March 13, 2008
Just A Chump To The Left, And Onestop To The Right?
Photo by Jonathan Goldsbie.
According to a December 2004 article in the Globe, Mike Harris is (or at least was at the time) the chairman of video advertising company Onestop; he got on board "in return for an equity stake" in the business. Presuming that he still has that stake (and why wouldn't he? he may be evil, but he's not stupid), Harris became a richer man two weeks ago, when the Toronto Transit Commission unanimously voted to extend Onestop's sole-source contract for platform video screens (PVSs) by another seven years, and expand its scope to possibly include new advertising opportunities from which the TTC would see no new revenue [PDF]. So, yes, the man who bankrupted the TTC continues to profit off of its bankruptcy.
New screens will be installed in the bus terminals of subway stations to indicate when the next vehicles are arriving. In and of itself, this is undeniably pretty cool. (The above is a photo of a demonstration running on a flat-screen TV at the commission meeting.) There are, however, several problems associated with entrusting such a soon-to-be-vital service to a private company. Joe Clark's chief concern is that Onestop, a relatively small and inexperienced company, could go belly up some time in the next eleven years (the contract now expires at the end of 2018), leaving the TTC stranded. Steve Munro, on the other hand, thinks the company is more likely to get bought out, and is instead worried that which stations get this service will be determined by which ones offer the most attractive advertising opportunities. It's no secret that the lethargic roll-out schedule of the PVSs is entirely determined by which stations are the most profitable for advertising purposes. Hence, Bloor-Yonge has had screens for years, whereas less-used stations like Summerhill or more far-flung ones like York Mills have to make do with old Metron clocks that don't work and have been running the same damn kennel ad since time immemorial. So if you wait for buses at a second- or third-tier station, it's unlikely you'll be appraised of vehicle arrival times in the near future. As is frequently the case, many of the same politicians who are quick to dismiss any suggestion that the TTC should be privatized are okay with letting the free market decide which citizens will get what services and when.
The next-bus screens will not have traditional videos advertisements but rather may display a corporate logo that would take the place of the "ONESTOP media group" in the above demo. What makes this frustrating is that the TTC wouldn't get a slice of the money from this, as they do from the PVSs. It's almost never a good thing when a government opts for privatization, but it's even more annoying when they do and (as is usually the case) get a crummy deal. Going by Onestop's current rate card [PDF], $5539 gets you an ad of equivalent size (the "Time Banner Logo") for two hours on all of the system's 212 screens (each box has two screens); that works out to about $26 a screen. There will be 41 next-bus screens, so 26 x 41 = 1066. Presuming that each station is open for 137 hours a week (roughly 6:00 a.m.-2:00 a.m. Monday-Saturday and 9:00 a.m.-2:00 a.m. Sunday), that would work out to just over $73 000 a week or almost $4 million a year. Obviously, there are many other factors that would determine the actual revenue—e.g. the ads would probably be worth more than their PVS counterparts because of no competing ads on the same screen, but it's also extremely unlikely that 100% of the time would be sold at the full rate, etc.—so this is at best a very general estimate. But it's enough to suggest that the authors of the staff report were somewhat off when they stated that "the use of sponsorship will not likely generate significant revenue," thereby excusing the TTC from asking for a cut of it. (The rate paid to the TTC from PVS ads, however, will increase significantly, due to the greater penetration when all of the screens are installed.)
But thankfully no deal has yet been signed. Upon a motion by Vice-Chair Joe Mihevc, with some help from the Toronto Public Space Committee (which had been instrumental in defeating Onestop's proposal to put video ads within subway cars) the staff recommendations were only approved "in principle," and the final authority to draft and finalize the contract has been delegated to Chief General Manager Gary Webster, subject to certain conditions: that
1. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS WORK IS COMPLETED IN A TIMELY ENOUGH MANNER TO FULLY ACCOMPLISH THE BENEFITS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT;2. CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED AROUND THE DISPLAY LAYOUT (E.G. SIZE OF FONT FOR REGULAR TIME AND ARRIVING TIME, NOT INCREASING THE SIZE FOR ADVERTISING PORTIONS OF THE SCREENS, FOR THE SUBWAY STATION INSTALLATIONS ENSURING THAT THE TOP BAND ON THE NEXT BUS ARRIVAL SCREEN IS CLEARLY LIMITED AND DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT, AND ENSURING THAT NO ADVERTISING IS INCLUDED ON THE NEXT BUS ARRIVAL SCREEN);
3. THAT THE ON STREET NEXT BUS INFORMATION SIGN PROJECT BE TENDERED OUT AND NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH CBS AND/OR
ONESTOP; AND4. THE PUBLIC IS CONSULTED ON THE SCREEN LAYOUT.
Because the text in the parentheses in the second clause begins with "e.g." and not "i.e.," it's more likely to be interpreted by staff as a suggestion than an instruction. But not necessarily—it will be up to activists to apply pressure to staff to adhere to the intent of the motion. That there will now be public consultation on the layout is also a very hopeful sign, as the pilot project in Finch station this November would probably otherwise have been accompanied by only the broadest of opinion surveys. But what's needed more than anything else is, as Joe Clark will tell you, real user testing; that is, not reflections of how people feel about the screens but rather quantitative data regarding the extent to which the screens are accessible to different types of people. Those with minor visual impairments, for example, might have difficulty reading the black-on-white display; those with major visual impairments, however, won't find it useable at all, and a Human Rights complaint is likely, and perhaps inevitable, unless an audio component is added.
Also distressingly, there is as yet no commitment to use either type of screen to meaningfully notify passengers about service delays and disruptions. A communication submitted to the commission by Clark outlined Onestop's woeful negligence in informing riders about the effects of the Kennedy train derailment and Queen West fire. As Joe illustrated with a series of photos, Onestop's approach to disseminating important information boils down to
MASTERCARD!
A section of the Bloor-Danforth...
...Subway service is currently shut...
...down between Kennedy and...
...Warden Station. Shuttle buses are...
You get the idea. Joe's communication was "received" by the commission early on in the meeting, which essentially means it was duly noted and no action taken. When the issue of the Onestop contract came up later, though, Commissioner Glenn De Baeremaeker literally held up the letter as containing an example of a significant deficiency in the way Onestop is currently doing things, remarking that if a station is on fire the whole screen should be filled with giant letters screaming at you that the station is on fire. Nevertheless, De Baeremaeker declined to make any motions that might see this problem corrected.
According to IllegalSigns.ca, "when the TPSC killed video screens [inside subway cars] in 2005, they killed them off for good, at least until 2011" because "the capital expenditures associated with installing video screens inside subway cars just don’t make sense if you may lose the contract in four years and have to pull your screens." But that presumed that the Onestop contract would in fact expire at the end of 2011 along with the CBS Outdoor contract (which includes all TTC advertising except the transit shelters). Now that Onestop will be settled in for over a decade, transit riders will probably once again have to assert that we deserve to be treated by the government as people, not "media consumers."
Jonathan Goldsbie is a campaigner with the Toronto Public Space Committee. Torontoist editor-in-chief David Topping provides free content (his 69 Stations photos) to Onestop's platform screens.
|
Given resource limitations, doesn't it makes sense to put the screens up in places where the most people will benefit from it?
That's a good question, Patrick. I'm going to quote extensively from the Steve Munro blog post I linked to and his subsequent comments:
"Where are the rest of the signs? If this was such an important, profitable project, why haven’t all of the Metron units been replaced, indeed, why hasn’t there been a proposal to increase the number of screens?"
"One important function claimed for the screens was the ability to broadcast system status information. How can you do this when many stations don’t even have them, and those that do have only one on each platform, and none in other areas?
"Could it be that the advertising market is only lucrative for busy, high-activity locations such as Bloor-Yonge Station?
"Is this an example of the shortcoming of expecting the private sector to provide an important piece of infrastructure that should be everywhere, but which is only where they have a hope of making money?"
"There are many stations with no info displays working, and obviously they are prime candidates for expanding the rollout. I’m amazed that the advertising vendor hasn’t been jumping up and down about this unless, as I suspect, they really don’t want to spend money on the secondary and tertiary stations."
"The TTC has a bad habit of half-finished or badly strung out projects, and this is an example. Indeed, if this entire proposal were so attractive to the TTC, they should have been rushing to get the infrastructure for all of the video screens in place.
"The next obvious question is why stop at 143? .... In fact, if we were really going to provide a lot of coverage via One Stop for service information, two things would have to happen:
"First, you would need vastly more units to provide coverage. Second, the TTC would have to make a concerted effort to put useful information about all major routes on the displays at appropriate locations. Instead, the focus seems to be on 'next bus' signs at stops that won’t really be practical until we get the new GIS-based version of the bus monitoring system, and I wouldn’t be surprised at a half-baked implementation even there because it’s a lot of work to keep text messages regarding delays up to date for all major routes at once."
And now one comment from me: The effect of the TTC's "resource limitations" should be minimal. It's Onestop's responsibility to pay for the installation of the damn things.
That image at the top is amazing. If all of the screens looked like that It'd be fantastic.
The TTC really is run by morons. I kind of hope the union strikes this spring; I'll get a bike and wash my hands of this third world transit system for good.
Blech. Dear TTC: instead of sole-sourcing contracts for bus arrival information, just publish the damn data as RSS or other standard-format feeds via the Internet. We'll build various mobile and Web and other versions ourselves, thank you.
I also wonder how the next-bus screens will work at stations with lots of routes. The demo at the meeting was rotating through three screens, each showing the following Finch East routes:
1) 39, 39A, 39B
2) 39C, 39D, 39E
3) 39F
That's all well and good, but there are at least twenty-six routes connecting to Finch station. That means, given the example layout, the rotation would have to include nine separate screens of information.
Patrick - yes you're right, common sense says the busiest stations get rolled out first, but there should have been a publicly announced timetable for implementation in every station. For all we know it could be ten years before all the Metrons go away. There is no technical barrier to this - it's a matter for the contract but while Jonathan seems to think it's an inherent matter when dealing with the private sector, I would argue it's simply a lack of rigour at both Yonge/Davisville and Queen/Bay.
This reminds me of the bus shelter deal. Astral will replace almost new CBS shelters downtown but when is the piece of crap shelter at my corner (Coxwell N of Danforth), which probably predated CBS, going to be replaced? When are places like Jane/Finch going to see their shelters replaced or even installed unless the Star makes waves?
Sure you have to be cognisant of profit but there has to be some minimum installation outwith the optimum profit graph that we demand from the vendor since they are supplying the public, not the private sector.
This shows once again the cravenness of the contract divisions at the City and its agencies and the refusal of councillors to demand more from them, where there is an outright fear of any kind of performance criteria or even stipulation of lawful behaviour such as Astral having to remove every illegal sign before contract start.
As for resource limitations - the St Clair West upgrade shows the TTC haven't a bloody clue where all their wiring is and I suspect that's a blocker to quick rollout - that and that the TTC union involved presumably insists on doing the physical installation rather than private crews hired by the vendor.
I'm starting to contemplate whether the "Time Warp Dance" pun isn't as clear as I'd hoped.
Just showing some love for the kennel ads.
The TTC is going down the drain, and quickly. These type of information screens should be standard throughout the system and it should be the TTC installing them and keeping any revenue they earn.
It's almost never a good thing when a government opts for privatization
That's because most privatization attempts result in monopolies and/or have weak enforcement provisions. Also most 'privatization' attempts do not allow the union to submit a bid for the same work.
If you are going to award a monopoly to the private sector then you better have the strongest enforcement and penalty provisions. And you better be prepared to go to court. That's what private businesses do.
Why are all the branches of routes like 39 Finch East listed on the screen? Surely it would make sense to list all branches of the Finch East bus together in order of departure, ignoring say the Seneca short turn which will depart 11 minutes from now (and which will probably be about the 5th bus).
Also, is the TTC planning a less costly (perhaps LED) version of these signs for ordinary stops? While it can afford to put fancy signs like this at major terminals and very busy stops like Yonge Street (on streetcar line), it needs a cheaper version for other stops.
"Also, is the TTC planning a less costly (perhaps LED) version of these signs for ordinary stops?"
Yes, indeed. The new bus shelters will have a space for a screen, and a tender is probably going to go out sooner than later for the on-street displays. Hopefully, the TTC is willing to spend money on them and not rely on advertising (although any such ad deal would have to go through Astral, which owns the shelters and has a monopoly on advertising in the right-of-way).
lol
first their screens are useless (http://torontoist.com/2007/05/onestop_beyond.php) now they are what?
useful but... *insert anything here, because in anything 'corporate' you will find something wrong*
Your first paragraph you point out how Harris is evil, but not stupid. You then go to contradict yourself by basically saying that he might be with a losing company...
so is he or isn't he stupid?
Ask the TTC. This isn't ONESTOP's decision. Some stations cannot be changed for reasons I won't go into, others are in the TTC decision queue.
Well considering there is 0 system information on the TTC currently (including TTC employees not telling people things that are currently happening, a common complaint) Is this not a huge improvement then?
what is it? More or none? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's a weak argument.
The System status information as you've been told by others before are a TTC thing (yet you choose to ignore it). If they are not being broadcast, this has nothing to do with the company implementing the screens.
As far as accessibility goes, take a look at this site:
http://www.dustindiaz.com/
now look at the bottom as to what Dustin does for a living. He is a UI Engineer for Google.
He 'gets' accessibility. Now pay close attention to the color contrasts on his site. Now - go back up and look at the picture... notice any similarities?
OR we could all base this on some 'home taught' wannabe accessibility (non) expert who writes a 'blog'
but hey... it's your call... You seem to be all over this guys dick to begin with.
I think they are great, it will be wonderful to get 'live' information on a screen as to departure/arrival times for busses. This will be a HUGE improvement to the TTC customer experience :)
not to mention they look awesome!
oh yea and speaking of 'chumps'
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/wiwa/
lol
It's also funny that a someone who would be a self proclaimed 'accessibility guru' runs a site about accessibility but only gets a 'conditional pass' on the UofT's accessibility checker
http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/servlet/Checkacc;jsessionid=103A070CE87AB68ADBFB8286179804B1?file=http%3A%2F%2Fjoeclark.org&submit1=Check+It
oh the irony...
(torontothegreat recently mentioned he is or was a coworker with this troll, who's a developer for Fourth Wall Media, Onestop's "Agency of Record and preferred supplier of all creative production services.")
"first their screens are useless, now they are what? useful but... *insert anything here, because in anything 'corporate' you will find something wrong*"
The primary purposes of the platform screens (that is, the grounds upon which they were pitched to the TTC) were as clocks and as a means of conveying system information to riders. The screens achieve these objectives about as well as the Megabins worked as trash receptacles. The issue with the next-bus screens, aside from the problems with the display (which, in theory, can be corrected) and the lack of accessibility for visually-impaired riders, mostly concerns the fact that this is too important a service for the TTC to farm out, especially with a sole-source contract to a company that has no experience in this regard, and in fact has demonstrated an inability to make their platform screens useful in this way.
"Your first paragraph you point out how Harris is evil, but not stupid. You then go to contradict yourself by basically saying that he might be with a losing company..."
Joe Clark thinks that Onestop may be a losing company. I do not share this opinion. Like Steve Munro, I think Onestop is much more likely to get bought out by a more established out-of-home media firm (my money would be on Astral).
"Ask the TTC. This isn't ONESTOP's decision. Some stations cannot be changed for reasons I won't go into, others are in the TTC decision queue."
In this case, you're responding to a comment made by Steve. It's hard to write a rebuttal to you without knowing precisely what those "reasons" are, but Steve expressed skepticism at Ian Gadsby's claim that it's a "safety" issue.
"Well considering there is 0 system information on the TTC currently (including TTC employees not telling people things that are currently happening, a common complaint) Is this not a huge improvement then?"
No, no it's not. Please read Jeff Gray's article in Monday's Globe and Mail: "Part of the pitch from the company and the transit agency was that the screens would provide riders with valuable information. That clearly is not happening. What TTC information does appear is conveyed in unreadable, slowly scrolling text."
"what is it? More or none? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's a weak argument."
You're confusing Steve's argument for my own. I think the way t reconcile his opinions and mine is to say that if these were truly tools for conveying useful information, there would be a push for them to be everywhere. But because the primary purpose is clearly the delivery of ads, it'd be better to have none at all — and to hold out hope that the TTC would install real information screens that actually foreground the information.
"The System status information as you've been told by others before are a TTC thing (yet you choose to ignore it). If they are not being broadcast, this has nothing to do with the company implementing the screens."
From the aforementioned Globe article: "The TTC and OneStop essentially point fingers at each other when queried about the system's shortcomings." The TTC surely bears some of the blame, but it's not the one rolling in cash.
"I think they are great, it will be wonderful to get 'live' information on a screen as to departure/arrival times for busses. This will be a HUGE improvement to the TTC customer experience :) not to mention they look awesome!"
I don't doubt that you honestly believe this, and that's cool, but to say as much without mentioning that you are or were essentially an employee of theirs is a bit disingenuous.
As for the stuff about Joe Clark, I won't say anything, because I don't want to deny him the opportunity to shred you to pieces.
My opinion is not welcomed because I'm friends with someone that USED to work at the "AD AGENCY" that does the creative onestop media? LMAO, you truly are a zealot aren't you?
-- Great straw man argument btw :P
OMG, that's awesome! Seems you're just full of hot air and assumptions. You don't know anything about me, you don't even know my name and now you're claiming to know where I work?
-- Great straw man argument btw :P
Doesn't seem to stop you from spewing your anti-corporate rhetoric.
So wait times are not valuable information? oookkkayyyy than :/ What do you want? Stock tips? What mom's making for dinner tonight? You're riding the freaking TTC, how could 'wait times' NOT be valuable?
p.s. I have what is called a vagina (something I'm SURE you're not that familiar with). Let me break it down reeeeaaalll slow for ya... He is a she.
Fucking Asshole.
oh and btw, I AM a co-worker with Keven...
how does that mean I work at either company? Perhaps Keven moved on and he works at the company I've been with for 5 years?
Or is your bubble so small that you can't for one second see anything past your own nose?
"My opinion is not welcomed because I'm friends with someone that USED to work at the "AD AGENCY" that does the creative onestop media? LMAO, you truly are a zealot aren't you?"
I did not say your opinion is not welcomed — quite the opposite ("I don't doubt that you honestly believe this, and that's cool").
"You don't know anything about me, you don't even know my name and now you're claiming to know where I work?"
Given both your relationship with Keven and the fact that you are apparently privy to behind-the-scenes information ("Some stations cannot be changed for reasons I won't go into, others are in the TTC decision queue."), it was a reasonable assumption.
Doesn't seem to stop you from spewing your anti-corporate rhetoric.
Like Mr. Clark and Mr. Munro, I've long been happy to receive any actual evidence of Onestop's claims.
"So wait times are not valuable information?"
You're referring to the Globe article, which in that paragraph is talking about the current platform video screens.
p.s. I have what is called a vagina (something I'm SURE you're not that familiar with). Let me break it down reeeeaaalll slow for ya... He is a she.
Regardless of your abusive language toward me, this was an assumption for which I apologize.
"oh and btw, I AM a co-worker with Keven...
Well, then say hello to him for me.
I know the people who run the ATRC and I was doing work in their ground-floor offices two weeks ago. So it is a bit rich to suggest that the Web site produced by the author of a book on accessible Web sites is inaccessible because an automated checker that my friends wrote says that human assessment is required. Guess which human already made the assessment.
Incidentally, where are the results of OneStop’s user tests of their existing or proposed displays?
Jonathan Goldsbie says:
...it was a reasonable assumption
...any actual evidence
...this was an assumption
----------------------------------
Keep 'em comin big boy. It's all you seem useful for.
Given that you have proven yourself to be more than presumptuous on more than one occasion merely within these comment... I have to wonder how much 'actual evidence' is in this article?
Oh sorry, your association (name) dropping must makes you an expert :P Clearly that validates your claim :P
let me take a wild guess at this...
the self-serving... errr I mean proclaimed accessibility, 'home taught', non-expert?
It doesn't take an 'expert' to write a book... just ask Brian Mulroney or visit a chapters near you to see how many morons write crap. You might even find your own book in that section.
Actually, many other people have attested to my expertise, as by paying good money for it. You might want to Google.
In any event, if you’re trying to contend that the ATRC’s checker found provisional accessibility defects with my homepage, it actually is germane that I know people at the ATRC personally and have already handled all the issues that an automated checker cannot. You might want to Google that issue, too.
OneStop should be aware that the woman (or FTM) who calls herself torontothegood is doing much more damage to OneStop’s cause than any of its previous critics.
By that argument, Mcdonald's must be nourishment, Subway must be healthy and the Pinto was a 'safe car'. Cause many MORE people have 'paid good money' and yet... it's still all lies and garbage.
How much lower could you TRY to sink? 'Evidently' to a new one.
Since you think Joe's background is insufficient, what measures would you use to determine whether someone is an expert? What sort of credentials in the field of accessibility would you accept?
Perhaps someone who has extensive 'work' experience in the Assistive Technology world. We could start with maybe even a 'little' experience with companies like The Neil Squire Foundation or IBM -- You know... the 'real' accessibility experts. You might want to Google.
On the other hand, I suppose it is much easier to just rant on the soapbox, copy/paste W3C's section 508 standard, reword it, write a book and call yourself a 'guru'.
I really don't want either of you to get the impression that I don't appreciate the efforts Mr. Clark makes in the WORLD of accessiblity, by being a pain in the ass. I honestly think that's extremely noble!
But... To call yourself an EXPERT? Well, I'm not too sure about that one. That sounds to me like more of a hustle.