February 18, 2007
The "War" Starts Now
Try as you might, you can't look anywhere in our city without seeing some sort of ad for Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista. Alongside an unusually aggressive advertising campaign through more traditional methods, the company also went all out and paid for an elaborate ice house in Dundas Square. As the corporation should have expected, the backlash towards the over-the-top promotion began almost right away: there were the obvious jokes about "freezing"; impromptu dance parties organized inside the house; even some analysis of Microsoft's method of disposing the house --- letting it melt below the Gardiner.
And then the dissenters took it underground.
A little over a week ago, one user of the tribe.ca forums found the word "LINUX" carved out of a huge Vista ad at Finch Station. A few days after that, photoblogger Photendo found an Apple logo carved out of the "o" in "Wow" for a similar Vista promo at Queen Station, and now, at King Station by the Melinda Street exit, someone has done the same thing to the same ad, and (someone else?) has added "Wow That's expensive" below the knife job in green ink. Touché.
While Apple is arguably just as bad as Microsoft when it comes to advertising -- having blanketed much of the city and many TTC stations and subway cars with their ads before -- we'll forgive the perps for not realizing the irony in their hack, since it's always nice to see ugly ads turned into interactive public art (though we've got to say that this "apple" looks more like Alfalfa's silhouette than anything else). Do any Microsoft geeks have their box-cutters ready for the next invasive iPod ads? Anyone?
Thanks to Dominic for tipping us off and for the pics!
|
I saw the exact same apple carving plus the added "Wow, that's expensive" in the Vista ad at the Dundas subway today. They must be visiting all the downtown subway stops just for this!
The two most infuriating examples of ad creep currently in the TTC:
1) The Vista ads at the west exit of St. George station that block out most of the windows, significantly darkening the interior.
2) The Bahamas streetcar wraps, which also block out most of the windows, making for dim, claustrophobic, light-starved rides along Queen.
But at least neither of these are obvious safety hazards like the TTC's old, illegal iPod ads.
Haha, saw that in Dundas station. It certainly gave me a laugh.
That's half-baked. Why is Apple - or Microsoft - "bad" for advertising and worthy of your scorn? It's not like they crept into the TTC at night and plastered the place. They're just doing what companies will do: advertise.
If you don't like massive ads on public transit, it's the TTC that deserves your hipster wrath for selling out, not the companies that take it up on its offer.
Don't forget the giant inflatable Lynux penguin that was forceably deflated by Toronto cops in front of the MS Windows Ice House.
There's some great discussion going on on DIGG about this right now.
Bob: "If you don't like massive ads on public transit, it's the TTC that deserves your hipster wrath for selling out, not the companies that take it up on its offer." You're right that the TTC deserves some of the blame, but companies are supposed to have some tact when it comes to how they advertise. So, wait, the city -- and only the city -- is at fault for allowing Microsoft to put a huge, walk-in advertisement in Dundas Square? You want to completely shift the blame from the people who are doing something shitty to someone who let them do it?
Also, I'm not a hipster. Thanks.
Re: "companies are supposed to have some tact when it comes to how they advertise". Where is this rule? And, even if true (and its not), who then says what is tactful and what is not?
I suppose I wasn't really clear, but the majority of my "hipster wrath" (I prefer "scorn," but whatever) is directed at the TTC, with a certain portion still reserved for the companies themselves, particularly CBS (formerly Viacom) Outdoor, which manages all of the ads in the TTC.
At the same time, vehicle wraps and "station domination" campaigns are getting bolder on a monthly basis, with ads creeping up into new locations (such as over windows) and becoming more opaque and intrusive. As such, I do blame Microsoft and its ad agencies for the first ads that completely cover two thirds of the windows at St. George station, and I blame the Bahamas tourism department and its agencies for the ads that block out streetcar windows.
And I most certainly blame Apple for the first and boldest ads to grace streetcar shelters – as it was obviously someone contracted by them who came up with the idea to completely (and dangerously) plaster those previously-transparent mid-road shelters with their opaque iPod banners – just as much as I do the City of Toronto's Transportation Services staff who let them.
When an advertiser throws enough money at you, it's obviously difficult not to take it and plaster their logo all over your stuff, despite how much it might piss your customers off. The key is being aware of the balance that needs to be struck between keeping yourself sufficiently profitable and whoring yourself out to the whims of a rich company -- the latter whom always wins in that arrangement.
Unfortunately, short of stealing these advertising jobs and bringing our "responsible ad" mentality, there's little we can do (boycotts don't seem o work anymore, and we can't shoot annoying advertisers:-). Microsoft has the money to launch huge campiagns ("Will they buy it?", "They will if we TELL them to"). And there's more than enough people willing to take those advertising dollars. Advertising has taken on a life of it's own. Wrong or right, responsible or not, it's irritating. Annoying ads. Well, they work, right? And there's enough people (suckers) who fall for it and will follow the "shiny objects". That stupid Microsoft "ice house" for example...it would've been cool if people just ignored it, but enough gawkers had to 'check it out". "Whoa, dude, a house made of ice with Microsoft logos all over...dude, I'm being manipulated...but I like it"
Advertising may suck, but these are not stupid people. Their job is to sell a product (polish a turd). and they do it well. Heck, Steve Jobs convinced millions that $400 isn't too much to spend on what is basically a walkman. All you have to do is convince people that somehow their product will make you cool, good looking or get you laid and then just watch them flock in.
I have a hard time blaming companies for taking advantage of marketing opportunities that are presented to them. If the TTC and the city (both of which are ultimately accountable to us) decide that Dundas Square and TTC stations are available to have ads plastered all over them, why punish companies who follow the rules and buy our services? This isn't a form of guerilla advertising where companies are barging in, unbidden, and intruding on public space. The TTC is us, and we invited them in.
I don't like this kind of advertising on the subway. I think Mr. Gunn was right, that it cheapens the place for a relatively paltry return. But whether or not you like it, advertising is not a crime, it's not really unethical (merely objectionable), and nothing was done against anybody's will. If we want ads out of our subways, then we, as an electorate should stop inviting them in and paying them for the pleasure.
at the very least..it's just annoying. But, whaddya gonna do? Money talks.
Bob, your arguments don't really wash. Yes, Microsoft (et., al.) aren't doing anything illegal, and yes they aren't doing anything unethical. And yes, TTC is partly to blame for the problem. But there is a concept called community responsibility, in which companies recognize their responsibility to the community in which they wish to do business. There is also a concept called restraint, in which the message is delivered in a way that respects public space and the people that use it. What Microsoft (et., al.) have done with their advertising is akin to standing on a chair in the middle of the library and yelling at the top of their lungs. Maybe the librarian said it was okay with her if they did that. But it doesn't change the fact that it is unneccessarily invasive and shows no respect for either the customer or the public that shares the space. Further, it creates ill will when a less heavy-handed approach would have been more effective anyway.
My biggest problem is, there is just no escaping it anymore. Movies, TV, radio, magazines, billboards, buses, internet...heck, in some places you can't take a piss without an ad staring you in the face.
Advertising has pretty much succesfully infiltrated just about every aspect of our lives.
Everbody wants my money.
At Eglinton station the Vista logo is peppered with tiny penguin stickers, about the size you'd receive on your homework in elementary school.
Actually, when me, and all the other members of my family/other people saw the Vista Ads (in Finch Station) I thought it was really cool....I'd never seen an ad go along that wall like that, and it looked really cool, actually...and I gotta admit, for one of the two big ads, the one with all the windows, I did just srta stand there mesmerised....it jsut looked really, really nice. I liked them, and for where I've been, they haven't been invasive at all. But then i also think that the Ic House was an EXCellent promotion, because well, it's a really cool ice house, which people will subsequently go into, and be advertised to - and no lie, I actually, when i (cos i actually did) did go in there, I did hear a lot of people actually saying the word "Wow."