Daily Page | Zebrality | NCAA Pool | General Chat | Latest Comments

You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page


The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • Madison Alder wants to change laws to allow homeless to sleep & urinate in public
  • Author of '100 Things to Do Before You Die' dies at 47
  • 9-year-old boy banned from pitching youth baseball because he's 'too good'
  • American Idol adds fourth judge
  • Britain's 'Iron Lady' Thatcher has dementia
  • Global Warming Strikes Again - Frost in August
  • Obama's running mate choice revealed by bumper sticker?
  • Nader predicts Obama to pick Clinton
  • U.S. and Poland sign missile shield deal
  • Kristol: Colin Powell to Endorse Barack Obama
  • Beijing Olympic 2008 opening ceremony giant firework footprints faked
  • Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate
  • B-B-B-B-B-B-Brett-y and the Jets
  • McCain Volunteers Wife For Topless Contest
  • NFL says Favre to be reinstated and will report to Green Bay Packers on Monday
  • Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use
  • Police: Accused shooter hated liberals, wanted to be killed
  • Randy Pausch, noted CMU prof, succumbs to cancer
  • Is McCain inching towards Pawlenty?
  • SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD!
  • Sources say McCain Veep Pick to Come This Week
  • Favre seeks unconditional release from Packers, sources say
       [ 4 comments ]
  • Jesse Ventura To Run for Senate?
  • Report: 'Itchy' Favre considers return to football
       [ 2 comments ]
  • LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016; $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS
  • FLDS women offer handmade clothes for sale online
  • Sales Taxes In Chicago Now 10.25 Percent, Highest In Country
       [ 2 comments ]
  • 17 injured as French troops use live ammo in visitors day display
  • City Vehicles Painted with Anti-Obama Sayings
  • Court: A constitutional right to a gun
       [ 6 comments ]
  • HELLER AFFIRMED
  • Mike Ivey: Should Madison ban the drive-through?
  • Court rejects death penalty for raping children
  • Kelo Day: Fund the Fight Against Eminent Domain Abuse
  • Legendary Comedian George Carlin Dies at 71
  • Man Who Used Stick To Roll Ball Into Hole In Ground Praised For His Courage
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Victoria's Secret Sued Over 'Thong Injury'
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Obama Opts Out of Public Financing
  • Firefox claims download success
  • Irony Alert: AP Attacks Blogs for Quoting Their Stories, Then Quotes Even More Extensively from Blogs
  • Johnsonville Sausage opens brat stores in China to spur sales
       [ 1 comment ]
  • ESPN: The worldwide leader in bad predictions
  • Javon Walker apparent victim of robbery, found unconscious
  • Horse of the Year Curlin may run in Prix de L'arc de Triomphe
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Manners still matter when you're poking on Facebook
  • Tim Russert Dead at 58
  • Levee breaks near Cedar Rapids, thousands evacuate
  • Chris Osgood Gets To Third Base With Stanley Cup
  • Mud phobia pig gets its own boots
  • Ron Paul plans his own convention

     

  • Coming Soon to a Metro near you

       July 16, 2005

    Metro cars all have a few small (think poster-sized) ads on the interior. This is the first one that I've seen with an ad on the exterior. And not only is there an ad on the exterior, but the ad is the exterior.

    I don't like it one bit.


    Posted by jkhat at July 16, 2005 11:00 PM

        The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/990

     

    Trackback Entries

     


    Comments

    #  July 17th, 2005 10:29 AM      kris
    Why don't you like it? Wouldn't you rather have the Metro subsidized by some advertising rather than by taxpayers?  
     
    #  July 17th, 2005 11:22 AM      james
    1) it's ugly

    2) there are already ads on the inside of the metro. turning the metro into a moving billboard is quite another thing.

    3) on your rationale, maybe we should sell the naming rights to the white house, just to save a few bucks? or maybe we should let companies paint ads on the side of the washington monument? or heck, im sure that porn ads pay much more, so why not paint porn ads on the side? after all, under your rationale, people should put up with anything at all just to save a few bucks. how about putting a porn ad on the side of your car, kris?

    i fully support the metro not getting any tax dollars whatsoever - the amount charged for fares should fully cover operating costs. that way metro wouldnt constantly be whining about how they arent getting enough funding. and that way property owners wouldnt be fleecing the people of hundreds of millions just because they happen to own property near a subsidized transport point.

    until the metro becomes fully self-sufficient, all of the money thrown at it might as well be thrown down an unknown and bottomless pit. money raised from adverstising will do nothing to help lower the cost to the consumer of a business that doesnt have to compete for your business or make ends meet - it will only allow them to spend more money on other things, further inflating the cost of the publicly funded boondoggle.

     
     
    #  July 17th, 2005 11:41 AM      kris
    yes, you're right. Putting ads on an underground subway is EXACTLY the same as putting them on national monuments.  
     
    #  July 17th, 2005 11:50 AM      james
    1) most of the metro isnt underground. most of it, BY FAR, is above ground. it's only underground downtown.

    [EDIT: i looked this up, apparently it isnt "BY FAR" above gorund. it's more like 50-50, they say.]

    2) both are funded by tax dollars. what's the difference? the issues are

    a. public works projects, funded by tax dollars, being covered in commercial speech.

    b. signage and billboards polluting the visual image of the town. cities have the authority to restrict, even outright ban, billboard advertising. it's a huge conflict of interest for a city to be selling ad space, even if they don't ban the billboards.

    if im a resident of the chinatown neighborhood and a couple huge private billboards go up, i can petition the city council to have them removed. how impartial can the city be in deciding that issue when they're dependent on the advertising revenue themselves? when it comes down to deciding whether to be known as "the guy who raised metro fares because he wouldn't allow the billboards," what do you think politicians will do?

    the city has no business selling advertisments.  
     
    #  July 17th, 2005 11:53 AM      kris
    if that's your stance, then you should have explained that you ALSO object to the small ads inside the Metro, otherwise it sounded like you were just complaining because the outside ads were ugly  
     
    #  July 17th, 2005 12:00 PM      james
    i dont "ALSO" object to the small ads inside the metro.

    billboard v. interior ad is a completely different issue.

    it's very argumentative of you to charge in and tell someone what they "should have explained." i have no duty to explain anything to you, and my position is entirely consistent without any such explanation  
     
    #  July 17th, 2005 12:02 PM      james
    i really dont see where you get off - i write huge comments explaining things, you write a sentence just making flip comments. yet you htell me that i should be "explaining" things more.  
     
    #  July 17th, 2005 12:09 PM      kris
    You said that the city has no business selling advertisements. So, I would assume that means you believe that they have no business selling interior or exterior advertisements on the Metro. If they shouldn't be selling ads period, then I don't get why you'd object to one but not the other.

    As far as argumentativeness goes. I ask why this bugs you, when I *know* that the financing of the Metro bugs you, and you come back with a comment that claims that due to my "rationale" (what rationale? I expressed nothing) I should support porn advertising on national monuments or something.

    I don't even really care about any of this, I was frankly just curious as to why you'd think the way you did.  
     
    #  July 18th, 2005 12:20 AM      Daddy
    This has been going on in L.A. for years. Whenever there's 1) a blockbuster, or 2) a total bomb that needs all the hype it can get....the WHOLE BUS gets covered in a billboard. Even the windows.

    The one time I violently objected to advertising was when baseball considered putting Spiderman ads ON THE BASES. Remember that crap?

    Covering up the buses--eh. At least when they do the windows, I don't have to look at the loser liberals inside.  
     
    #  July 18th, 2005 8:23 AM      countertop
    First, what line was this on? I haven't seen one yet.

    Second, I am thrilled that they have finally gotten off their asses on this issue - I've been harping to the District for years that they should be running much more advertising. Sure, this one sucks - but the example I used to point out where all the fine and entertaining and gorgous ads that the Brits would run in their stations.

    Its taken awhile, but maybe Metro is finally waking up to reality.  
     
    #  July 18th, 2005 8:33 AM      james
    this one is red line, i saw it at judiciary square on saturday

    what sort of brit ads are you talking about?  
     
    #  July 18th, 2005 10:32 PM      countertop
    In the London Underground the quality of the print advertising hanging in the stations (both within the tubes leading to the platform as well as on the platform and most especially the giant ads across the tracks from the platform) is outstanding.

    Here is a whole web page devoted to it. Or go here or, just search the web for pictures of the best of the underground ads  
     

     

     


    To leave a comment you must be logged in.
    Log in here
    or Get an Account here.