also has sponsorblock

You can get rid of #1 by moving to Mastodon. Many servers appreciate donations but basically none of them have ads.

#1 is about ads in the content itself, not ads that are designed to look like the posts around it

You can get rid of most of your remaining ads by using the Firefox version of ublock and sponsorblock. I almost never see any ads. Twitch is a notable exception.

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.

In my city there's a major road with no billboards, and I drive on it whenever it's a reasonable option. It's not exactly lovely, but it's only as bad as driving on a busy road has to be, no worse. It's also a lot safer.

Whenever I tell people I prefer this road, they balk. When I tell them there's no billboards, they stop and think and realize that it's actually one of the nicest roads in the city. Parts of it are actually quite beautiful and forested.

I've seen a handful of billboards that were mildly entertaining. I've never seen a billboard that made me [edit to add: consciously] want to buy something, in my entire life, as far as I can recall. I've seen countless billboards that manipulated my emotions, showing me food or sex while I'm just trying to drive, purposefully distracting me. And countless more that just suck and are pointless. Among my many grievances with car-dependency, billboards aren't at the top of the list, but they're a very easy target because most people actually hate them as soon as they stop to think about it in my experience.

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

Years ago I was driving home and saw a Corona beer billboard and distinctly remember thinking that I would love a Pacifico. So it kinda worked on me.

I think social media feed ads should have a requirement for a different background color of a certain % stronger/lighter than default. Everyone's hiding the "Promotion" text in light text or moving them around so the eye can't find it.

#2, which is what the article is about, is unavoidable for me

Maybe one day you could wear AR goggles, and replace these ads by artworks?

The Sponsorblock chrome extension does wonders

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".

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

> 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...

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

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 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.

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.

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?"

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 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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll be the contrarian here and say that I actually like certain advertisements and billboards.

If you are stuck in traffic or on a bus in an ugly urban hellscape, is a billboard really that bad? I'm sorry, they are not going to plant trees in Times Square to replace the billboards. Even in their own press photos, they are showing several billboards that are covering up even uglier buildings!

Maybe you are an enlightened individual and want to put an end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally still buy things and shop. And billboards are a pretty unobtrusive and low-tech way of getting my intention. I still regularly learn about new restaurants or attractions or museum exhibits because of well placed billboards.

I certainly thing some billboard types and content and locations are bad (digital billboards - yuck). But that seems like an argument for good policy making from your local government rather than a blanket opposition to all forms.

Billboards distract drivers and are a safety hazard. They’re also lit up like crazy and are an extra hazard at night not to mention the light pollution.

Advertising for local events should be allowed under some carve out but it would be nice if the vast majority of ads died as they’re not that. Here in SF for example when entering or leaving the city the ads are full of coke, Disney, Apple or Google phones, or various startups trying to show VCs their money is being put to good use (same thing film studios do in LA putting awards nominations and tv ada on billboards on the route to work/home of influential money people on a given project)

I agree that some billboards are real road hazards. But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone.

SF is actually the example I had in mind because they do a good job of keeping them away from the scenic areas - but the whole downtown core is already such a dump that I really don't mind the advertisements.

I think you are also discounting how weird SF ads are - as a visitor they are actually unique and interesting to me. One of the fun things about visiting different cities is seeing how unique the cultures are, and ads actually give you a good window into this.

But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone.

Billboards don't only appear when traffic is stopped though. It's not worth the increased danger.

Also, I really don't think the presence of billboards is a common deciding factor in whether or not someone is looking at their phone. Maybe if they're driving in an otherwise featureless void, but I think people are either going to look at their phone or not, regardless of what's outside their car.

No. But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. And I don't necessarily see why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate.

Regardless, your DoT or local authority probably already has a lot of rules in place about how visually distracting billboards are allowed to be, and which section of roads they are determined to be safe on. So they are already fairly highly regulated from a safety standpoint.

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 their meaning can typically be understood without the driver having to actually read anything on them. They're also pretty close to where you should be looking already.

2. Bumper stickers and car decals are necessarily on the objects you're supposed to be watching most of the time. (But, yes, they can still be distracting.)

3. Billboards are often not in line-of-sight of the things you're trying to avoid crashing into, and can be wildly distracting. The fact that they're regulated for levels of visual distraction is hilarious news to me, having seen billboards in real life. Calling them "fairly highly regulated" feels disingenuous; others might say "barely regulated."

4. Having fewer distractions is less dangerous than having more distractions, so we should try to reduce distractions. We're not going to get rid of road signs, because that would be insane. We could get rid of bumper stickers, but they're orders of magnitude less common than billboards and they're less distracting and they typically don't have all the other negative effects of advertising that billboards do.

You can surely provide some kind of research, that can support your argument... right?

It's not just your opinion based on...

I might find this counter at all interesting if not for:

A) it stands to reason that if phones are distracting so are billboards which are literally designed to get your attention

B) a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation.

As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe?

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/05/02/study-distracting-roa...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411179/

it stands to reason that if phones are distracting

The action of using your phone is distracting, not that phones are distracting. You can absolutely use your phone as a GPS. The process of interaction is the distracting part.

literally designed to get your attention

The NIH article actually says literally the opposite, of what you're saying. Billboards aren't distracting enough to completely draw your attention.

a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation.

No... No it doesn't. As evidenced by the results you provided. One talks about safety billboards and the other literally says the opposite of your claim.

And I quote: "Generally, billboard-related distraction appeared to be minor and regulated by drivers as the demands of the driving task changed."

As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe?

Yes. You definitely should note just make un-appealable claim without knowing the reasons for it. Your argument that billboards are a safety hazard is just your opinion, that has more evidence against than for.

I mean the NIH conclusion is literally:

However, this review’s findings suggest that this [billboards are not a distraction] may not be true in all cases. Future research should emphasize the tails of the distribution in addition to average cases, in terms of both the analysis of visual behavior and the complexity of driving tasks. Further research is also needed to understand the effects of billboard design, driver characteristics, and road and traffic context.

The amount of people who text & drive and don't get into any accidents as a result on the road is quite high. Yet we still recognize texting & driving as dangerous. And active billboards are much more distracting as per the NIH paper than passive ones. Lit up bright ones at night that are engaging in some way are going to be more distracting than passive ones during the day.

Yet we still recognize texting & driving as dangerous

Do I need to explain that looking at a billboard and interacting with you phone are wildly different activities? Do we need to discuss the differences between terms passive and active?

Equating glancing at billboards(less than 1 sec) and texting(on average 5 seconds) - requires ignoring the basic principles behind those two actions.

Texting requires your visual attention, your fine motor functions and your mental abilities engaged.

Looking at a few words and an image requires considerably less engagement.

https://www.driversalert.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-texti...

And active billboards are much more distracting as per the NIH paper than passive ones

Of course they are. But distracting and hazard are two very different things. Many things are distracting, but aren't a hazard.

And your other link actually shows how different are things on the road that require active attention(active safety notices) vs things that are just informative(signs and billboards).

And if you made a claim that video billboards are likely to be too distracting, instead of generalizing that all billboards are a safety hazard - I wouldn't even engaged. As it stands, your position of "all billboards are a safety hazard" is just an opinion - with evidence to the contrary.

Considering most of my arguments are self-evident, no. I'm not going to provide research to prove that... let's see, "bumper stickers are attached to cars," or that "official road signs are easy to read at a glance."

Try providing some evidence of how "highly regulated" billboard distraction levels are and I might take this conversation seriously.

"Generally, billboard-related distraction appeared to be minor and regulated by drivers as the demands of the driving task changed. However, this review’s findings suggest that this may not be true in all cases. Future research should emphasize the tails of the distribution in addition to average cases, in terms of both the analysis of visual behavior and the complexity of driving tasks. Further research is also needed to understand the effects of billboard design, driver characteristics, and road and traffic context."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411179/

official road signs are easy to read at a glance

They aren't. Specially in the UK.

Billboards distract drivers and are a safety hazard.

And you have any kind of conclusive evidence to this claim?

Have you actually tried a search online before making this comment? I put some links in another comment but it took longer for you to post that comment than to find the relevant studies.

I agree that ads on ugly 10-lane highways don't really detract from anything, but this is not the case with the cities this organisation deals with. They are mostly historic, pedestrianised cities in England where (especially digital) advertising would be of serious detriment to the surroundings, which is what is being campaigned against here.

That makes sense. I wouldn't want ads or anything else ugly in a historic area, but also this is normally something you combat locally. It seems like this site targets an oddly broad audience.

A lot of people in Britain live in, work in or regularly visit a historic area.

However, I think they're targeting everywhere in the UK, historic or not.

I can totally see not wanting ads in historic areas, but on their website you can see them protesting billboards in industrial sections and freeway underpasses and the like.

Man, this site almost looks like an intentional distraction from real pollution-fighting measures.

Maybe you are an enlightened individual and want to put an end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally still buy things and shop.

Do you really see the removal of advertising from public space as this much of a threat to your way of life? Your sarcastic remark about ending consumerism and society sounds quite hateful towards people who don't want to see advertising, whereas (speaking from myself at least) I feel no hate at all towards people who don't mind ads. My preference for not viewing ads comes purely from my own personal annoyance that I experience whenever I see them, it does not come from any kind of hate or dislike towards people like you who don't mind them, and I don't really want to change anyone's lifestyle.

If you don't want to see X, you just have to no look. Being offended by X, doesn't mean that you have an inherent right to ban X.

X throughout the times were/are ads, black people, campaign billboards, crossdressing and Pride parades.

Every time someone says "it should be banned, because I don't want to see it in public" is eerily reminiscent of the arguments of homophobes that I hear all the time.

"I don't want to see" or "it offends me" must never be a reason for banning something. It's not sufficient.

I knew you were a troll.

You're right.

Because no one can ever have an opinion that is opposite to you and your claims never require evidence to back them up.

Calling someone a troll, because you just throw out absurd claims expecting everyone to take your word for it - is quite arrogant.

Maybe you are an enlightened individual and want to put an end to consumerism and society. In the meantime I personally still buy things and shop.

It's interesting to me that you connect these things so strongly, as if anyone opposed to public ads are also opposed to all of modern commerce. I guess it's a sign of how pervasive the ad industry has become in certain areas, that it seems inseparable from normal business. Fortunately it is quite possible to have vibrant free markets in areas that are not plastered in corporate advertisements.

I'm was only being a little flip there. Taken straight from their website:

We see the fight against billboards as part of a wider struggle for social, ecological and economic justice.

So to be completely fair, I am responding to the case that they are making that combatting billboards is just one piece of an intersectional fight against corporations and injustice.

Well, yes. Previously, anyone could put up a poster on a public Morris column in my city, now all the public space is owned by jcdecaux.

I support you. I've been living in a city with no billboards for a while - it's rather boring for various reasons, billboards would be an improvement.

How boring can your city be that billboards are enough entertainment to improve it? Are you sure you're, y'know, participating in urban life at all?

Yeah, I'd oppose the installation of a billboard in my neighborhood, that's about it. You wanna put one on the highway or commercial zone, I don't really care. I've lived in billboard-heavy cities (like LA) and billboard-free ones.

If you are stuck in traffic or on a bus in an ugly urban hellscape, is a billboard really that bad?

Yes, it intrudes into a person's thought pattern with the explicit goal of selling you a product/service/idea. I'd much rather stare at a wall and continue with my thought or look at a work of art (which 99.99% of ads are not, imho).

I'm sorry, they are not going to plant trees in Times Square to replace the billboards. Even in their own press photos, they are showing several billboards that are covering up even uglier buildings!

So why not put up a non-distracting work of art? Have ads become the only visual expression allowed in public?

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 justification that we should make cities adfree due to the harms of ads (described in OP). Ads will appear elsewhere: within stores, online, on top of taxi cabs, stapled to poles, and so on. We can’t make ads disappear. Our best bet is to target specifically the most harmful ads by law (like misleading/false advertising and such).

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 can't just take some personal responsibility and resist in quiet? I find this revolting mob strategy distasteful, honestly.

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.

It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable.

Vulnerable people do and always will exist.

Hear! Hear! Not to mention that children are even more susceptible than adults, and they do not get a choice in their exposure to advertising. There's so much "think of the children" talk to justify intrusions into privacy, but little to be heard (in North America) of exposing them to manipulative marketing tactics _specifically_ designed to wiggle their way into young and adult brains, alike.

I'm strongly in favour of protecting ourselves from advertising in publicly visible areas. Fill it with nature and beautiful things (i.e. art). It's our world, and nobody has a right to our attention.

It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable.

It seems that you think that banning some ads will make any difference. Ads are really poor at actually convincing you to do anything in the first place. We had to employ multitude of media formats to reduce smoking... and even then, it's not at 0 today.

You will not want to go to McDonalds, just because you saw an ad for it. You first will have to find it acceptable to go to a fast food restaurant, which is shaped by culture. Then the ad may result in you choosing to go to McDonalds.... but at that point you've already chosen to go to a fast food restaurant.

If advertising has so little effect on our behavior as you suppose, surely there can be little harm done by forbidding billboards, as this would force the companies who purchase those ads to save money they are currently wasting.

Way to completely miss my point.

They will appear elsewhere because fundamentally: we want them.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can assure you I DO-NOT want them.

People also want pr0n. Should we paste it all over?

But then all ads are pr0n.

They use vulgar manipulative displays to make you lust and desire something usually with overly attractive people.

pr0n feels more honest in a way.

You don't need ads for that, it could just be art. You could enjoy vibrant artistic billboards without anyone trying to shove products down your throat.

Ever thought of that?

Who is going to pay for them?

It's funny how nobody ever asks this question when the topic is military spending.

Military is a wee bit more necessary than getting rid of billboards, just ask Ukraine.

We will pay for them (through governmental taxes) instead of the advertised products that the advertisements get us to pay for. It's a net-win for the community.

The consumer is paying for the ads in the end. This just cuts out the grifters in the middle.

To be honest, i have experienced socialist and communist countries, and i never want to go back to this cold, adfree world with its purely functional esthetics. I can understand the aversion for the Ad-Overload, but no Ads, nah, i want it colorful, shiny and blinking. :)

Is there really no form of public expression you can think of other than commercial advertising?

No. Because there is no intention for it, as someone has to pay for it. And who has money to spare? Not the poor. The rich ones, maybe. But they think often economical, otherwise they would not be rich. Or the ones, who can take money from others and redistribute it. Or churches, for example. Have built fantastic buildings.

Lots of people spend money on their hobbies, including art, including art that is meant for others to see and appreciate.

Also, promotion of culture (for example funded by taxes at national or city level) is a thing.

One example, I know of a few graffiti walls near where I live. I'm not sure if the city just allowed the graffitis and the artists paid for supplies themselves of if the city provided them too. I've even heard of cities hiring artists for that.

Sure, electronics are more expensive than spray paint, but definitely not to the point where none of these models could work. Have you ever been at a maker faire? It's amazing what people build (and are willing to spend) just for the heck of creating stuff.

You can have beautiful architecture, street art as big as buildings. Literally anything is better than advertising.

I too enjoy colourful and shiny, but adfree does not imply purely functional aesthetics.

Can you imagine another possible scenario?

For me, the ads in Tokyo are unfamiliar, so I can enjoy the colors and energy more. vs say Times Square, where the ads really hit me over the head.

Times Sq is literally the extreme side of ads. It's literally what makes Times Sq - Time Square.

Imagine if NYC banned all visual advertising? One of the most iconic sites of NYC would just disappear.

Real New Yorkers kind of loathe Times Square.

We do. And my office used to be at Bryant Park... I spent a year not stepping into Times Sq, while working right next to it.

I personally like the aesthetic of visual overload that you find in ad-laden cities (let’s say in Tokyo)

Tokyo is visually interesting so could get an exemption. But ads look much uglier in other places, here's a sample:

https://imgur.com/a/6AOWmdC

It dont think that Tokyo picture is full of ads. While I can't read Japanese, from my trip there, those were mostly listing the stores in the building.

Ads in commercial buildings aren't actually ads, they're just information. You walked into a store to see products so the store is merely showing you what you want to see, organized so you can find what you want. Nothing wrong with a sign showing people the name of a business on its own building either, those are actually useful, even for navigation and orientation.

Advertising is when they bombard you with noisy information while you're crossing a street or waiting for the bus. Nothing but pollution.

We can’t make ads disappear.

We absolutely can. Make it straight up illegal and start applying some serious fines. I guarantee they will stop.

We absolutely can. Make it straight up illegal and start applying some serious fines. I guarantee they will stop.

We can ban ads in certain location/manner/topic but not blanket ban all advertising speech, which would be a 1st amendment issue (and sort of a moot point, it would be politically impossible for something that broad and destructive).

You can get ads off the bus itself but you can’t get ads off the YouTube app the guy next to you is staring at, or the branded swag (that functions as an ad) that this person is wearing.

agreed. I even enjoy reading the ads on the trains in Tokyo. I find out about all kinds of random stuff. There are ads for events, museums, concerts, festivals, condos, other train lines, manga, video games, etc...

I don't know. I think there are differences. Like ads on the front of a store (advertising things sold in said store), vs ads when you go to use the gosh darn toilet and a video starts talking to you while you're sitting there.

I haven't been to Tokyo, however, could it depend on the local focus of the ads?

I.e. I'd consider visual advertising that draws attention to stuff that is right there (e.g. suggesting to visit the store, bar or show behind the door that's below the advert) as completely different as the same size ad for something that's not relevant to physically being then and there (e.g. a car or insurance).

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!

I got the same lecture in driver's ed, but let's be honest: that was never accurate. It's perfectly fine to talk to someone while you're driving, or to adjust the volume on the radio real quick. I imagine that the lectures given to teens learning to drive are motivated by the fact that new drivers need to focus more, and are stubborn so they need to have the point driven home harder. For a responsible adult driver, neither conversation nor radio adjustments nor billboards are a dangerous distraction.

I do think that billboards are ugly and would prefer to not have them, but I don't think that there is a reasonable justification to ban them on safety grounds.

If billboards are a safety hazard, then all road signs are as well. (But they aren't)

Road signs provide information for roads to function properly, so even if they are a distraction the tradeoff is worth it. Billboards provide no such utility, they only impose costs on drivers for the benefit of ad companies and their customers.

Then it would be easy for you to provide multiple studies, saying that billboards are distracting.

Not just your opinion, but a lot of concrete evidence. We have had billboards for decades now. There's tonnes of data on where accidents happen. Yet no one seems to be able to provide data based backing to their opinions...

Actually, there is evidence that removing signs in some conditions make streets safer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

- Banksy

Because advertisers think their concerns over their profits override literally everything. How will the poor corporations make money if they can't flood people's senses with bullshit information they don't want or need?

Driving accidents? Small price to pay, the Instagram model needs followers for her fashion business so it's totally fine for an ad depicting her in a bikini to be placed right in front of a dangerous roundabout where accidents happen on a monthly basis. I wish I was kidding, that exact ad is located just over 1 kilometer away from my house. I should take a picture of it.

I wholeheartedly agree. Furthermore, we now have ads that are giant flashy LED screens at the busiest intersections.

The most distracting thing you could think of (flashy ads) at.the.busiest.intersection... really gets on my nerve

Also, I think this is also a matter of accessibility: these ad vendors are endangering drivers with various health or mental conditions/disorders (e.g., ADD, ADHD, AS).

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 advertising in the physical spaces of cities.

I am not sure if this is a result of some legislature there or if it is just a result of the way the Swiss think about visual design and advertising.

But I absolutely loved it. It was so refreshing to see the beauty of a city block without being bombarded by advertisements.

It really lets the character of a city shine through.

LA, SF and Sac seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum… practically the only thing you notice are the billboards.

Geneva narrowly rejected banning billboards recently.

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

In California, billboards are banned in Orange County (where I grew up). I left Orange County almost two decades ago and all the billboards along the freeways are still jarring.

Yeah I've heard several people report similar "little off but I love it" feelings when visiting here in Maine. The obnoxious billboards always bugged me around Chicago as a kid, but my kids enjoy the novelty when traveling. Similar with TV: we got a digital bunny ear and they were all excited about the commercials, as they've seen so few in their lives (YouTube Premium, streaming, discs/drives, etc.).

Billboards (standalone or on buildings) are not allowed.

Hawaii has a "no billboards" law [0] (as do Maine, Vermont and Alaska). I think this is a cleaner, better statement than "ad-free city," which is obviously far overstating the case and paradoxically doesn't even ban billboards (they're still allowed for non-corporate advertising).

[0] https://movingtokona.com/why-there-are-no-billboards-in-hawa...

Tokyo is jam-packed with ads and loads of neon. When I lived there, I loved the visual effect. It brought the city to life and visually reaffirmed the economic bedrock of any modern city: Commerce.

I've had friends observe that I'm sometimes extremely oblivious to public signage that gives important information that I should really be paying attention to, or looking around lost to figure out my way when a directing sign is right in my face.

Perhaps some of that is that my head is too much in the clouds, but I suspect a huge part of it is that the overabundance of ads everywhere trying to manufacture desire has conditioned me to filter out most public signage.

At least in my lived experience, the noise to signal ratio of information out in public is way too high.

noise to signal ratio of information out in public is way too high

Even if you remove ads, it's not going to change significantly.

I've read your comment and looked at some photos of Times Square and the Piccadilly Circus. Hard disagree.

Both exist as a thing explicitly because of the amount of ads. No one goes to Time Sq to have "authentic Italian" meal at Olive Garden.

They aren't a proof of ads being too much noise. Not any more than a lion at a zoo is proof that lions have overrun the city.

I've got an overactive filter as well, and I think it's because of a similar conditioning around "99% of incoming signal is worthless to me".

I'm often wondering what the speed limit is here because I missed the sign.

I still notice pretty sunsets though.

Ban all ads. All of them, they all are junk info our brains are not designed to handle.

free speech in the USA prevents this. What do you define as "ad". Can I talk to the person behind me in line at starbucks and tell them how I feel about the new iphone? Am I advertising to them? What if I work for apple? Can I wear a tshirt that says "iphone are great!" Ban that??

Content bans are unconstitutional, blanket bans on visual pollution are not, as in Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Austin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Austin_v._Reagan_Natio...

Alaska is an interesting case, as it mostly has a right-libertarian political culture that says "it's nobody's business what I do on my own property" but draws the line at billboards.

I grew up there, and seeing billboards other places was jarring.

I suspect it would still be unconstitutional, but you wouldn't be banning the speech but rather the financial transaction.

I.e. it's legal to walk into starbucks and tell people about your product but you can't pay someone else to do it.

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.

I'm turning this concept into my new life motto, thank you! (Not that I needed it, I'm already so anti ads). Anyway, if you ever remember the source please post it back here.

I think this, too.

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?

Not an american. Probably we live in different realities regarding this topic.

Also, ads make life for many people.

What?

I've been on a tear blocking absolutely all ads in my life, and it has made my life so much more serene and peaceful. The one thing I cannot do anything about is ads in the physical space, which sucks, so this initiative is right up my alley. I'm not in UK, but all I can say is godspeed to this initiative.

IRL ad blocking is the only use case that would make me consider using AR

The killer app for smart glasses. I want this so much.

You realize HN is one big smattering of advertisements, yea?

Ad-free goes hand in hand with distraction-free for me. Thus "Stay up to date with Adfree Cities" and "Watch the video to see three steps you can take today" do not speak to me, at all.

So you're only interested in insulating yourself from ads? That's fine, but why even click the link then? Neither of those things they're offering are inherently distractions; it's not like they're signing you up for push notifications or unsolicited calls.

“Greenwashing is a CRIME” disgusted me and soured me on the whole thing, despite the concept itself being quite appealing and also being generally opposed to greenwashing.

Adfree is the only thing I'll currently tolerate. I tried out the Spotify client back on linux when the company was really new. If I turned the volume off while it played an advertisement, it actually paused the ad until I turned the volume back up.

One strike and they're out. Spotify has been banned in my household ever since.

Or, you know, you could pay them.

I won't pay somebody who would attempt to force to show me ads. Youtube's approach is much more appropriate: deny access to the site. I'm not owed content, but no one has the right to force me to view content either.

I live on an implicitly ad free island in the Pacific. You might figure out where but I'm being vague for privacy. In any case, I don't believe there is any law against e.g. billboards here, but there definitely aren't any. I really appreciate it. When I've driven in e.g. California I feel so depressed seeing all the billboards.

I lived on an island (not in the pacific) where billboards are completely banned, the height of business signs is limited, and where very, very few public places had any advertisements, even in the "city".

It was wonderful and it's one thing I really miss.

This group is called "adfree cities", and yet, looking at their websites, it looks like they are heavily into ads themselves.

Sure, their ads are more ethical, I guess, calling to action against fossil fuels is better than advertising for fossil fuels, I guess. But ethical ads are still ads, they clutter the landscape, they call for attention and are an attempt to influence people.

I understand that even anti-ad groups need to advertise themselves, but really, I would have preferred if they could show more actual ad removal and less ad replacement.

I would also prefer they weren't loading scripts from the biggest ad company in the world (Google).

Seems like a laudable goal to me, but there are degrees here:

* Advertising in the form of pasted posters, signs for nearby stores, etc.;

* "Large scale" advertising, e.g. the 60+ foot free-standing or roof-mounted pillars that are common in US cities and on roads;

* Mixed-digital advertising that usually has some kind of analytics or tracking mixed in (e.g. the much-maligned "digital front" displays that some convenience stores are installing[1])

To my mind, the first is mostly unobjectionable, the second is usually visually offensive (and should be price-adjusted to reflect the diminishing effect it has on the urban environment), and the third is civically offensive (and should be outright illegal).

[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/business/walgreens-freezer-sc...

Yet another political green movement which will shortly pivot into antiracism and other populist leftist topics

I grew up in a U.S. city without any billboards, and it was such a shock to move somewhere with a "normal" number of billboards. Besides being ugly, I wonder how they could possibly be effective? Does anyone choose their motorcycle insurance based on which billboard they see first?

Ironically, this is an advertisement itself. And you can never ever ban ads because someone might write a comment on an internet forum noting just how delicious an ice cold can of Coke is on a hot day.

I don’t have any numbers on hand, but I have to imagine this would also reduce a lot of waste.

I didn’t realize until recently that almost all billboards are made of a thick plastic vinyl material.

I recently saw one of these billboards folded up on the ground before it went up. It’s just a giant chunk of plastic that I imagine ends up in some landfill somewhere.

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.

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.

Santa Barbara, CA has banned most billboards and outdoor advertising for many years; it's quite refreshing. Being back in LA or SF where it's allowed is somewhat jarring, honestly.

I've had the pleasure of visiting a few cities/countries without much (if any) physical advertising/billboards, it's a change that's both incredibly jarring and incredibly pleasant!

At first there's a bit of an uncanny valley effect, particularly when driving around a city. Eventually that settles down, and the reduction in low-level visual stimulus is really appreciated. Coming back home, you might see the insane levels of visual pollution we deal with in a new light.

Not qualified to comment on the broader economic ramifications of this, but as a normal person navigating the world, it's pretty great!

I would pay 5% tax to skip all ads in my life ..

The root problem is people do "fall" for advertisements. They are everywhere because ... well, they work. There's rarely any critical thinking involved and often ads are not even identified as such and people consider them "information".

I kinda like how they do it in Finland. Companies can have a smallish logos on their buildings. Most of Helsinki is unspoiled by garish boards except a few in the obvious shopping area around Kamppi.

This is one of the great things about traveling in Cuba-- no billboards.

It's hard to overstate how peaceful being in an ad-free city is. the first time I experienced this was Hilton Head Island, which does a great job of limiting signage and ads inside the island.

I didn't realize how much the visual noise really does make a difference.

Next, let's do cars driving faster than 30mph. :D

I love this effort! I try my best to avoid any type of advertising. I’ll buy an AR/VR headset/glasses when they can block IRL billboard ads. That’s the killer app for me.

Incredible

Replace ad spaces for murals, public art, or interesting architecture!

I sincerely hope the UK doesn't get that monstrosity of an ad billboard - Sphere. In Las Vegas, it's basically right at home but in the UK it might be the most unbritish installation ever.

Does this include billboards at local tracks, ballfields, sporting centers?

What about ads inside airports? Bus stops? Transit stations?

Where will the money come from to fill in the budget gaps left by removing these ads?

If I'm at a local minor league baseball game, and see an ad for "Bill the plumber", how is that a problem? It's local community supporting local community spaces. If Bud Lite buys a spot next to them, great! More dollars for my local ballpark so they can stay open.

The nature of local, physical advertising is that the ad dollars stay (mostly)* local.

* Mostly because clearchannel manages most billboards on roadways around the country. They pay rent to landowners, who may or may not be local, but they also pay local taxes. So not perfect dollar retention.

I lived in Grenoble (France) for 9 years and recently moved to another city. I arrived shortly after big billboards (but by far not all advertising) was banned from the inner city in Grenoble, and the difference now is quite staggering. I don't get how people put up with this shit, I feel physically attacked every time I walk past big billboards.

Interesting that I've been noticing similar sentiment (people focusing on making public spaces nicer and ad-free) in the Czech Republic as well. It seems related to covid but I think it started earlier.

This is disappointing. They’re covering ads…with their own ads. Their methods appear to be mounting targeted campaigns against specific ad runs. That’s totally unavailable.

Highway billboards cause crashes [1]. In cities it kills pedestrians [2]. What we need is model legislation folks can introduce to their city councils. Not gushy nonsense, aimed at making participants feel good more than tangible effect, where the front-page call to action is to join a mailing list.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31408362/

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46413392_Effects_of...

I went to that cite expecting to see a list of Adfree Cities, but couldn't find the list...

Imagine if a billboard company had a trillion dollar market cap.

Would it be possible to keep them out of a city.

No limit to the number of palms they could grease.

Who knows, governments might resort to antitrust law to stop them.