Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of Rain
31°/18°		 It is forcast to be Overcast at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Overcast
26°/15°

20 Comments

news

McDonald’s Constant Gardiner Museum Ad Is a Matter of Taste

By Emily Shepard


Look once, and you might think the Gardiner Museum was testing a tongue-in-cheek advertising campaign for its latest exhibit. Look twice, and you’ll see the golden arches and flashing arrows tempting you to try the new McMini Sandwich with its “not so subtle” flavour. What have we here?


According to Chapter 693 of the Toronto Municipal Code [PDF], it’s an illegal sign. The city bylaw bans portable signs that do not belong to the business on whose property the sign is displayed (§ 693-18 B[4]), as well as portable signs that are “animated, illuminated, [or] have flashing lights” (§ 693-18 C[3]).
According to the Gardiner, it’s a piece of revenue-generating advertising that supports the museum’s programs without offending its mission and vision. With less money for the museum’s programming, the Gardiner has looked to proposals from advertising agencies for extra funding.
20100407mcdonaldsad2.jpg
20100407mcdonaldsad.jpg
The Gardiner has agreed to host other outdoor ads in the past, including one for the Visa “Go” campaign (and McDonald’s has placed 3D ads elsewhere before). While the Gardiner ads are always located outside the exhibition areas, the advertiser otherwise chooses where to place it—in this case, right between two “What’s On” posters for the Gardiner.
The Gardiner doesn’t deal with the issue of city permits or legality; presumably, that’s left to the advertising agency representing McDonald’s. Sadly, McDonald’s would not return our calls on Tuesday. [UPDATE, April 10, 2:30 a.m.: McDonald's returned our call on Friday: the creative agency behind the ad is Cossette, the placement agency is OMD, and the same ad is also on display in Montreal—and, possibly, Vancouver.]
Mary-Margaret Jones, a public relations consultant speaking on behalf of the Gardiner, called the installation “tasteful,” “not garish,” and “not as rankling” as other forms of outdoor advertising. Truth be told, this seems an odd stance to take on an always on, act-now advertising campaign that uses big arrows and flashing neon lights to draw attention to itself. But hey—if you don’t try the McMini, at least you can ponder the uneasy marriage between art and advertising because of this illegal, not-so-subtle sign.
Photos and video by David Topping/Torontoist.

Filed under: , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • Robert Ruggiero

    That is the most offensive illegal sign I’ve ever seen. This is embarrassing.
    Miss Mary-Margaret Jones, are you blind? That is the definition of garish. (Garish being defined as a)excessively or disturbingly vivid or b)offensively or distressingly bright.
    Thank goodness for the sign by-law. Let’s get that thing out of here.

  • rek

    A fucking eyesore, that’s what we have here.

  • http://www.realjohnson.com TheRealJohnson

    An eyesore, illegal, garish…call it what you want, but it’s effective advertising. Not only is it eye catching, it’s already generating free publicity for McDonalds…right here on The Torontoist.

  • http://www.publicspace.ca Jonathan Goldsbie

    I’m also fairly confident that it has been constructed directly on the sidewalk, i.e. not within the Gardiner’s property line.

  • http://www.torontoist.com David Topping

    The inevitable return of the badvertising paradox!

  • http://undefined thelemur

    Illegal, ghastly and inexplicably unvandalized as yet.

  • http://undefined JMcCormick

    This is not effective because it doesn’t leave a positive brand image in my head. Yes perhaps McDonalds entered my online vocabulary today, but really? tomorrow am I going to remember? No, probably not… What I am going to remember is the idea of McDonald’s cheaply infringing on my visual public space.
    And also, shame on the Gardiner for allowing this. How much money did you really make off this? Was it really worth McDonald’s toxic brand image to permeate over to yours? Actions have consequences, no matter how media savvy your public is.

  • http://undefined spacejack

    Is this a Jeff Koons piece?

  • Mark Ostler

    The Gardiner’s own lit up signs are on their property, aren’t they? It looks as though the McDs sign is lined up with the Gardiner signs. The article also makes a note of this: “right between two “What’s On” posters for the Gardiner.” It seems as though it’s just within the Gardiner property line, otherwise the museum wouldn’t be able to cash in on the advertising.
    Isn’t the lighter concrete in this picture within the Gardiner’s property?
    http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=gardiner+museum+toronto&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=gardiner+museum&hnear=Toronto,+ON&ll=43.675818,-79.390211&spn=0,0.077162&z=14&layer=c&cbll=43.667918,-79.393807&panoid=jjuJZCF8GimrNfYZNnpVLA&cbp=12,42.73,,0,6.56

  • http://undefined Peter K

    Folks need to lighten up (no pun intended). It’s just a sign.
    I find it less offensive to the eyes as some of the crap that passes for “art” in our public spaces.

  • http://www.publicspace.ca Jonathan Goldsbie

    Before I wrote my comment, I examined the property line on the City’s online map, then checked it against Google Maps and Street View. I believe that the edge of the property lines up with the easternmost part of the wheelchair ramp that leads into the Lillian Massey building immediately north.

  • http://undefined mikeh

    Is the sign on the sidewalk, or on the property of the museum?
    Pretty sure it doesn’t violate § 693-18 B[4]:
    Only the business owner or business operator of the ground floor storefront
    may display a portable sign on the sidewalk adjacent to the premises.
    [Amended 2008-10-30 by By-law No. 1162-2008]
    it sounds like the Gardiner is getting paid for this, and that they are “displaying” the sign, and most of this act relates to signs on city property (sidewalks)
    Also § 693-18 C[3] deals with portable signs, which are defined elsewhere as A-frame signs (like a sandwich board), and again, its about putting them on sidewalks. Pretty sure that wouldn’t apply either.
    How’s that for a jerkstore fact check?

  • http://undefined mikeh

    doesn’t mean that the sign doesn’t suck.

  • http://undefined mikeh

    But i hope you don’t cite illegalsign.com in your admin law exam. Sorry, I couldn’t resist…

  • http://undefined John Duncan

    I think you missed most of §693 and misread the rest.
    § 693-17 D(5) states that no temporary sign shall be displayed on public property. The definition of “temporary sign” includes “portable sign”.
    § 693-17 D(10)(a) states that the temporary signs are not to be closer than 1m from a municipal sidewalk.
    § 693-18 A(3) requires a sign permit identifier to be attached to the sign; this sign does not appear to have one.
    § 693-18 B(2) says that portable signs (a category which includes but is not defined as an A-frame sign) may not be placed on the public road allowance (which includes the sidewalk) unless there’s insufficient private space for it. There is much more than sufficient private space for this monstrosity.
    § 693-18 B(3) implies that portable signs should be directly adjacent to the business it is advertising. The sign is advertising McDonalds, not the Gardiner Museum.
    § 693-18 C(2) states that the sign may only be displayed during business hours. This sign is displayed when the Gardiner Museum is closed.
    § 693-18 C(3) states that everything about this sign format is illegal.
    § 693-19 for mobile signs is even more stringent.

  • Mark Ostler

    Well if that’s the case then how can the Gardiner make any money off this endeavour? The City would be the only entity that McDs would have to pay to display the sign if it’s on city-owned sidewalk and not the Gardiner’s own property. If that’s indeed the case I think the Gardiner might owe the city a chunk of change for renting out the city’s sidewalk. And yet somehow, I don’t think the folks at the Gardiner would make a blunder like that. The sign may be illegal for a number of reasons, but I don’t understand how the museum could overlook the fact that it’s selling ad space on property it doesn’t own.
    If it is the public sidewalk and the museum has an easement to use it for its own ads (and subsequently third party ads) then that’s a different story altogether. The McDs sign is lined up with the Gardiners own ads. Are they not on Gardiner property? If the Gardiner ads are also on the public sidewalk, then it’s clear the museum has an easement of sorts to use the space.

  • http://undefined sarene

    I am a big fan of the Gardiner Museum and I really do want them to survive and flourish and all that jazz… that being said this is an eyesore. These debates might have been averted if it wasn’t a garish signpost for a fast food giant.

  • http://undefined mikeh

    Somewhere right now, Dreidger is cying.

  • http://undefined mikeh

    Cying is like crying, but it’s what you do when you’re really sweet at interpreting statutes.

  • http://www.torontoist.com David Topping

    McDonald’s got back to us on Friday, with information about the agencies behind the ad, so we added an in-context update to the post above with that information.