Sony Graffiti Ads Draw More Anger

Philly.com is running the confirmation that Sony paid a vendor to lease wallspace for their PSP graffiti ads. Philadelphia groups are slamming the ads as affronts to clean urban spaces, and the Licenses and Inspections Department in the city is planning to cite the business owner. From the article: "Jake Dobkin, copublisher of the Gothamist Web site, considers himself a street-art aficionado. He said the Sony campaign hit his SoHo neighborhood in Manhattan a few weeks ago with not only 'dozens' of spray-painted murals but 'hundreds' of posters of the same cutesy youths. He took aim at Sony for trying to dupe people like him. 'It's clearly a large campaign, and deserves a thoughtful, measured response,' he wrote on his blog. 'Here's mine: corporate graffiti sucks.'"

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the basic problem with graffiti that people were complaining about was that it is usually done to other people's property. If the property owner is consenting to this, where's the problem? Seems to me, it's a bunch of people who don't like graffiti itself using the property arguing as a ruse to get their way.

Re:So?

[__aaclcg7560]

The artworks are basically unmarked billboards pretending to be street graffiti and can be argued as "false advertising" by those who are able to stick a large multinational corporation with a big fine.

Re:You're Fired!

[MBraynard]

They purchased this space, too.

The problem for this Rent cast member, living in SOHO of all places and complaining about 'corporate billboards', is that someone actually got paid to put this up, rather than being your typical crack head putting it up, which would be A-OK with him.

Re:So?

[bigman2003]

I owned a business for a long time- a new business opened up next to mine, it was listed as an 'art gallery'. It had the crappiest art you've ever seen (I don't mean like a 6 year old, I mean like an idiotic 19 year old...which is what it was.) They put old couches out in front of their place, spray painted their half of the building, put up horrible hand-painted signs, etc. etc. This was for a building we shared where I was paying $2.50/square foot- back in 1993.

One of my customers was actually the city code enforcement officer. When he came into my place of business, I asked him about the signs, couches, etc. etc.

His only answer was, "There ain't no law against ugly."

Re:RTFA

[AvitarX]

Billboard laws are pretty much ignored in Philadelphia. They were looking at starting to fine illegal billboards to get more revenue in the budget,and clear channel through a hissy fit (don't know what they decided to do). I heard on the raidio that it is estimated more than 50% of all billboards/signs are in violation of the code withing Philadelphia.

Re:Whoa, What An Outrage

[Crash Culligan]

It's a billboard in slightly different kind of ink. Big deal. If you haven't previously noticed that advertising can be deceptive, cheapen the arts, and degrade the aesthetics of our living spaces, then you have been numbed.

So I guess your position is that we've lost the war and should just give up. Who's the one that's been numbed again?

Maybe, but I think it's more likely that the parent was comparing modern billboard advertising to the Sonyfitti in order to drag both down to the lowest level.

Some of us would like to keep our streets clean, and keep the advertising in areas where it's, you know, allowed. The issue this article is talking about is putting advertising up without a permit. Sorry to tell some of the other people in here, but in every city I know of, it is illegal to sell advertising on your property without a permit.

Again, I think the parent's point, and the point made by many comments under this write-up, is that advertising has become ubiquitous, in a very bad, can't-spit-without-hitting-it (and I hope you brought a lot of spit) way. The comment is that there's too much advertising, and not only shouldn't it be where it shouldn't be (not the tautology it seems to be, given the topic), but it probably shouldn't be in some of the places where it's currently allowed.

Under the circumstances, c'mon, who wouldn't be numbed? Companies have to resort to these "guerilla" tactics (note the sneer-quotes; it can never be an edgy, independent tactic if a major conglomerate is doing it) because people have become so familiar with conventional commercial placement that they instinctively ignore the ads. Penetration drops, the ads lose effectiveness, and they have to resort to one of two things:

1. Create more entertaining advertisements, or
2. Find new places to advertise.

To justify it, they probably have a Formula: If the benefits of advertising (increased sales and mindshare) outweigh the costs of advertising (materials, placement, penalties for illegal tactics, loss of life and limb), then it is a "good" advertising campaign.

The company has no conscience, and feels little pain. The Formula is one of the few nerve endings it has. We need to spank it there.