Advertising is a Quid Pro Quo

Ad Age reports that Brazilians have started to ban billboards, starting in Sao Paulo. The townspeople are grateful and the newspapers are encouraging it (hoping their sales will rise).

Although four of the most beautiful states in the US banned billboards long ago and a few other US cities have explored the idea as well, the chief marketing officer of the “Outdoor Association of America”, a billboard industry association, says more bans won’t happen here because “There are very well-defined laws … on capitalism”.

What Stephen Freitas apparently doesn’t understand is that attention is a contract with the viewer, and billboards violate it. As “consumers”, when we view interesting content, unless we’re paying full cost for it, we understand there will be ads. We tolerate them because it’s a quid pro quo. We get nice content, we have to see some ads.

There’s no quid pro quo in billboards. We’re expecting a nice view, nature or architecture perhaps, and there’s a billboard instead. What do we get out of it? Nothing.

Now that there are so many product choices, potential customers can always choose “something else” instead. This has shifted the balance of power between advertiser and purchaser. Mr. Freitas, America is a democracy, and if enough people get behind the idea of not accepting outdoor advertising, those “very well-defined laws” won’t protect you anymore.

Outdoor companies in Brazil are already figuring out that building public toilets is a good way to get their advertising on the streets, and a Paris company is providing bicycles. Advertising’s  forward-thinkers understand the concept of a quid pro quo.

Comments

[Sam Nelson]

A commentary, from one of the sites without billboards.

[Sam Nelson]

Oops, forgot the link:

http://funstuff.clevernamehere.com/pdj/content_3.html

[Adam Broitman]

Hi Isabella

While I largely agree with you, what would you say about billboards that line highways and help pay for the upkeep of that particular transport channel?

[Iz]

Hi Adam,

Well, that's a quid pro quo. I guess if the townspeople voted for it, and would rather do that than taxes or tolls, then who am I to say no?