Boycott Billboard-Supporting Businesses!
by George SeldesAugust 19th, 2007 at 20:48:41
What are we to do with the litter-on-a-stick folks, the ones who promote themselves by saying that their “medium” is one that cannot be avoided, ignored, or otherwise turned off — that “medium” being, of course, the billboards that are helping make the point (as if anything was needed to make this point) that corporations have not just been turned into fictitious people legally but that they actually been made into superbeings with MORE rights than the average person — such as the right to pollute and degrade the environment and call it a “property right.”
There’s only one solution at this point: deny them their lifeblood by getting their advertisers to leave them.
Next time you see a billboard promoting a company you have patronized, do two things:
1) Write the company; tell them you are a customer, and that you object to billboards and ask that they NOT support this litter-on-a-stick; and that,
2) If they continue to advertise on billboards, you will take your money elsewhere.
I’m thinking of printing up some 3×5 size cards to carry in my car that say
Give a Hoot!
Don’t Pollute
Quit using billboards
If you want my loot!
That way, I’ll have them handy whenever I run into a business that is advertising on billboards.
We have the power to make Oregon better—we can get rid of billboards by making them uneconomic.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:13 am
The odds that you could make advertising on a billboard uneconomical enough to induce its owner to pull the sign down are so slim as to be nearly impossible. The only time I’ve ever seen that accomplished was when the billboard company was working through a political agreement and needed good press. Otherwise, you can only get them down if you can raise the money to buy the things. And they are extremely valuable. A small business would not spend $1000 or more a month to rent a billboard if it didn’t bring in a heck of a lot of customers. And those customers would not come in if they were offended by the billboard.
I’ll bet the billboards you hate are the ones for products and not the ones for small local businesses - the ones guiding you to their location, for instance from a freeway. But your plan here would hurt the small businesses and do nothing to the product manufacturers who lease the billboards that bother you more.
In any case, you are in the minority. Most people tolerate billboards quite well because they want the information on them. Most people do not approve of banning billboards. Most people like and use billboards to get information they want and need, particularly when traveling.
August 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Becky, thanks for your comment. I’m wondering if you have any data behind your claim that it would be impossible to influence billboard advertisers? And for your claim that I’m in the minority, and that most people “tolerate” billboards (interesting word choice).
The Oregonian recently ran a piece on billboards where a guy who was advertising on one said he wished they would all go away—he felt that he couldn’t allow his competitor to use the billboard, so he advertised on it, but he preferred no billboards at all. I think a boycott of businesses that use billboards — coupled with letting the businesses know why you are avoiding one and choosing another — might very well have a good result.
As for product makers vs. local businesses, most real local businesses cannot afford billboards. The chain franchises (pizza joints, frypits, muffler joints, etc.) make advertising decisions and offer support for billboard campaigns, which the local guys can choose to do or not. Any local guy who says “Hey, when we support public radio underwriting we get business; when we do billboards, we get all kinds of grief” I think they’d do the former in preference to the latter.
Lastly, I think the number of blank billboards and billboards with government PSAs suggests that there are an awful lot of excess billboards. I should have included a call for the state to stop spending tax money on billboards–this is something that could easily be done and would help in the cause.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I led the only successful drive to have a legal billboard removed in Portland a few years back and the only reason we were successful was because Ackerley Outdoor was in the midst of re-negotiating a 10-year agreement with the City and really did not need the bad press we were generating for them at the time. But that was a rare situation indeed.
As for the data on people “tolerating” billboards, I have seen many studies - scores of them - asking people questions about whether they use billboards, whether they like them, whether they should be banned, whether they are helpful, etc. You might find 15% of people who want them banned. Close to 80% use them. About 60% like them and the rest mostly understand that they are a necessary evil.
If you’ve ever traveled - and I hope you have, because I have traveled a lot - you will have to admit that many local hotels and restaurants and attractions advertise on billboards coming into town. Those billboards are absolutely essential to their profitability. You kill those signs and you will quite literally kill their businesses within a few short years after that. I’ve seen many studies on this, as well.
The reason you see PSAs is largely because the signs are not leased yet, but what you have to understand is the business thinking behind the expansion of the sign base. It is very difficult to get locations and permits for new billboards, and with advertisers increasing, you have to get the boards while the getting is good. It’s a long-term investment that may take ten years to realize, but the signs are so incredibly valuable that it makes sense financially. We’re right now in the middle of an unusual expansion of billboards here in Oregon and these companies are taking advantage of the situation to set themselves up for the future. I’m not saying that’s such a great thing, just that it’s not a mystery why it’s happening.
Anyway, my point really is that first, the billboard lobby is incredibly powerful and you’re going to be hard-pressed to get anywhere taking them on; second, the signs are incredibly valuable, and at least within 660 feet of a federally funded highway or interstate, they can’t be forced down without payment of just compensation, which is phenomenally high; and third, the present view of billboards, which combines those offering marketing/advertising into the same category as those offering information/direction to local businesses, is making a real solution to the problem nearly impossible to find.
Good luck with that idea of getting the state to stop spending tax money on billboards, by the way. Some of those are donated. The Lottery ones are there because they work so well the State would be shirking its fiduciary obligations to the voters who authorized the Lottery if they didn’t advertise to get people to play. And the billboard companies are quite supportive of politicians. I remember sitting in Gretchen Kafoury’s office in Portland City Hall back during my billboard fight talking about what we could do about the problem - she seemed supportive of our effort and was a liberal, after all - and she had a mini Ackerley billboard decoration sitting in the middle of her conference table. I took it as a subtle message as to her loyalties.
Personally, I love graphic art and don’t mind billboards in most locations - the one I fought was in a particularly inappropriate location, but generally I’m positive toward their existence because we really aren’t overrun with them like other places I’ve seen. I personally think the anti-billboard sentiment comes more from an aversion to commercialism than anything else. But that is not a widespread sentiment in our culture, which is why I think the anti-billboard movement has never gained much traction.
August 20th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Thanks for the response. These “studies” — they weren’t paid for and distributed by the billboard lobby by any chance, were they?
Can you point to any neutral studies, with cites so that I can find them?
August 21st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Yes, they were funded by billboard companies - because they are the only ones with a stake in asking such questions. However, I’ve seen the questions they asked and context and the raw data, and I’ve also seen reports compiled from scores of historical studies showing very comparable results, so I personally believe the results are unbiased. It’s similar to a campaign funding a poll to see how they’re doing and then publishing the results. The billboard companies hire outside experts with recognized credentials to do the studies, and then publish the results. One of the more prominent researchers is a professor at Villanova University who has his own academic reputation to protect, and he isn’t the type to risk his reputation, so he follows accepted scientific practices. I don’t know if that eases your mind at all, but in my line of work I see a lot of research and these studies do comply with generally accepted standards for reliability and validity.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Have you heard that the good governor is proposing a new series of burma-shave signs promoting biofuels?
Just kidding, lighten up you two!
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 am
Counter Strike…
Counter Strike…