Smart Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 AKA My Grandma rocks the stations Activists Target Paris Subway Ads By JOHN LEICESTER Associated Press Writer PARIS Suzanne, prim with neat snowy hair, gray anorak and white shirt fastened at the collar with a blue brooch, glanced furtively up and down the subway platform bustling with out-on-the-towners. Slowly, the station emptied; the coast was clear. Spinning on her heels, a mischievous glint in her soft blue eyes, she whipped a red wax crayon from her handbag and, wielding it sword-like, scrawled her fury across a billboard advertising home appliances. "TOO MANY THINGS, NOT ENOUGH POETRY!" she wrote. Pow! Thus another blow was struck in a fight raging in France against advertising. The attackers are a small but determined band of campaigners for whom ads are a plague. Their battlegrounds are the tunnels and platforms of Paris' subway, and bus stops in other towns. Their targets: companies that make capitalism tick. Organizing over the Internet, hunted by the forces of order, these urban guerrillas are focusing debate on advertising's power. Is there too much of it? Should we fight back? For Suzanne, a 63-year-old political militant since she first threw stones at police during student riots that shook France in 1968, the answer to those questions is "Yes." "Capitalism needs consumerism to survive," she said. "If we get rid of advertising, we get rid of consumerism and that will get rid of capitalism." Mmmmmm. It's hard to envisage the foundations of the global economy toppling anytime soon. But the anti-advertising movement has provoked a counterattack from French advertising giant Publicis and Paris' public transportation operator, the RATP. Joining forces, the two firms are taking 62 anti-ad militants to court on Wednesday, seeking $1.2 million in damages for destruction wreaked and scrawled on billboards. Suzanne is not among those 62, but the threat of fines scares her enough she won't give her surname. Nevertheless, she campaigns on, riding the Metro with a band of like-minded teenagers one recent Saturday, trailing destruction in their wake. Pssssshhhhhh. Louis, 16, worked quickly but efficiently with a can of black spray paint. "ADVERTISING NUMBS YOU" read his still-dripping slogan on a billboard for the movie "Shrek 2." "Walt Disney. Hollywood. Big budget. No good," he muttered by way of explanation before sprinting down the platform to attack another billboard before a train pulled in. "It's joy," he said, describing how it felt to spray. "It's a real pleasure to finally be able to resist." France's anti-advertising campaign to some extent dovetails with a larger movement against globalization that regularly protests meetings of the World Trade Organization, the Group of Eight industrial nations and other "capitalist" bodies. One of Suzanne's band, Christophe, 17, said he traveled to the Alps last June to protest a G-8 summit. Suzanne's group changed subway lines every three or four stations to avoid being spotted by security agents. At each station, they first followed other passengers heading toward the exits. Then, having determined no guards were lurking in the tunnels, they doubled back to set to work spraying and tearing down ads. In all, militants damaged 3,500 posters that Saturday, says Metrobus, a Publicis subsidiary that sells the subway's advertising space. It says it has to compensate firms whose ads are targeted. Suzanne's group alone attacked more than 50 billboards in at least eight stations. At one stop, they happened across other campaigners slapping up stickers saying, "Every day I wash my brain with advertising," mocking laundry detergent ads. "Advertising is a one-way message that amounts to harassment," said Nicolas, a teacher in his 30s. "We should have the right to refuse it." The RATP, which transports millions of Parisians each day, is not happy to find itself on the front line. It believes Paris' public is on its side, citing a survey it commissioned last month in which 73 percent of 800 people questioned said advertisements make their public transport journeys "more agreeable and less monotonous" and 75 percent said they disapproved of the anti-ad militants. "These people are on the wrong side of the law. We can't let this type of action go unchallenged," said RATP spokesman Fabien Contino. The RATP says the $74 million to $86 million it earns each year from selling advertising space could buy 300 new buses. Contino said ticket prices would rise by 5 percent if there were no ad, an increase equal to just seven cents. But in a small victory for the campaigners, the RATP on Monday and for the next 10 days freed up space on 47 billboards in 24 stations for people to write what they like. "The RATP offers this space of free expression," said a company notice on one white board at the Strasbourg-Saint Denis station. "Thank you for respecting this initiative by reacting only on this poster and by avoiding all injurious and discriminatory comments." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePoet Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 DAMN FRENCHIES, HAHAHA, nice smart, damn right there is a need for more poetry:lol: Anyway, what up dude, where did you find that article? Fuck advertising, and i think i finally know what those billboards whit the words without the K are for, they are for the cable company Knowlogy , i saw one of their billboards with their name with a slogan "the one with the silent K". Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS-1 Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 MAY 1968. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 arent these folk just advertising anti-advertisement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS-1 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 No. Advertising would be trying to influence someone to buy something or vote for someone or something. They aren't relly trying to convince someone to buy anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Milk85 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Their motivations (like writers') are far purer than the companies that use the billboards to sell products. They're motivated purely by profit...oh and satan, satan motivates them too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by ODS-1 No. Advertising would be trying to influence someone to buy something or vote for someone or something. They aren't relly trying to convince someone to buy anything. but they are convincing people NOT to buy products or use services thereby advertising example: the 'truth' anti smoking ads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by Mr Milk85 They're motivated purely by profit...oh and satan, satan motivates them too... the anti advertisers are just jealous of the money big companies bring in i would love to see an anti advertiser person live purely off companies and services that dont advertise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by When arent these folk just advertising anti-advertisement? Check out the big brain on When! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by Smart Check out the big brain on When! well i did win the second grade spelling bee... almost Smartass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 12, 2004 Author Share Posted March 12, 2004 Hey, I wasn't dissin... you're on point... this whole thing is more of a property issue than an advertising thing, both sides have definate views over how the space needs to be used but both are using the same space to actively market their ideas to the public... AND, one side seems to want to muddy the water by being 'anti-ads' but their really 'pro-something else'... which is maybe communism? Definately anti-capitalist but... I can't tell with the French... Best quote justifying advertising against advertising: "Advertising is a one-way message that amounts to harassment," said Nicolas, a teacher in his 30s. "We should have the right to refuse it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_b0b Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by When the anti advertisers are just jealous of the money big companies bring in You are so way off the mark it hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Originally posted by b0b You are so way off the mark it hurts. you know what i probably am but... obviously this anti movement amounts to something deeper than these people not wanting to look at advertisements what it is, im not sure they must know that they arent going to change the way the world turns im drinking a budweiser right now and im enjoying it, god damn that advertising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldmilkcup Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 graffiti in general is advertising, marketing even. putting up your word [brand] in the most high profile spots, trying to get bigger and more colourful than everyone else, trying to wipe out the competition. meh, i'm tired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinse Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Originally posted by coldmilkcup graffiti in general is advertising, marketing even. putting up your word [brand] in the most high profile spots, trying to get bigger and more colourful than everyone else, trying to wipe out the competition. meh, i'm tired. cold-cup got a good point... but a writer isnt profitting off of advertising his or her name except maybe in fame which doesnt directly line the pockets. unless your purchasing a haze tee-shirt or an unlearn poster. if a writer is selling goods and using his or her trade to promote those goods than what is the difference between the writer and the sales marketing team at nike? its all capitalism but no one hates on the writer because the writer is the underdog and he is not renting advertising spots, he is taking them (and in effect creating a "disservce" to his community through vandalism). but as the writers product line grows so does his need for outside help and corprate systems. sure shepards obey giant campaign is refreshing but when it comes down to it, he is still selling something. dont get me wrong i respect all of the work and artists i have mentioned, i was just unearthing examples to support my point. even though people dis capitalism, consumerism, or advertising; at the same time they buy into it. which is dirtier? using anti-advertising techniques to aquire money or making money the old fasioned way and pay for 30 second comercial time slot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinse Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 by the way, that is a great little article smart. thanks for posting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS-1 Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Originally posted by rinse cold-cup got a good point... but a writer isnt profitting off of advertising his or her name except maybe in fame which doesnt directly line the pockets. unless your purchasing a haze tee-shirt or an unlearn poster. if a writer is selling goods and using his or her trade to promote those goods than what is the difference between the writer and the sales marketing team at nike? its all capitalism but no one hates on the writer because the writer is the underdog and he is not renting advertising spots, he is taking them (and in effect creating a "disservce" to his community through vandalism). but as the writers product line grows so does his need for outside help and corprate systems. sure shepards obey giant campaign is refreshing but when it comes down to it, he is still selling something. dont get me wrong i respect all of the work and artists i have mentioned, i was just unearthing examples to support my point. even though people dis capitalism, consumerism, or advertising; at the same time they buy into it. which is dirtier? using anti-advertising techniques to aquire money or making money the old fasioned way and pay for 30 second comercial time slot? Graffiti is taking back what's yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS-1 Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Originally posted by When but they are convincing people NOT to buy products or use services thereby advertising example: the 'truth' anti smoking ads But it's not to make a profit. I mean, you have a point, but I don't consider it advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinse Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Originally posted by ODS-1 Graffiti is taking back what's yours. i understand that but why dis capitalism, then turn around a harvest moneys in a capitalist fashion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porque Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 ...you guys don't seem to see the forrest through the trees... ...try to get a grasp of the larger issues at work and you might have a better idea of why groups are targeting advertising... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinse Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 ^^^ cant speak for everyone here but i understand why groups like suzannes mentioned in the original text is attacking advertising but for my part the topic has morphed slightly. same ballpark just a different game. but if somebody cant see the forest, perhaps you could point out which trees are blocking the view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffLebowski Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Advertising might get someone to purchase an item once. Then it's up to the product to convince the person to purchase it again. Ads exist to persuade and diferentiate between products and brands. If people are blaming the ads for there spending habits then that isn't saying much for their intelegence. You purchase a product, it sucks, no matter how much more advertising for it you see you won't buy it again... vice-versa. Consumers need to be inteligent with their buying power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Milk85 Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Yes but the usefullness of the product doesn't mean shit anymore...companies(like Nike, McDonalds, Starbucks, etc, etc) don't advertise utility...they advertise image. They drum their 'brand image' into your skull 24 hours a day with constant unscrupulous marketing tactics. And people buy into that, that's why people pay $100 for a sweater when they could get exactly the same product, minus the meaningless brand, for a fraction of the price. As well as this brand saturation, these companies ruin countless lives worldwide with their fucking mandatory 24 hour shifts for 20c a day for fucking kids in some country they know nobody gives a shit about and they can get away with it... ...read 'No Logo'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_b0b Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by rinse i understand that but why dis capitalism, then turn around a harvest moneys in a capitalist fashion? Yo I didn't know ODS ran a multi national that used 3rd world kids to make shit.. ODS hook us up with some of the loot. Just cos you are anti-advertising it doesn;t mean you want to live in a wigwam and be part of a commune. Go and get enlightened a little rinse before you spout anything else on here, as your understanding of basic political theory is low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_b0b Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by porque ...try to get a grasp of the larger issues at work and you might have a better idea of why groups are targeting advertising... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_b0b Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by When arent these folk just advertising anti-advertisement? To advertise anti-advertising they would have hired a huge billbaord or a slot on the tv. They haven't advertised anything, they are taking action (that happens to be illegal) against something they feel intrudes into their lives (and modern life in general) too much. They have done zero advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinse Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Originally posted by b0b Yo I didn't know ODS ran a multi national that used 3rd world kids to make shit.. ODS hook us up with some of the loot. Just cos you are anti-advertising it doesn;t mean you want to live in a wigwam and be part of a commune. Go and get enlightened a little rinse before you spout anything else on here, as your understanding of basic political theory is low. slow your roll there bob. your insinuating that i said the anti-advertising movement doesnt need to make a living. dont get so itchy with your triger finger. what i am saying is if someone is anti-capitalist then its sorta back asswards to be selling your tee-shirts for $19.95. that my dear bob is capitalism at work. wouldnt you say? not to mention if you are making prints for sale of the same type of art that you are releasing on the streets through graff(not that i have a problem with a writer making flow off his/her craft; lets not forget that i am a writer too here), then you are indeed advertising however indirectly. and why even mention the ethics of sweat shop labor. what does that have to do with advertising? i think what happened here is that you saw my post and read what you wanted to read because your suggesting some mess i didnt even come close to saying. what i was posting really was vearing off of the anti-advertising story that smart posted and more into writers that are selling products and advertising just like these mega corporations only with a can of paint or a marker. in my "low understanding of basic political theory" that is still capitalising through advertising no matter how big or small. tell me again where a wig-wam on a commune fits into this thought. yo graff has always been about advertising but not advertising for finacial gain, personally i am just amused that it is some times used to sell products wether it is by a car company or a t shirt peddling writer. so why are you trying to be"little" me... i didnt find any real venom in your business or political theory either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 17, 2004 Author Share Posted March 17, 2004 well, I think Rinse and BoB are on something but not exactly what I see from these folks... I see Rinse talking more to the Sheppard Fairey mode but these folks... I see them arguing with advertisers about very specific space. They aren't trying to demolish urban blight or advertise on burnt out buildings nobody but bums and writers erver see... This group is all about that particular space occupied by advertisers and their belief that they should have some equal right to the space (PURCHASED by advertisers) in order to ADVERTISE their anti-advertising agenda. It's a very real and honest thing to work on the fringes of society like Graff Art does (imho) and attaching a political agenda to your work isn't unheard of BUT... None of these 'movementarians' are pieceing in the cuts or catching tags in the stupid smart spots... they are waging war against advertising based upon a political agenda that isn't really clear (but seems socialist)... These people are untrustable rats... they aren't down for you or your art, the only reason they would support you (if you don't fall in line politically) is because you help disrupt the system. Beware false allies, be true to the struggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plymski1 Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 people destroy advertising because they hate the way it is forced in your face by whoever happens to be able to afford the advertising space. its not just writers who destroy advertising, in fact i would say the vast majority or advertising destroyed is not done by writers at all, more likely by socialist or anti system groups, as mentioned earlier. (i am in no way saying that socialist groups are anti system though). the notion that this is 'anti advertising' is bollocks, it isnt advertising at all, it is done purely as a way of sticking two fingers up at the corportations who force useless products into our lives. true,people may attempt to deface advertising with a witty slogan, or a signature of some sort but this doesnt mean that they are advertising themselves at all. the difference between mcdonalds putting up 20 bill boards in a 1 mile radious and a local writers selling t-shirts to his mates and to a couple of record shops is obvious. most wirters selling t-shirts for one havent denounced capitalism anyway, so they are not being hypocritical, and even if they had, they still have to make a living under a capatalist regime so why not allow them to make what little money they can selling their prints. i have never seen a bill board or comercial advertising anything made directly by the writer themselves, and i know of not one writer who is attempting to corner the market in graff inspired t shirts using a crack sales team. the differnece between writers and corporationms is that the writer is only attempting to make a few more pounds for himself, where as nike or mcdonalds or whoever attempt to exploit the market and their workers for the highest possible gain to themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_b0b Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 rinse: That's the most eloquent post I've seen you make in this thread and hadn't noticed your move off towards writers. None of what I posted realtes to writers, merely the original article. I'll define where I was coming from: just cos someone is anti-advertising it doesn't make them a communist or some far out there hippy (hence the wigwam remark). If someone is selling something it doesn't automatically make it captialism, it is merely commerce. You can have a socialist society based on commerce, just becuase there is money involed doesn;t make it captialism. (hence my talk of political theory). Seeing as the topic had moved on but I was still stubburnly trying to stick to it I'll be quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.