Historicist: Life in Wartime
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
Good advertising is meant to stop you in your tracks, but a new ad campaign for local radio station CFRB might leave you frozen in disbelief.
This month, CFRB contracted ad agency zig to create a witty series of guerilla-style street ads (read: illegal) meant to highlight polarizing issues of urban life. "Is advertising out of control?" reads a CFRB flyer wheatpasted on a Queen West utility pole. A sign asking "Should cyclists have to obey traffic laws?" is tied to a bicycle. A homeless man begs for change while holding a placard which says, "Should panhandling be illegal?"
Wait, what? Isn't hiring actors to portray homeless people in live advertising tableaux just a little insensitive? Surely CFRB wouldn't be taking advantage of real homeless people, would they?
It turns out that, yes, the people holding the signs are bona fide down on their luck, and are being paid by zig to highlight their indignity for the sake of a corporation's ad campaign. Torontoist asked zig's Executive Creative Director, Martin Beauvais, if this wasn't at least the teensiest bit exploitive.
"Panhandling exists regardless of advertising and is a daily fact of life in any major city," says Beauvais, who worked on the campaign. "This puts a face on the question, making it more poignant and harder to brush off. We are raising the question to spark debate beyond the surface issue and, ultimately, discuss possible solutions."
Possible faux sincerity aside, the truth remains that the people paid (an undisclosed sum) to flaunt the placards are likely making much less than an actor would for the same day's work and use of the actor's image. And surely, the fees paid are a barely significant budget item within the overall cost of the campaign.
More disturbingly, since many of Toronto's homeless suffer from mental illness and addiction, there is the question whether or not zig and CFRB are taking advantage of those who are desperate and destitute. At discount prices!
The practice of displaying ads on homeless people developed around 2005 in Seattle, when privileged 22-year-old entrepreneur Benjamin Rogovy trademarked the offensive term "bumvertising" and began offering the humiliating concept as a promotional service. Rogovy advises "derelicts" with a list of tips—staying "relatively sober," for example, is important to encourage repeat donations, since "the customer is always right." A sign-holder should also obey "all regional laws and bum codes" and present an unsoiled sign so as not to "significantly affect his revenue stream."
Technically illegal street advertising is questionable under the best of circumstances, but the addition of the human element taints what would otherwise be a smart campaign. CFRB and zig see it as giving a job to people who may not otherwise be employed, rather than as a wealthy corporation exploiting destitute and disadvantaged human beings to sell a product.
"We made sure our treatment and the content of the campaign approached this tactic in a fair and non-exploitive way," claims Beauvais. "The signs are not supporting any point of view; they are raising a question that, in this context, becomes much more powerful and thought-provoking."
We wonder if one of the ideas aborted in the boardroom was to dress the homeless up like monkeys in little caps and chain them to organs. Or would that be too crass?
Images courtesy of zig.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Too crass? Of course it is. Homeless people shouldn't be allowed to make that decision for themselves, we should decide for them!
Advertising is getting way out of control, and if these companies aren't careful they're going to end up with teams of people roaming around tearing down and painting over all ads they can find, day after day.
Or maybe fines and stuff, if council ever wakes up.
Wait, what? Isn't hiring actors to portray homeless people in live advertising tableaux just a little insensitive? Surely CFRB wouldn't be taking advantage of real homeless people, would they?"
I think they should have hired another actor to stand behind the homeless guy wearing sandwhich boards of the "Is advertising out of control?" ad while dancing and ringing a bell.
How dare they pay homeless people to hold up signs! Employment is the worst form of exploitation! SCANDAL!
Rajio: I think it's less of "paying people to do a job" than it is "taking advantage of someone's unfortunate situation to get them to push a product that potentially derides them, which should be easy to do and cheap because they desperately need to eat or they have a habit to support."
We'll pay you to hold up a sign about your homelessness so you don't have to sort through the garbage to eat today! Aren't we noble? And we're peripherally commenting on social issues and promoting our radio station at the same time! It's like, they're just sitting there anyway, so why not get them to shill for us? Brilliant!
But Marc, that sounds like most jobs.
"Possible faux sincerity aside, the truth remains that the people paid (an undisclosed sum) to flaunt the placards are likely making much less than an actor would for the same day's work and the use of the actor's image. And surely, the fees paid are a barely significant budget item in the overall cost of the campaign."
"Likely" is a weasel word. Do you have any evidence that they were being underpaid? Did you make any effort to confirm whether they were paid what a model would have been paid?
Enjoying the article. Not enjoying the ridiculous speculative criticism.
I asked too. Those guys won't divulge what the pay scale is for this.
Many actors/models suffer from mental illness and addiction, would hiring them be taking advantage?
Oh look at that! The homeless who are apparently so disadvantaged are finally employed. Those who so sincerely dread work are really in trouble now: employment no longer has to be sought out, it now seeks you! I think I know the real reason why Torontoist's socialist cabal are so up in arms about CFRB's advertising campaign. When the homeless take steps towards independence, even baby ones, it minimizes the need for the invasive government with the large bureaucracy that the left loves.
I hope we see more of this. The more CFRB pays these people to sit around and do nothing the less the tax payers have to shill out for the homeless' lack of initiative and sedentary lifestyle.
I'm wondering what poor intern at Zig was given the task of soliciting homeless to hold the signs...
if you consider this tasteless, tell them!!!
http://www.astralmedia.com/en/users/contactus/default.idigit
of course they will likely do nothing, but at least you've vented.
Has anyone asked any of these homeless people what they think?
No, but the Politburo did send Comrade Fletcher and Comrade Perks to the Marginalized and Underhoused Liaising Sub-Committee [Interim] to present the idea about an official statement.
This is pretty rich from a website that pays its writers below-subsistence wages.
Are you really suggesting you'd be less offended if they'd paid actors to pretend to be homeless, rather than creating a couple crummy temp jobs for actual panhandlers? The way I see it, CFRB got their publicity and some unemployed people got some easy extra cash that they presumably needed. Assuming they were paid at least minimum wage (as opposed to "here's a shiny loonie and 2 cigarettes, now hold this sign all day"), I don't see the big scandal here.
Now if they'd paid some theatre school grad $300 to put on a scruffy jacket and feign poverty, that would be crass.
(Then again, maybe the theatre school grads are homeless :>.)
I'm with Loozrboy and Rajio. Did they force the panhandler to hold the sign? The guy was sitting there, begging for money. Someone comes up to him and asks "will you hold this sign for $10?".
when privileged 22-year-old entrepreneur Benjamin Rogovy trademarked the offensive term "bumvertising" and began offering the humiliating concept as a promotional service.
Why the need to mention that Rogovy was privileged? Why is giving employment to bums a humiliating concept? Why can't bums profit from the free market? Why is okay for them to sit and beg for money, but not okay to receive money for holding a sign?
Technically illegal street advertising is questionable under the best of circumstances
But graffiti isn't?
Pickletoes: socialist cabal - that is priceless
Thanks Vincent. Good question for you Marc Lostracco -- how do you define privileged, and how is that relevant to this piece of journalism?
I've been running BumvertisingTM for a little over three years now. In general, our advertising vagrants will accept a Bumvertising contract. Occasionally, they will politely decline our offer of money, water, and snacks in exchange for advertising assistance.
To come under ridicule for offering a mutually beneficial opportunity is absurd.
Ignoring homeless people is not 'politically correct' either.
We've begun a Bumvertising video series to chronicle our experiences with our advertising bums to bring about more awareness of the real situation. Videos are located on our main business site if interested.
Sincerely,
Ben Rogovy
President, Bumvertising
Bumvertising,com
WOW! Unbelievable!
Ben: Well, let's see. You're university educated. Economics major. Drive a nice car. Former ticket scalper. You know—not homeless, for one. The fact that you blatantly refer to the people you exploit as bums, vagrants, and derelicts is especially repulsive. Not as repulsive as paying people only with snacks, water, and a couple of bucks so you can reap the rewards of virtually free labour. That's exploitation, pure and simple, so let's call it as it is, since you're such a fan of class labels. It actually borders on indentured servitude, if you ask me. The fact that you mask it as bringing awareness to the homeless situation is particularly astonishing.
PickleToes: Classifying homeless people as those who simply dread work shows your misunderstanding of what homelessness is, how it happens, and how virtually impossible it often is to get out of.
laughinggnome: As I said in the article, the fee is undisclosed, although I'm still trying to find out and will update it if I ever find out.
ladron: Acting is a career. Homelessness is not. You don't hire homeless people to "be homeless." Except in this case.
x_the_x: As in the case above, Torontoist writers choose to write for Torontoist, for which they get paid for, but it's not something that any Torontoist writers subsist on. We all have day jobs or go to school, and write on this blog—and it's only a blog, people!—mainly because we like to; not because we need to.
My primary point is not that it's a bad thing to give work to the homeless; it's that this particular incident is exploitation. CFRB and zig aren't paying homeless people to walk around with a sandwich board outside a restaurant or to hold up signs in public that have nothing to do with their personal situation (say, one that says "Is advertising out of control?" for example).
They are taking advantage of the fact that these people are homeless, and using that to sell a product. In addition, everybody knows that mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction are extremely frequent causes of homelessness. Paying someone who is desperate and possibly supporting a life-threatening habit or who is mentally ill to shill, using a humiliating sign which potentially further demonizes them, is the stuff of Orwell.
Pizza Schmizza, a local chain in Portland, Ore., tried a similar stunt a few years ago; they gave the homeless people some pizza and a few bucks to hold up a sign saying "Pizza Schmizza paid me to hold up this sign instead of asking for money".
However you feel about the concept as exploitation, the pay that the homeless people received was obscenely below minimum wage. I guess it's unclear whether that's the case here...
Marc: At some point you have to hold people responsible for their particular situation. Where do you think that point is?
I agree with Marc. This is no different.
PickleToes: It's not a matter of whom is responsible for their situation, but rather whom is exploiting it for profit. Just because people might let you take advantage of them doesn't mean that you should.
Well said on several accounts Marc.
It comes down to this: If these people are paid less than minimum wage for what they do they are being exploited. Don't lets forget the law folks.
last time I checked, taking advantage of someone was at least moraly reprehensible.
And as for Mr."Bumvertising" perhaps if you could view the world from outside of your own ass, you would realize that you show contempt for the people you "employ" because of your attitude towards and treatment of those very people. Whats next for you? Advertising on dying people in exchange for false hope?
As for the homeless people who accepted this work - I sure hope they were properly paid.
When CFRB starts handing out t-shirts with their logo and pay me minimum wage for each hour I wear it, I'd be interested.
Our advertisers are hired as independent contractors. We don't require them to work fixed hours, therefore we don't pay minimum wage. Keep in mind that they are already out on their corners holding their own signs. They are being contacted by our agency because of an additional service they can offer, which really doesn't put them out at all.
We treat the bums like humans, who are capable of making their own decisions. We don't protect them by pretending they are children, incapable of being part of a business negotiation.
Regards,
Ben Rogovy
President, Bumvertising
Bumvertising.com
it isn't that surprising that you have completely missed the point. the medium was so effective, that you couldn't really even register the message.
i would say try again marc, and clue into the fact that your article is just another opinion that reinforces the message/campaign.
it's critiques like you that try and hold back all the potential that this business has.
Hey Ben, I've got a business idea for ya. You can sell cardboard boxes to homeless people from the internet! You can call it Homes4Less.com!
"Bumvertising" is paying people to be out on the street, while taxpayers are paying to keep people off the streets.
This is disgusting, and you know it Ben.
Ben Rogovy: Worst. Human. Ever.
Seriously, there are some awful people in this world so maybe Rogovy isn't the worst. But between the way he speaks of homeless people and the way he treats them, give this guy 20 years and he'll probably be in the top 100 worst humans on the continent.
I'm sure that the homeless don't need some business guy's help, and can survive solely on a diet of self-righteous blogging. Keep it up, Torontoist!
Homeless people can best be helped by keeping them out of the nasty, nasty market economy. Hey, it worked for the aboriginal community, right?
Given the arguments put forth, I have to assume that everyone against bumvertising also believes panhandling should be illegal.
There's nothing to ensure that people giving change are providing minimum wage. And I suppose negotiation of any kind must be illegal too. And it's better to have no advertising than to allow panhandling.
Marc sees a guy holding up a sign instead of asking for change and immediately has visions straight out of dystopian fiction. According to gauldar, physical violence is equivalent to holding up a sign.
There are just too many superficial, aesthetic "reasons" for being against bumvertising for me to take you guys seriously.
Roolb, your gullible if you actually think this guy is doing this to help people out of the goodness of his heart? He calls his bloody company "BUMVERTISING"! Wake up you blind twit. If I learned anything in college it was that I would not trade my soul to get into marketing, the shit I was reading about made me sick. Did you know that Lifesavers wanted to make daycare centers where parents could drop off their child, and their kid can sing songs from Lifesavers commercials with other kids, and they viewed this as an "untapped source". This Ben guy doesn't give a damn about homeless people, if anything he looks at them as disposable assets. This has happened before, and I know exactly what will happen. I'll just let nature take its course.
I said it above, and I will repeat: it's not about giving homeless people work; it's about the kind of work they are being given. Paying someone to hold up a sign isn't the problem—it's that the signs they are being asked to hold are exploiting their poverty, all in the name of making more money for someone else.
Giving someone money and drawing attention to their plight is secondary to the entire exercise, which is to temporarily draw attention to a homeless person so that people will me made more aware of a radio station. I'll bet that if they had paid a breastfeeding mother to sit in public with her boob out and a sign saying, "Should breastfeeding be illegal in public?", people would be way more upset than when Ben Rogovy pays a homeless person to work a full shift for him for $2, a bag of chips, and a bottle of water.
Spacejack, I was refering to the discrimination aspect, not the content.
benrogovy: Do you operate in Canada? Or is it just an American thing? I'm curious.
This is like having an adoption agency offer $25 to rape victims to take the baby off their hands, in the middle of the rape.
I don't think I've seen a worse collection of ill-advised metaphors and similes before in my life.
I'm not running a charity; I'm running a business. Our signs are lightweight, and we work within the panhandlers' already established business hours. In many circumstances, we hear reports that the sign holders are receiving higher donation revenue with a Bumvertising sign than without one.
If they are already on the street, we offer them a deal which helps us and which helps them. This is a free market economy, and these are adults.
We have video posted on our corporate website which may shed some light into how the vagrants themselves feel about this.
Best,
Ben Rogovy
President, Bumvertising
Bumvertising.com
Hahahahahah, it's a free market economy. Yeah, I'll believe that one when I see it.
Oh, grow up.
Moral arguments aside, if the workers aren't paid at least minimum wage, I'd want to know whether CFRB/zig actually got a ruling from the Canada Revenue Agency that the workers are "independent contractors" (where no minimum wage applies) rather than "employees" (where it does).
A quick perusal of the rules suggests that they might well be employees, however temporary in nature. At the very least, benrogovy is just plain wrong to assert that the only relevant factor is whether someone works fixed hours.
I love when privileged kids call other privileged kids, privileged.
Marc, you speak like someone that has been homeless (as in live on the street and beg for money) for an extended period of time. Care to share your (lack of) experience?
>Torontoist writers choose to write for Torontoist, for which they get paid for, but it's not something that any Torontoist writers subsist on. We all have day jobs or go to school, and write on this blog—and it's only a blog, people!—mainly because we like to; not because we need to
I'm very glad you said this. It clearly demonstrates why there is no merit to any of the integral... ummm... speculative and shoddy journalism (short stories?) of you "hobby" writers on this site. It's good to know you obvioulsy don't think of any of the other writers on torontoist to be the least bit professional either.
I'm confused as to why at least half this argument on homelessness and advertising seems to be focused on how much the commenter dislikes Torontoist itself... why read and comment on something you have nothing but disdain for?
On the opposition to bumvertising being equivalent to opposition to panhandling, I would argue that panhandling doesn't provide a good or service of any kind, and is merely a physical representation of charitable obligation... it can't be expected to provide minimum wage, or provide anything at all really, because it's based completely on personal morality. 'Bumvertising' is clearly based on providing a service, advertising, and should have an appropriate level of compensation.
That being said, as there does not appear to be any evidence one way or the other... I suppose Marc's response to the hypothetical (and more probable) exploitation is fair? If 'BenRogovy' is actually Ben Rogovy, it would be more useful to the discussion to provide figures than a rationale.
Why don't we just blame this on Mike Harris and call it a day? So much blather and not enough action. Typical Torontonians, only caring enough to complain... or to imply they feel the pain of the people by berating someone else's comments.
At least, it seems, we all agree there's too much advertising. I wonder when the TTC's next-subway service will be "Brought to you by Javex, we know how to whitewash everything."
I think the key distinction here is that of the 'potential derision' of these individuals, or the fact that the advertising is theoretically making money on behalf of an organization whose primary interests are not in the lives of the homeless. I suspect that if the logo on these boards was for OCAP or the United Way (not that they would necessarily do this, but for the sake of argument), there would be a lot less moral outrage and a lot more praise for an innovative outreach/employment scheme.
Ben Rogovy claimed it's a free market economy. No, you exploitive moron, it isn't: there's such thing as minimum wage.
Hey at least we're not filming them squaring off against eachother in fistacuffs... Oh wait, that's been done.
Given the range of things that some street people have demonstrated they are willing to do to make a buck, honest or not, I think this is a bit mild.
I look on this more in the sense of, everything old is new again. Used to be you'd see hobos walking around with sandwich boards advertising "Eat at Joe's" ... It's not exploitive! They're gainfully employed! They need the money!
I feel more offended on behalf of the university student schlubs who go around hawking stuffed animals out of hockey bags or flogging pyramid schemes to eachother than I do about this.
Jork - If the logo at the bottom was OCAP's or the United Way, chances are the guy holding the sign would be compensated in a much more meaningful and fair way. The context would mutate, sure, but both of those organizations exist for the benefit of the homeless so how could it not?
But I'd still say it was excessive advertising in a city already drowning in it.
hame - This isn't about what they're willing to do for a buck, it's about the assholes dangling the buck.
I didn't see anything in the article about CFRB's reaction to this... Just the agency's. They're the numbnuts who approved and paid for letting this idea out on the street.
Rek: looks like their excessive advertising worked on you though seeing as you're perpetuating it.
The people who are against advertising seem to be the same people who actually look at advertising.
Self loathing coupled with middle-class guilt.
torontothegreat, whats to feel guilty about? I stopped turning on the TV because of advertising. The radio has mostly become the equivilant of background noise. If I had a guy following me around jumping up and down yelling "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!", I'd want to plow my elbow into that guy's face. IMHO, that is what advertising has become.
toronothegreat.. first you imply you're a street person, then you attack the upper and middle classes, but through it all, you seem to support these advertisers.
Looks like you're really just a self-loathing privileged kid calling the other middle-class kids guilty or something.
Where do you actually stand on the issue? Come out and say it!
Sorry, can't relate. I just ignore it. Advertising doesn't make me feel violent. That's a bit too manic for me.
Oddly enough I was homeless for 2 years and grew up on welfare... Speaking of middle class guilt.
Get it that time?
No, not at all. I guess the problem is I havn't nummed myself out enough. As for the homeless bit I am sorry for what you had to go through, and it's good to know you've gotten yourself out of that rut. My question to you now is how much experience have you had with dealing with people with mental illnesses. They can take care of themselves right? Not exploitable in any way, right?
Gaulder, I think torontothegreat's comments were meant for me... thanks for answering, but I don't think that someone's experience with mental illness has anything to do with advertising.
My point still stands that it's so Toronto to just sit around and come up with excuses and not do anything.
Typical.
what do you mean? We're posting on a blog! That's making a world of difference...
isn't it?
Gaulder, We're not talking about mental illness (and as a person who was a 'vagrant' for just over 2 years, I've had my share of 'experience' with these people). Mental illness is a totally a different topic here.
And please don't be sorry (or feel sorry for me) as my experience being homeless was more valuable then the 20+ years I wasn't/am not homeless.
Numb? Not really. I'm just not a glutton for punishment, nor do I believe in self-pity. There are better things (imho) to worry about in this world, like starvation and peace.
I guess it's just a matter of 'pick your battle' and battling against advertising (imho) is not only pointless, it's a great way to feel like you're doing something that will only have a negative impact on our society. Do something positive, something that will make a difference to someone. The only thing curbing advertising will do is leave a bunch more people homeless.
Have any of the morally outraged posters here actually spoken to one of the sign holders and heard their opinion?
Didn't think so.
lol @ FLSTC01
They probably don't even look them in the eye when they walk down the street and are asked the age old question
"Have any spare change?"
You mean "Spare some change?"
I make eye contact sometimes. Sometimes I give someone change, sometimes not. Sometimes I hand them whatever's in my pocket - a nickel or a dime or even a couple of pennies, as this is my spare change - and sometimes I'll dig for a toonie. I think the weirdest request I ever had was to help tie a bandana on some dude's head so as to keep his hair out of his face. He had a broken wrist so he couldn't tie the knots himself.
Yeah, it's morally offensive, but no more so than the thousands of children who starve to death every day. Or the homelessness memorial, accounting for the deaths of people on the street. It's as morally offensive as the sight of people wearing clothing as expensive as rent hurrying past someone sprawled on the sidewalk - are they breathing? Does anyone check?
I say unionize the homeless advertisers. That will guarantee a decent wage, better working conditions, benefits, and job security. Also, unionize prostitutes. Same reasons.
"I say unionize the homeless advertisers. That will guarantee a decent wage, better working conditions, benefits, and job security."
I think there are some folks in Oshawa and Oakville who might have something to say on the subject of union jobs being secure.
And what would "better working conditions" be in this case? Lighter signs? More comfortable milk crates? Regular breaks (how could you tell)? And what happens when union demands exceed company concessions? Next thing you know our homeless industry is being outsourced to countries with cheaper, more reliable homeless people.
Clearly this issue hasn't been thought out completely.
>Sometimes I hand them whatever's in my pocket - a nickel or a dime or even a couple of pennies, as this is my spare change
wow you're so noble! A nickel, dime or even a couple of pennies eh?
Clearly there is no reason for homeless people to accept money (more than a nickel or dime I'm sure) for holding a sign :P
Makes my 5000.00/year donation to Sally Ann look like peanuts!
Well, you were implying those critical don't. I'm not saying it's a large amount, I'm just saying I do. You're the one whipping it out with a measuring tape for the charitable big dick of the year award.
I was being facetious about unionizing panhandlers. You need an employer...oh wait, they are potentially employed.
Ottawa has a Panhandlers Union.
>Well, you were implying those critical don't. I'm not saying it's a large amount, I'm just saying I do. You're the one whipping it out with a measuring tape for the charitable big dick of the year award.
It still doesn't change the fact that you won't always look them in the eye and you, yourself aren't doing half as much as these so called 'ethically wrong' ad companies, who by their 'dick of the year' measuring are probably doing more then you have your whole life with your nickels and pennies.
Great, proving a point through a supposed encyclopedia that's biased. Anarchopedia? I looked up liberty, there's not one footnote. Not one at all.
Great source. Best ever, even.
Jeez, next thing I know you're going to link to Stephen Harper's website to prove that he's a Chinese Canadian Jew who celebrates three New Years.
What? So I'm ethically worse because I don't always look panhandlers in the eye? And because I sometimes donate the spare change I have? You're totally reaching. Also, the dick of the year award was aimed at you, not the ad companies. You're the one bragging about what you donate in a one-upmanship method. I'm honest saying sometimes I give people begging for money whatever I have to spare and that it's not much - but they're grateful. Your brand of holier than thou just got even more annoying.
Haha... this is awesome:
Liberal as defined by Conservapedia.
At least they have a footnote to reference their point!
I guess that since the Anarchopedia is true without references, Conservapedia must also be unbiased and true too.
canuck - What point was I trying to prove? That Ottawa has a Panhandlers Union. That's all. It just happened to be the first Google hit that described, rather than referenced, the Union.
I'm not holier than thou andrew, in fact the point I'm proving is how holier than thou people who are 'ethically opposed' to this 'bumvertising' are...
If people (like you) don't make a difference yourself, you have no right to dictate the choices people make in their current situation(s).
It's no different then having no right to bitch if you don't vote.
I don't blame the homeless for agreeing, as I said in the follow-up thread, but I'm not alone in "dictat[ing] the choices" of the dickbags who ask the homeless to work for a bag of chips and claim moral superiority.
Blah, blah, blah - This article is ridiculous. The author is ridiculous. This entire conversation is ridiculous.
And that makes the lot of you ridiculous.
I fucking hate advertising. I really do. I consider those that work in the industry to be the lowest form of human being possible.
I also can't stand the fact that we, the taxpayers, have thrown millions (if not billions) of dollars at the homeless problem over the years, decades, centuries, only to see the problem worsen because the tactics of the powers that be are really more about softening our guilt rather than solving the problem.
Those two points aside, if the employee is paid properly (Read: at least minimum wage there "bag o' chips and water") then I have to admit this is a pretty clever move. And clever is never a word I use in the context of advertising or the homeless.
To Marc who mentioned "labour". Dude, this is not fucking "labour". Their not building railroads. Sanity insists that you take into consideration that these people were sitting there holding signs in the first place. You would prefer they do it for spare change as opposed to being employed and therefore protected by the employment laws (which should be enforced to bitch-slap CFRB and force them to disclose whether these people were paid minimum wage or not).
I liken it to The Litter Guy who wanders around picking up trash for spare change. I always give him money, and I never give anyone money. I even gave him an idea for a back-mounted change funnel that would flow into his pocket and allow people to pay him without having to disturb his work. I've found it tricky a few times to pay him because he works with such fury and determination.
Now, before I get attacked for allowing the self-imposed wage-slavery of the destitute let me just say it's not MY trash he's chosen to pick up for his job.
I may be a lot of things, but a litterbug I am not.
AJB: What I said was that someone was paying somebody with a bag of chips and getting "virtually free labour" for their enterprise in return. If I hire anybody to stand on a corner and hold a sign, that's paying for labour. Are you saying that because they're already sitting there holding a sign, it doesn't count as imbursable work?
I will say it for the last time: it's not that people are being paid; it's what they're being paid to do. Which is exploitive. Just because someone does it voluntarily doesn't make it less exploitive. Their homeless situation is being taken advantage of by someone else for their own, significantly larger profit. I'll bet some of them would also jump up and down and perform a Stepin Fetchit routine if you paid them to do so, but that would also make you an exploitive asshole if that was the condition of payment.